Robert Reich explains the "Free Market" in a nutshell.

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, I have no doubt that a person from your political perspective views that as an absolute.
.

Well feel free to point out where a capitalist economy sprang up without a government. With links and all.

Because I can certainly do the opposite.

And here's the second time you're arguing against something I didn't say.

Something I didn't say.

For the THIRD TIME, "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic".

I just can't get you folks to be honest. Why do you suppose that is?
.

Oh yes, Mac, I am "government-centric" in pointing out that no government, no capitalism, but you are the other hand are what in pointing out this symbiosis?

Like, dude, so above everything, right?

You're "government-centric" because you're a leftwing partisan ideologue and create threads, like this, that promote other government-centric leftwing partisan ideologues.

I pointed out that Reich's piece is one-sided and you didn't like it. Not my problem. I actually can see the big picture, your ideology prohibits you from doing so.

And yes, you folks are beginning to convince me that I am indeed above most of the lies and nastiness here. But it remains a fascinating place to observe for me.
.

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.


Chile: the laboratory test

In 1973, Chile had experienced hyperinflation that had hit 700 percent, at a time when the country, under high protectionist barriers, had no foreign reserves, and GDP was falling.[2] The economic reforms were originally drafted by Chilean economists known as the "Chicago Boys" because many of them had studied at the University of Chicago. The plan had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. The first reforms were implemented in three rounds - 1974-1983, 1985, and 1990 [2] The reforms were continued and strengthened after 1990.[3] Hernán Büchi, Minister of Finance under President Augusto Pinochet between 1985 and 1989, wrote a book detailing the implementation process of the economic reforms during his tenure. Successive governments have continued these policies. In 2002 Chile signed an association agreement with the European Union (comprising free trade, political and cultural agreements), in 2003, an extensive free trade agreement with the United States, and in 2004 with South Korea, expecting a boom in import and export of local produce and becoming a regional trade-hub. Continuing the coalition's free-trade strategy, in August 2006 President Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People's Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In 2010, Chile was the first nation in South America to win membership in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, an organization restricted to the world's richest and best-run countries.

 

[Sallow]

Robert Reich is an addle brained Oompah Loompah.

Aren't there kids on your lawn you need to yell at?

 

[boedicca]

Robert Reich is an addle brained Oompah Loompah.

Aren't there kids on your lawn you need to yell at?

Isn't your break over yet? I bet there's an extra amount of trash on the floor of the NYSE for you to sweep up today.

 

[Dad2three]

Government sets the rules for the market. Big money interests have too much influence over the rule making process. Isn't that Reich's argument. I fail to see your point. He is not asking for more government intrusion, he is asking for more balanced rule making.

Why has capitalism become corrupted? Because big gov has allowed to. Now to think that big gov is going to fix the problem, is terribly naive. The little dweeb speaks with forked tongue.

It's our government, it's up to us to demand change. I don't see how Reich is wrong for pointing it out.

Did you watch and comprehend the video? He is condemning free market capitalism, when that not at issue and terribly disingenuous. We have crony capitalism run and controlled by big gov. Yes big gov is the problem...but do you know the little twerp's history? He is a big gov statist leftist. So sorry, but I find him a little joke.

The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.


"I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."



"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"



He suggested his trust in the responsibility of banks had been misplaced: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of

He found out people were greedy and was shocked, simply shocked, I tells ya.

The nearly dozen economic booms and bust between 1800-1900 and the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis didn't inform him of that, of course Ayn Rand Greenspan has since backed off more Gov't regulations/regulators on the beat, moronic Randian fetishists

 

[Dad2three]

Robert Reich is an addle brained Oompah Loompah.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of

what a surprise, dumbto3 being dumb. Greenspan is still an ardent conservative/libertarian and merely said there was a flaw in his thinking, not that conservative capitalism was mistaken in any way.

 

[Dad2three]

Well feel free to point out where a capitalist economy sprang up without a government. With links and all.

Because I can certainly do the opposite.

And here's the second time you're arguing against something I didn't say.

Something I didn't say.

For the THIRD TIME, "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic".

I just can't get you folks to be honest. Why do you suppose that is?
.

Oh yes, Mac, I am "government-centric" in pointing out that no government, no capitalism, but you are the other hand are what in pointing out this symbiosis?

Like, dude, so above everything, right?

You're "government-centric" because you're a leftwing partisan ideologue and create threads, like this, that promote other government-centric leftwing partisan ideologues.

I pointed out that Reich's piece is one-sided and you didn't like it. Not my problem. I actually can see the big picture, your ideology prohibits you from doing so.

And yes, you folks are beginning to convince me that I am indeed above most of the lies and nastiness here. But it remains a fascinating place to observe for me.
.

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.


Chile: the laboratory test

In 1973, Chile had experienced hyperinflation that had hit 700 percent, at a time when the country, under high protectionist barriers, had no foreign reserves, and GDP was falling.[2] The economic reforms were originally drafted by Chilean economists known as the "Chicago Boys" because many of them had studied at the University of Chicago. The plan had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. The first reforms were implemented in three rounds - 1974-1983, 1985, and 1990 [2] The reforms were continued and strengthened after 1990.[3] Hernán Büchi, Minister of Finance under President Augusto Pinochet between 1985 and 1989, wrote a book detailing the implementation process of the economic reforms during his tenure. Successive governments have continued these policies. In 2002 Chile signed an association agreement with the European Union (comprising free trade, political and cultural agreements), in 2003, an extensive free trade agreement with the United States, and in 2004 with South Korea, expecting a boom in import and export of local produce and becoming a regional trade-hub. Continuing the coalition's free-trade strategy, in August 2006 President Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People's Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In 2010, Chile was the first nation in South America to win membership in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, an organization restricted to the world's richest and best-run countries.

Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.


Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story

Chile: the laboratory test

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why has capitalism become corrupted? Because big gov has allowed to. Now to think that big gov is going to fix the problem, is terribly naive. The little dweeb speaks with forked tongue.

It's our government, it's up to us to demand change. I don't see how Reich is wrong for pointing it out.

Did you watch and comprehend the video? He is condemning free market capitalism, when that not at issue and terribly disingenuous. We have crony capitalism run and controlled by big gov. Yes big gov is the problem...but do you know the little twerp's history? He is a big gov statist leftist. So sorry, but I find him a little joke.

The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.


"I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."



"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"



He suggested his trust in the responsibility of banks had been misplaced: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of

He found out people were greedy and was shocked, simply shocked, I tells ya.

The nearly dozen economic booms and bust between 1800-1900 and the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis didn't inform him of that, of course Ayn Rand Greenspan has since backed off more Gov't regulations/regulators on the beat, moronic Randian fetishists

yes Greenspan is still an ardent conservative/libertarian!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

Not really sure how you figure this..

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Folks that buy the bonds get a nice return when it matures.

In the meantime? The government is able to finance things like bridges, roads, schools, and other things.

Much of these things are used by private industry to conduct business, and thus, generates wealth in private sector.

Basically a win-win unless you are you.

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Moving the goalposts? Shocker.
You said issuing bonds generates wealth.
Pets.com didn't generate wealth when they issued bonds.
Glad I could educate you, even if only a tiny bit.

Didn't move ANY goalposts.

You said issuing a bond generates wealth.

Then you said it had to finance "needful government projects" and "give folks a nice return".

I agree, your original claim was moronic.

 

[Sallow]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

Not really sure how you figure this..

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Folks that buy the bonds get a nice return when it matures.

In the meantime? The government is able to finance things like bridges, roads, schools, and other things.

Much of these things are used by private industry to conduct business, and thus, generates wealth in private sector.

Basically a win-win unless you are you.

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Moving the goalposts? Shocker.
You said issuing bonds generates wealth.
Pets.com didn't generate wealth when they issued bonds.
Glad I could educate you, even if only a tiny bit.

Didn't move ANY goalposts.

You said issuing a bond generates wealth.

Then you said it had to finance "needful government projects" and "give folks a nice return".

I agree, your original claim was moronic.

Only to someone with no idea how it works.

Kind of like a blind man looking at an elephant.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

yes exactly, if issuing bonds generated wealth we'd do it all the time and be wealthy all the time.

We got wealthy from the stone age to here because of Republican supply side inventions. Wealth or economic progress comes from new inventions being supplied by Republicans. Now you understand supply side economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

Not really sure how you figure this..

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Folks that buy the bonds get a nice return when it matures.

In the meantime? The government is able to finance things like bridges, roads, schools, and other things.

Much of these things are used by private industry to conduct business, and thus, generates wealth in private sector.

Basically a win-win unless you are you.

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Moving the goalposts? Shocker.
You said issuing bonds generates wealth.
Pets.com didn't generate wealth when they issued bonds.
Glad I could educate you, even if only a tiny bit.

Didn't move ANY goalposts.

You said issuing a bond generates wealth.

Then you said it had to finance "needful government projects" and "give folks a nice return".

I agree, your original claim was moronic.

Only to someone with no idea how it works.

Kind of like a blind man looking at an elephant.

Hey, look at me, I generated wealth by issuing a bond!!! Moron.

