If you can cause problems in the economy government will jump in with spending trying to make up for what Capitalism is not providing, jobs. When the government spends it has to shrink itself and drown itself in a bathtub with cuts. Stop bailing out Capitalism with government spending. The outsource generations must be punished.

"Capitalism" is what rich people call it.

The rest of us call it greed. And greed doesn’t create jobs. It only creates more greed.

Where does that stimulus money go? Not to government worker wages, it goes to Wall Street aka Capitalism. Every time government jumps in with QE1 QE2 and soon to be QE3 spending government has to cut and shrink itself with cuts. Let the bad parts of Capitalism go. Stop rewarding the fading generations bad behavior.

Please learn what capitalism is. We haven’t had capitalism for a very long time.

Bailouts of "too big to fails" are an example of FASCISM, aka corporatism, aka ‘crony capitalism’ or ‘cartel capitalism.’

If we had REAL capitalism, these financial companies would have been allowed to fail, wouldn’t they?

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

To answer your other question, "Where does that stimulus money go?" Much of it goes straight into the derivatives black hole. Look up "derivatives bubble" and read up. It goes to pay back the gambling losses of international banks. Many of them not even based in the US.

The QE (which is different from ’stimulus’) is used to buy US treasuries (units of debt) that nobody else will touch. This results in currency devaluation.

No surprised our government has to bail out Capitalism again or at-least try again. Our fading generations messed up capitalism bad. All they can do is attack Obama to cover up their incompetence. People over 50 this is your peers fault, you got greedy and messed up Capitalism.

The problem is this isn’t capitalism. It was at one time but the liberals started tinkering with it. What we have now is the government over regulating, over taxing and killing the markets.

We aren’t bailing out capitalism, we are paying off barry’s buddies.

BQ: How does corporatism relate to fascism?
BQ2: Would it be unusual to be communist yet support certain variations of fascism over capitalism?

One eats poo and the other sucks DVD’s!

Taxes are getting too damn high and I hate having to pay for other people’s welfare. We need free market capitalism and we are obviously going to need to fight and force it on our country. What can the average person do to promote it to the public?? We might need to trick a few people, but it will be all worth it.

It might be hard for the UK to reduce the social framework, because your neighboring countries are mostly socialism. But the UK is generous enough to offer the rights for dual nationalities. You might move out somewhere which less socialism such as in South and Southeast Asia.You will feel the bit of competition with and without referee.That’s I can assure you.

Of course if you’re a capitalists you don’t think Capitalism is evil. But many progressives, too, were taken aback by Moore’s blunt conclusion — either disturbed by the potential implications, or, more often, apparently not having thought about it deeply enough to have a clear opinion. Capitalism is indeed evil, by any reasonable definition "evil." In other words, Capitalism is not just evil, it is VERY evil — or, we might say, Capitalism can be proved Evil beyond a reasonable doubt.

Capitalism revolves around private ownership of the means of production, market allocation, and corporate divisions of labor. It remunerates property, power, and to a limited extent contribution to output. Class divisions arise from differences in property ownership, and differential access to empowered work versus subservient work. Class divisions induce huge differences in decision-making influence and quality of life.

Capitalist globalisation produces poverty, ill-health, shortened life-spans, reduced quality of life, and ecological collapse…Humanity’s well-being does not guide the process, but is instead sacrificed on behalf of private profit.

Well capitalism isn’t evil because in theory the market decides everything. However, it does put control in the hands of wealthy people. Good or bad? I believe in meritocracy and class distinctions are there for a purpose.

Now it is up to the State to regulate capitalism such that it is a benefit for the State overall. Our government is doing a piss poor job of that because they support globalization. So capitalism or corporatism is destroying this country because our government is corrupt.

Communism is just an unworkable system that can’t support itself. Even in Red China, they allow some sort of free enterprise as a compromise. Can’t you see how foolish it is to liquidate the middle class when they are responsible for most job growth? Peasants can only do so much. You need a brain trust that is not just parasitical and exploitative cronyism.

Foolish theory that the bourgeoisie class is capitalistic and the worker and peasant class is socialistic. Simplistic and stupid. Both have a purpose, and without both you can’t really have an economy.

By the way, you’re better dead than Red.

Capitalism requires the risk of failure, not the moral hazard of gvmt protection and central economic planning.

Why do those in power routinely blame Capitalism for our problems?

Capitalism also requires that all participants are price takers and no significant barriers to entry exist.

You don’t see either of those situations arising WITHOUT government intervention to reign in the corporate oligarchy.

What’s the difference between free market capitalism and the form of capitalism America currently has?

Free market capitalism will work solely through the invisible hand with out any government intervention.
America’s capitalism is a mixed system. 50% of the economy are government related businesses.

Capitalism requires the risk of failure, not the moral hazard of gvmt protection and central economic planning.

I guess you mean like cronyism between Wall Street and the Fed lol

Let’s not forget, that the current models of socialism that have been seen aren’t socialism, but more of an authoritarian twist. Could socialism, as envisaged by Karl Marx, really produce equality and increased living standards of the poor? How does capitalism do such a thing? From what I can see of it, it makes the rich richer, and the poor trailing very far behind. Can anybody explain how capitalism is more equal?

Capitalism isn’t more equal (it’s less), but it is vastly more simple to practically employ. John Stuart Mills type utilitarian ideas, and Lock and Rousseau type concepts of a social contract of equality and liberty are only practical as ideals and goals when built on a foundation of Adam Smith’s reality based methods of economics. It is a combination of these things that have constructed classical liberalism and financial and individual liberty necessarily means restricted equality. If you want to use equality as the base then be prepared to accept that financial and individual liberty must be more tightly controlled in order to achieve any equality within the limits of any political model.

Personally I’m a libertarian minarchist, so I instinctually favour extreme personal freedoms over mass security, but there is nothing inherently wrong with classical liberalism, welfare liberalism, or pure socialism as long as it doesn’t drift towards totalitarian authoritarianism (which all can and have). It really is just a question of personal taste as to a preference for freedom and security that makes someone choose more liberty, or more equality. It is true that socialism requires more administrators and so is more likely to stray into autocratic styles of management, but classical liberalism can easily stray into private economic hegemony and welfare libertarianism is structurally open to all manner of freeloader public good abuses.

The thing to remember is that equality in of itself is an ideal and nothing more. Even in the most strict socialist society the reality is that people would have different ranges in their ability and no matter how even the starting ground it would still end in an unequal finish. If you wanted them to finish equally your only option would be to hobble the outliers or transport the the backender to the front through an intervention … but more often than not you would have only succeeded in creating faster backenders and slower outliers. It wouldn’t be long before the faster backenders slowed on purpose to receive transport to the front …

Any system can only really expect to be able to manage equality at the starting blocks.