: Mike's vision of "pure captialism" appears to be based on two important pieces of government regulation: 1) the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (or was it '48?), which protected unions from the sort of "anti-trust" suit lodged against them in the 1930s, when the courts invoked the 1907 Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and decreed that unions were illegal conspiracies in restraint of trade, i.e. each company's right to trade wages for labor individually with each employee instead of having to deal with a union. (Here it is also useful to remember that the Feds merely declared war on the unions before 1907, and sent the troops out.) The legality of unions was thus legislated into existence. And 2) the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, where the Supreme Court decreed that a corporation was a legal person, whereas previously a corporation was viewed merely as a construct of the government. This previous conception of the corporation was invoked by Adam Smith in THE WEALTH OF NATIONS in his argument for why corporations were bad for his version of "pure capitalism." Well, guess what? Corporations are still a government-granted perk.: Finally, it must be remembered that the current period of US high-intensity consumerism was made possible by the deficit the Federal Government ran to fight World War II, which got America out of the Great Depression. (And don't forget the Marshall Plan, which did the works for Europe and Japan.) In summary, the creation of Mike Bednarz's version of "pure capitalism" is historically traceable to specific acts of government activity. (Frankly, I'd like to hear what would happen if Mike Bednarz read Keynes' THE GENERAL THEORY...)
Repeat: Iam NOT for the ststus quo, I am for a purer capitalism.
Becouse the status quo is suported by the government we now have its impossible to change anything without further legeslation.
Its my opinion that anti-trus litigation against unions early this century was unfounded anyways (so far as the unions keep public records), and just a stalling card played by those resistent to entering the capitalism we now know. Yes, I was going to mention WWII debt incured becouse many economist, conservative and librel, beleave some debt (and spending) is good for security savings and the market.
I do know there is much firvoulious government spending (one could not spend 2 minutes in this debating room without hearing of the horrors of corparate welfare.) This too would have to be delt with government action, but after that the capitalism would be entirely self contained, and separate from the government. In my opinion the marshall plan played a minor part in war recovery. Germany and Japan, with established capital and financial instituions (not to mention lack of military spending), would have quickly rebounded anyway. These are prime examples of how the world can benifit from fierce "consumerism".
