Capitalism is Under Attack . Be Bourgeois And Proud.

Capitalism is Under Attack Be bourgeois and proud. People from the Un-real World Were Never Fans of the Concept Lex Loeb Contributor Network . Been to college and heard way more about the preceived differences between accademia and the real world? It is, was and will always be a really dumb discussion. Then something happens where the reach of accademia extends beyond the ivy yards in parts of the world that used to be exclusively real, It seems to be something happening now espeically in the world of the financial and economic issues. There is a great deal of effort underway to prove that what had seemed successful mostly allowing a free market to opperate was a major historic blunder that caused every conceivable problem we are now experiencing. The evidence is not all supportingn a complete self destruction of capitalism because the markets have actually held up very well considering the many problems and it seems most if not all of the problems have to do with psychololgical preceptions and fears that are being generated perhaps intentionally to maximize the destruction of what a number of types of peoples see as unfair, too sucessful failing free markets. There is a lumping of all sorts of allegations together that free markets are failures because they succeed too well at the same time they are failures because ultimately they blow up as market busts because of too little regulation. Considering the concept of marxist dialectic it seems that the opposition to capitalism on the one hand hates the fact is is unregulated, wants its destruction and then compains that it should exist but should be overly regulated by those who are more elite in their judgements than those who might just happen to ordinarily dominate the markets as players. That is one hell of a dialectic. It a huge contradicition that the people most interest in the destruction of free markets fancy themselves as the saviors of the economy and see themselves as market proponets. A more accurate way to view what this phenomenon may all be about is a kind of protection racket? If someone from mother jones who always hated the free markets has the solution to saving the free markets is that really a good kind of assurance? Sounds a little fishy that those who have always argued against free markets somehow need to be placed in charge of regulating them to make them better really would like to do better for them than just destroy them? There are all kinds of problems that surface when someone who really means harm says they are there to protect and serve. The main problem is immediately seen when they go to shut down the markets as information conduits. An example at hand is the cap and trade policy which is a tarrif in disguise We know the last thing we want is a trade war with any of our trading partners and yet this cap and trade plan is exactly that an international tarrif with danerous wide reaching consequences. The next problem has to do determining what is actually economically feasible. only a market can really decide something like this. There is no complex algorism or calculus that can be used to figure out the proper price for commodities better than a real market can. If gasoline is prices too high including added on higher taxes to government then it might make alternaive energy generation systems seeme more vital but the problem about economic feasilbility still remias. An over regulated market can set feasiliby prices anywhere in general or as artificial. Eventually, .