A question for the economic right wing? (not a leftist rant, ok)?

If a true capitalist system was enacted, then Governments primary roles would, i surmise, be the responsibility of applying justice. (At least under Christian Economics/politics it is).





In the practical sense, when should the Government intervene in economic affairs?





How can it do so without violating the free-market?





Am i correct in thinking a Government must intervene to the extent of preventing feudalism and corporatism under a capitalistic system?A question for the economic right wing? (not a leftist rant, ok)?
Under pure Capitalism, in theory, the government should not interefere at all. It cannot do so without violating the free-market. It can only regulate against fraud.





However, the United States actually abandoned Capitalism 1890 - 1930. Corporations are not capitalist institutions. . The Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 was designed to counteract the ill-effects of their socialist-cooperative tendency to create monopolies, which is the antithesis of laissez-faire capitalism. Roosevelt's New Deal and the Social Security System were borrowed from Socialist Norman Thomas. When Jimmy Carter instituted wage controls, or Nixon instituted fuel rationing, these were not Capitalist methods of dealing with economic problems.





The current global free-market system dictates that as a practical matter, government intervention is needed to mollify the effects of business cycles (which are as inherent under capitalism as shortages are under socialism). Todays hybrid system has as much in common with Socialism as Capitalism. The Chinese, the British, the Germans, Russians and French react in exactly the same way as the USA to economic crises. Each enacts a set of monetary stimulus and support programs. The main difference between the ';capitalist'; USA, ';socialist'; Europe and ';communist'; China is the degree to which the social safety net helps the individual and the the language they use to justify these measures.A question for the economic right wing? (not a leftist rant, ok)?
In a purely Capitalist system, the government doesn't interfere at all. If you want to count taking in taxes, you can; but they are only supposed to take in enough to cover what should be very few expenses, and then little else.





In a purely Capitalist system, corruption is dealt with by the market itself. If someone is corrupt, it should eventually be seen and they will be ruined when no one does business with them anymore out of fear they will be cheated.





That, or the guy is so good that his corruption is not found out and he is rewarded for his ingenuity. But either way, the government does not interfere AT ALL.





And a purely Capitalist system has always failed; and in fact fails a lot faster than most systems do. Both Communism and Fascism have lasted a lot longer than pure Capitalism. We currently use a Capitalist system with Socialist underpinnings. Capitalism is too one-sided toward businesses and corporations; but with a little tilt toward the workers (Socialism) it can hold its own, and even does well on its own.
Christian Economics/politics? Can you explain that term to me? I don't really see the connections. Aren't many Muslims and Jews capitalist?





Governments role is to protect the public. In order to protect the public from frauds, like Madoff, it has to be proactive. Government has to implement and enforce regulations. There is no such thing as a ';Free Market';, in the sense that governments don't regulate them. Otherwise the government would only be getting involved after the crimes have been committed. Like the Madoff ponzi scheme.








Honestly (and I'm not ranting either) what does Christianity have to do with Capitalism? I ask, because my brother-in-law made a similar connection just last week. I didn't understand the connection then and I don't understand the connection now. I'd be grateful if you'd explain?
No, not neccesarily. Some people believe that citizens can even deal with externalities such as pollution on their own, though I think they're a bit silly on that one, and also operate under a premise that all members of a society will have bargaining power in accordance with their physical and mental fortitude. Then again, these people tend to be anarcho-capitalists, and advocate that we hire freelance Pinkerton Security type-folks if we want protection, and even pay to use private courts if injured by another. Sounds like a recipe for a Mad Max world, if you ask me.
Regulation is not intervention . . . of course our financial markets should be heavily regulated . . . and further more it's not intervention to help ensure a more level playing field . . . affirmative action is a market intervention . . . scholarships are a market intervention . . . It's when intervention favors a few at the expense of the whole when you get huge problems . . .
Government needs to intervene only to protect the interests of the public.





Crime mainly





But the role of government has continued to expand over the years. What is commonplace today would have been unconstitutional in the beginning.
If capitalism is not regulated it will destroy itself as evidenced by what is happening at the moment not only here in America, but around the world. So much for trickle down, self regulated capitalism!
IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO LEAVE THE ECONOMY ALONE SINCE THEY USUALLY JUST MAKE THINGS WORSE. ECONOMIC RECESSIONS ARE CORRECTIONS AND SOMETIMES THEY CAN BE VERY PAINFUL BUT ARE NECESSARY.
Government intervention goes against capitalist beliefs. The market can regulate itself - we don't need artificial prices and boundaries.