There are aspects of economies that government is far more efficient at allocating. The trick is, in my view, to keep commerce out of government and vice versa.

This is where the Scandinavian model has worked so well.

And I don’t think people are stupid, but they’re definitely ignorant and ill-informed. What else could explain the sorry pack of losers on both sides currently leading the race for U.S. President?

“And how compassionate of you to refer to both mass murders as social experiments.”

Experiment is a neutral term that doesn’t obscure the underlying reality. Experiments can be cruel or benign. There is simply no other way to describe any concerted effort at radical social change, whether for good or for ill. Why not enlighten us on the nature of the “experiment” that occurred in Chile sometime between 1973 and 1989?

Most importantly, does the US and Britain want to see a united Mideast? No. Peace is not in the Middle East because Israel and the US does not want Mideast unification. We can’t see the forest for the trees — and THAT is the secret of propaganda.

Your overall point is well made, especially your comment about full employment. There are a number of national policies which preclude full employment, or anything remotely close to it. Central banking policies. Tax policies. Immigration policies. Some of the primary culprits.

A brief foray into history would indicate otherwise. American capitalism was given to frequent and wild gyrations long before the institution of the income tax, the corporate tax, and the central bank. The Long Depression, a twenty year global downturn, unfolded during the height of classical laissez-faire. Note, as well, that unemployment rates in both Europe and America were considerably lower than they are now, despite the increase in labour market flexibility in the latter (and certain countries, such as Britain, in the former) in the wake of stagflation. Unemployment seems to me a structural outcome of capitalism, since any undue increase in the bargaining position of labour hampers profitability and hence continued investment. I suspect this is because the state no longer mediates conflicts between business and labour effectively via domesticated labour unions (enabling a stable consensus that combines low unemployment with stipulated wage increases that do not impinge upon the rate of return), and so the market naturally generates less-than-full employment as a requirement for capital’s profitability. My other points about the technical and institutional conditions prevailing in industry still apply as well. What of monopoly, of market power, of vast resources and command over credit and inputs that, even under a regime of unlimited liability, would still suffice to overwhelm most newcomers to the market?

[A couple of my earlier responses aren't showing up, so I'm still figuring out the nesting limitations. Third times a charm.]

Corporatism is only “inevitable” as you put it in the sense that any political system, regardless of whatever “ism” banner you are flying, is corruptible. It may be that the problems posed by the human condition are inherently insoluble over the long run. I think the best that you can do is put some reasonable checks and balances in place so that both the public and private spheres are kept in check. A little revolution now and then doesn’t hurt.

The root of corporatism lies in the legal fiction known as “corporate personhood”, which came about in the late 19th century, whereby corporations were granted the status of natural persons under the constitution and given all of the rights that go along with that status that were only ever meant to apply to natural persons. Rights such as the right of representation before congress (read the right to bribe politicians) for example. Or the right to free speech (read the right to act as a propaganda organ on behalf of the state and private concentrations of wealth with conflicts of interest). As if a transnational conglomerate with revenues that exceed that of most countries is the equivalent of a human being.

Before the Civil War–which destroyed state sovereignty (which folks like Jefferson saw as one of the most important bulwarks against state tyranny over the individual) and swept away the Republic of the founders–and the legal fiction of “corporate personhood” which followed closely on its heels, corporate charters at the individual state level entailed heavy restrictions on corporate behavior. Once corporations bribed the state into granting them “corporate personhood”, they went to court armed with their new “constitutional rights” and effectively overturned all of the restrictions that the individual states had placed on their behavior.

Reform starts with the recognition that corporations are not people. They are not even market entities for that matter. They are collectives premised on state power. Their defining characteristic is limited liability, which is, like their “personhood” status, a state-proffered advantage. Corporate personhood and limited liability need to be done away with.

Your overall point is well made, especially your comment about full employment. There are a number of national policies which preclude full employment, or anything remotely close to it. Central banking policies. Tax policies. Immigration policies. Some of the primary culprits. Even cultural changes that our society has undergone. Once again, we see how the corporations and the state have colluded in bringing about such policies and changes to the culture. Such policies can be reversed, but that is another discussion.

In the final analysis, while we should strive for meritocracy, equality of outcomes is a utopian pipedream. Speaking only for myself, I’m not willing to sacrifice liberty on such utopian and ultimately ruinous pursuits.