 

[Dad2three]

Well feel free to point out where a capitalist economy sprang up without a government. With links and all.

Because I can certainly do the opposite.

And here's the second time you're arguing against something I didn't say.

Something I didn't say.

For the THIRD TIME, "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic".

I just can't get you folks to be honest. Why do you suppose that is?
.

Oh yes, Mac, I am "government-centric" in pointing out that no government, no capitalism, but you are the other hand are what in pointing out this symbiosis?

Like, dude, so above everything, right?

You're "government-centric" because you're a leftwing partisan ideologue and create threads, like this, that promote other government-centric leftwing partisan ideologues.

I pointed out that Reich's piece is one-sided and you didn't like it. Not my problem. I actually can see the big picture, your ideology prohibits you from doing so.

And yes, you folks are beginning to convince me that I am indeed above most of the lies and nastiness here. But it remains a fascinating place to observe for me.
.

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.


Chile: the laboratory test

In 1973, Chile had experienced hyperinflation that had hit 700 percent, at a time when the country, under high protectionist barriers, had no foreign reserves, and GDP was falling.[2] The economic reforms were originally drafted by Chilean economists known as the "Chicago Boys" because many of them had studied at the University of Chicago. The plan had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. The first reforms were implemented in three rounds - 1974-1983, 1985, and 1990 [2] The reforms were continued and strengthened after 1990.[3] Hernán Büchi, Minister of Finance under President Augusto Pinochet between 1985 and 1989, wrote a book detailing the implementation process of the economic reforms during his tenure. Successive governments have continued these policies. In 2002 Chile signed an association agreement with the European Union (comprising free trade, political and cultural agreements), in 2003, an extensive free trade agreement with the United States, and in 2004 with South Korea, expecting a boom in import and export of local produce and becoming a regional trade-hub. Continuing the coalition's free-trade strategy, in August 2006 President Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People's Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In 2010, Chile was the first nation in South America to win membership in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, an organization restricted to the world's richest and best-run countries.

Chile, capitalism and liberty for the rich


Doesn't Chile prove that the free market benefits everyone?


This is a common right-wing "Libertarian" argument, one which is supported by many other supporters of "free market" capitalism. Milton Friedman, for example, stated that Pinochet "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle"


The Pinochet regime did reduce inflation, from around 500% at the time of the CIA-backed coup, to 10% by 1982. From 1983 to 87, it fluctuated between 20 and 31%. The advent of the "free market" led to reduced barriers to imports "on the ground the quotas and tariffs protected inefficient industries and kept prices artificially high. The result was that many local firms lost out to multinational corporations. The Chilean business community, which strongly supported the coup in 1973, was badly affected." [Skidmore and Smith, Op. Cit.]

However, by far the hardest group hit was the working class,

Between 1980 and 1988, the real value of wages grew only 1.2 percent while the real value of the minimum wage declined by 28.5 percent. During this period, urban unemployment averaged 15.3 percent per year. [Silvia Bortzutzky, Op. Cit., p. 96] In other words, after nearly 15 years of free market capitalism, real wages had still not exceeded their 1970 levels.


Chile, capitalism and liberty for the rich



Ever since deregulation caused a worldwide economic meltdown in September '08 and everyone became a Keynesian again, it hasn't been easy to be a fanatical follower of the late economist Milton Friedman. So widely discredited is his brand of free-market fundamentalism that his admirers have become increasingly desperate to claim ideological victories, however far fetched.


After the coup and the death of Allende, Pinochet and his Chicago Boys did their best to dismantle Chile's public sphere, auctioning off state enterprises and slashing financial and trade regulations. Enormous wealth was created in this period but at a terrible cost: by the early 80s, Pinochet's Friedman-prescribed policies had caused rapid de-industrialisation, a tenfold increase in unemployment and an explosion of distinctly unstable shantytowns. They also led to a crisis of corruption and debt so severe that, in 1982, Pinochet was forced to fire his key Chicago Boy advisers and nationalise several of the large deregulated financial institutions. (Sound familiar?)

Fortunately, the Chicago Boys did not manage to undo everything Allende accomplished. The national copper company, Codelco, remained in state hands, pumping wealth into public coffers and preventing the Chicago Boys from tanking Chile's economy completely. They also never got around to trashing Allende's tough building code, an ideological oversight for which we should all be grateful


Milton Friedman did not save Chile | Naomi Klein

 

[Dad2three]

It's our government, it's up to us to demand change. I don't see how Reich is wrong for pointing it out.

Did you watch and comprehend the video? He is condemning free market capitalism, when that not at issue and terribly disingenuous. We have crony capitalism run and controlled by big gov. Yes big gov is the problem...but do you know the little twerp's history? He is a big gov statist leftist. So sorry, but I find him a little joke.

The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.


"I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."



"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"



He suggested his trust in the responsibility of banks had been misplaced: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of

He found out people were greedy and was shocked, simply shocked, I tells ya.

The nearly dozen economic booms and bust between 1800-1900 and the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis didn't inform him of that, of course Ayn Rand Greenspan has since backed off more Gov't regulations/regulators on the beat, moronic Randian fetishists

yes Greenspan is still an ardent conservative/libertarian!!

Yep, in other words NEVER on the correct side of history!

 

[Dad2three]

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of

what a surprise, dumbto3 being dumb. Greenspan is still an ardent conservative/libertarian and merely said there was a flaw in his thinking, not that conservative capitalism was mistaken in any way.

Except in "thinking" the Banksters would look out for their shareholder equity over their own best interests (BONUS MONEY)...

 

[Sallow]

Why has capitalism become corrupted? Because big gov has allowed to. Now to think that big gov is going to fix the problem, is terribly naive. The little dweeb speaks with forked tongue.

It's our government, it's up to us to demand change. I don't see how Reich is wrong for pointing it out.

Did you watch and comprehend the video? He is condemning free market capitalism, when that not at issue and terribly disingenuous. We have crony capitalism run and controlled by big gov. Yes big gov is the problem...but do you know the little twerp's history? He is a big gov statist leftist. So sorry, but I find him a little joke.

The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.


"I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."



"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"



He suggested his trust in the responsibility of banks had been misplaced: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of

He found out people were greedy and was shocked, simply shocked, I tells ya.

The nearly dozen economic booms and bust between 1800-1900 and the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis didn't inform him of that, of course Ayn Rand Greenspan has since backed off more Gov't regulations/regulators on the beat, moronic Randian fetishists

You know he tapped that, right?

Not really sure how you figure this..

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Folks that buy the bonds get a nice return when it matures.

In the meantime? The government is able to finance things like bridges, roads, schools, and other things.

Much of these things are used by private industry to conduct business, and thus, generates wealth in private sector.

Basically a win-win unless you are you.

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Moving the goalposts? Shocker.
You said issuing bonds generates wealth.
Pets.com didn't generate wealth when they issued bonds.
Glad I could educate you, even if only a tiny bit.

Didn't move ANY goalposts.

You said issuing a bond generates wealth.

Then you said it had to finance "needful government projects" and "give folks a nice return".

I agree, your original claim was moronic.

Only to someone with no idea how it works.

Kind of like a blind man looking at an elephant.

Hey, look at me, I generated wealth by issuing a bond!!! Moron.

Lead a horse to water..

 

[Dad2three]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

yes exactly, if issuing bonds generated wealth we'd do it all the time and be wealthy all the time.

We got wealthy from the stone age to here because of Republican supply side inventions. Wealth or economic progress comes from new inventions being supplied by Republicans. Now you understand supply side economics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yep, in other words NEVER on the correct side of history!

dear dummbto3, Republicans supported capitalism while liberals spied for HItler and Stalin and gave Stalin the bomb. They supported capitalism in China that instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty while liberals opposed.

How is that for the right side of history you total idiot liberal

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

yes exactly, if issuing bonds generated wealth we'd do it all the time and be wealthy all the time.

We got wealthy from the stone age to here because of Republican supply side inventions. Wealth or economic progress comes from new inventions being supplied by Republicans. Now you understand supply side economics.

trickle down capitalism does not work?? It just saved another 60 million from slowly starving to death in China. How is that for working??? See why we say dumbto3??

 

[danielpalos]

What "accurate" macro picture do you want?

Capitalism isn't some sort of natural result of private enterprise. That's a bullshit assessment. It is the result of laws, regulations, security and infrastructure all built and set up by the government. That's what sets up an environment where business can be conducted.

At the present time, it's lopsided and we are feeling the effects.

What you fail to comprehend is government has given us the crony corrupt capitalism we have today. The little geek thinks we need more government intrusion to fix this. Do you fail to see the idiocy of his argument?

Government sets the rules for the market. Big money interests have too much influence over the rule making process. Isn't that Reich's argument. I fail to see your point. He is not asking for more government intrusion, he is asking for more balanced rule making.

Why has capitalism become corrupted? Because big gov has allowed to. Now to think that big gov is going to fix the problem, is terribly naive. The little dweeb speaks with forked tongue.

i am not sure what you mean; why bother electing representives to government, if they are not going to fix the problem.

only alleged capitalists lay claim to that form of social, irresponsibility.