Capitalism, like Communism, is one of those socioeconomic structures that works best unfettered.
Complete and total communism would provide true endgame equality and not let anyone fall through the cracks. Total capitalism allows for the unfettered rise and fall of free market industries and the opportunity for incredible success and advancement, but as a result some will succeed and some will fail. Take your pick, you can't have both.
If you screw around too much with either system, however, things don't work so well. Communism ultimately, in my opinion, is inherently fallible because the greed built into human nature will drive some people to take advantage of others and not work for the good of society. You could make the argument that capitalism is also fatally flawed, but for external reasons rather than internal. Communism fails because of people
within the system that will undermine its beauty. Capitalism falters when governments and regulatory bodies
that shouldn't be part of the capitalistic system in the first place prevent the market from doing its job. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any government at all, but the less it infers with the wheels of capitalism, the more successful it will be. The only solution is to create a government with the absolutely strictest of limits on its power and not allow it to expand (because, referring back to human nature, government is wont to do). The United States Constitution and its founders came closer to this than anyone before it, but even that wasn't perfect, and it's beginning to crumble. However, without a strong governmental body collecting the fruits of citizens' labor and doling them out in equal share, communism could never exist.
The seizures we're seeing in the world markets today are a direct result of government interference with the market. You could say the greedy companies are at fault for dipping too deeply into the subprime mortgage market, but that's what companies do, and it was the government's incentivizing subprime lending that got them to do it. By the same token you could blame irresponsible borrowers overstretching themselves (but we're compassionate people here, so I doubt we'll hear much call out blaming the little guy (a.k.a. individual responsibility)), but just as with the corporations, that's what they do. If you're a poor credit risk, you've already demonstrated that you'll take on debt even if you can't handle it. Why is that going to change if someone offers you another loan?
The government shouldn't be incentivizing
anything in
any markets, and it definitely shouldn't be rescuing people (be they companies, shareholders or debt-hungry morons) for their mistakes with
our money. The market only works when market entities are allowed to fail. Take that away and you increase risk-taking behavior, and we get to pay for it.
HolyJaw wrote:In the end, everything Endyss said.