Z, No... one of these days, we have to let go of the black-and-white belief that our economy needs to be "capitalist" or "socialist."
Yes, the "best of both worlds" argument. Only problem is, when you're talking about gray areas, the only things you can talk about are trends because no one can point out precisely where the balance ought to be. Obviously you think the trend ought to be toward the left.
My biggest problem, however, is not whether we are too capitalist or too socialist. Instead, it's the whole attitude of "soaking the rich," because they seem to be an all-too-convenient target. It's a tempting philosophy to push as a politician, because you can get the most money while costing yourself the least amoung of votes, and you can portray anyone who disagrees as arrogant as Marie Antoinette. (Ted is fond of that.) Meanwhile, the extra money feeds the bureaucratic beast that continues to cripple all aspects of federal government. This includes the CIA and FBI who, among other things, missed the 9/11 clues.
This is why I'll err toward less government over more. The social services and the safety nets will always be there thanks to the entitlement culture we have, but the more we can ween ourselves off of said entitlements, the better. And the rich and powerful will continue to get theirs, no matter whether we live in a capitalism, a socialism, or a hybrid of any form.
Tenchusatsu |
