[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The entire "economy" is not channeled through whatever few bottlenecks to which you refer. Had the banks that were bailed out not been bailed out, there would have remained a large "economy" that survived the "cataclysm."

No, what was remarkable about the situation was the potential for short-term credit, which most companies rely upon for operations, would have blown up. Instead of the weak being culled out we would have likely seen otherwise stronger companies burn up their cash trying to stay alive. This would have been much more serious that the bad situation we actually saw...and it appears we were very close.

Taxpayers have the same or lack the same "leverage" before bail outs as they do after. They have the power of the vote and their individual and collective initiatives. Those powers, forgive my constitutional tourrettes, would be far greater if our Federal Government was restrained by constitutional limits. With the present juggernaut of Federal power colluding with big money and "managing" the "market," the taxpayer loses much of the power granted to him by the Constitution and becomes the ultimate bottleneck through which unconstitutional federal mandates, regulations, and agencies are funded. And the contributions to that Federal Government by big monied banks and businesses gets them immunity from failure or the pork to fund worthless Solyndras.

I think it's a reasonable argument that reduced federal power would bring less potential for federal abuse, but the flip side is less beneficial oversight. Believe it or not a lot of Federal regulations are positive and I don't think the States are equipped to make up the balance.

One of the stated desires of the protesters, at least by those who have spoken, is to eliminate capitalism.

Yes, and the Tea Party spits on black people.

As for the debate "in this country" by which I take it that you mean beyond the protesters--there really doesn't seem to be a debate. If you pose a debate between free market vs managed market, that's more symantic than real. All markets are "managed" by those acting within the markets. The degree of freedom is proportional to how much managing is done within the market as opposed to how much regulation and restriction is imposed by external force, Government. If the market is "managed" by government, it is not a market in the traditional sense, but a command economy. Obviously, all markets have had external force applied, as well as internal forces within, so none has ever been totally free. Not as a whole. The degree to which there are free transactions within a "market" (transactions freely performed between buyer and seller) will determine how free a market is. Modern socialism comes in many forms. Just as there is no totally free market, there is no totally pure form of "real" socialism. There are degrees of socialism.

So you're saying it's all a "spectrum"?

If the undercurrent is very similar, why is there such a difference? Are the objectives of the Tea Party and the Occupiers similar?

I think the two movements are a reflection of the undercurrent (frustration with the "system" be it government, private industry or a combination) expressed through two large lenses that make up the USA.

The Tea Party might not have camped out, but then again they probably had to be at work in the morning.

"Increasingly" rigged? So, is there a certain amount of rigging that is acceptable. But, then, beyond a quantifiable amount, at that point we rise up and say no more?

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

"It," whatever that is, has never "all" been "left" to the free market. The market has never been so free that "all" was left to it. And the market is not a living thing that can sell out anything. It is the interaction of individual people and entitities transacting in different self interested ways and selling and buying individual comodities most of the time outside the ken of shareholder value. Nor is the USA an entity that can be sold by a market.

Don't understand this paragraph.

Transform what to what? Obama is trying to transform. Too much of us are resisting his transformation. But he may yet succeed. Give him Health Care and another term. So what is it, Spence, that needs to be transformed?

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence