Those Boring Politics
All of the libertarian hate towards Reagan is pretty funny…


Considering he actually…

  • Cut defense spending by the end of his term compared to Carter. Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of his administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989.
  • Instructed the Fed. Reagan endorsed the reduction in money growth initiated by the Federal Reserve in late 1979, a policy that led to both the severe 1982 recession and a large reduction in inflation and interest rates.
  • Cut taxes. The top marginal tax rate on individual income was reduced from 70 percent to 28 percent. The corporate income tax rate was reduced from 48 percent to 34 percent. The individual tax brackets were indexed for inflation. Overall, the combination of lower tax rates and a broader tax base for both individuals and business reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989.
  • Cut regulations. Reagan eased or eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas, cable TV, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping. Banks were allowed to invest in a somewhat broader set of assets, and the scope of the antitrust laws was reduced.
  • His economic plans increased economic growth. Real GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8 annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8 percent rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4 percent rate in the Reagan years. Productivity in the manufacturing sector increased at a 3.8 percent annual rate, a record for peacetime.
  • His economic plans decreased unemployment and decreased inflation. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988.

And he did all of this with a Democrat Congress. Reagan resisted tax increases, and Congress resisted cuts in domestic spending. The administration was slow to acknowledge the savings and loan problem, and Congress urged forbearance on closing the failing banks. Reagan’s rhetoric strongly supported free trade, but pressure from threatened industries and Congress led to a substantial increase in new trade restraints.

Is a neocon because he had a hard-line stance against communism? Is that it? Because, if so, I’m pretty positive he’s right here:

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of
Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ‘round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

Like it or not, Reagan has done the most for liberty since Coolidge.


I do not have qualms with all of these points, but I’ll remind you of a few things that make Reagan far from a great president. 

When the soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 in response to the mujahideen, Jimmy Carter sent aid to the opponents of the Soviet-friendly Afghan government. The Soviets had not invaded or harmed us; we simply wanted to put them into a proxy war and set traps for them. We also sold missiles to Saudi Arabia and to the government in Yemen in order to suppress a Communistic rebellion. On top of all of this, we promised Egypt military and financial aid so they would be friends with Israel (effectively propping up the dictatorial regime for years to come).

Yes, Carter did this initially, but Reagan continued, and expanded upon, this policy well into the 80’s. This would become known as the Reagan Doctrine (and it hit countries in Africa and Latin America as well). We felt this in our wallets and we felt it in blowback in a few ways (most notably the funding and building of Tim Osman a.k.a. Osama bin Laden).

Keeping economic policies brief: he kept protectionism afloat; he made no significant cuts to regulation (bureaucracy actually grew in his time as President); he enacted TEFRA in 1982 which was a significant tax hike; he increased the FICA taxes; he put more taxes on gas; he moved revenue from the individuals to businesses instead of just cutting revenue, and he increased spending.

Spending graph: 

Tax graph:

(Note: It is evident here that his initial tax cuts were quickly undone with multiple pieces of legislation. His tax cut in 1981 would have saved the consumers $1.48 trillion by the end of FY1989, but his other tax reforms increased revenue by $1.5 trillion by the end of FY1989. This undid and overdid his heralded tax cut).

See how there’s not much of a difference?

My point is here that his great achievements were either deception or simply not true (mainly regarding foreign policy and trade). I do not see him as a champion of liberty. In fact, and I am in no way claiming him to be ideal, but I find JFK to be more appealing than Reagan. The Ludwig von Mises Institute has a good article on Reagan’s legacy here.

Reason #45 California is BAD For Small Business


So check this out… Earmilk likes to media sponsor live events. Basically, if we like your event, we’ll throw you a few thousand bucks worth of advertising for free. In exchange, you throw our logo on your flyers and give us tickets to give away. Alrighty then, that’s pretty simple, right… let’s move al…

BUZZ! WRONG MOTHERFUCKER! (Done in the voice of California.)

Because in California, you pay taxes on the full price of advertisement value. So even if I give someone $5,000 in advertisements, they’ll still owe the state of California $437.50. That’s just in taxes. And we’re an ONLINE fucking business.

Solution… get incorporated in business-friendly Georgia. Oh. How convenient. I’m here. Well, suck on that California. This is you LOSING yet another business.

I understand states need taxes to operate, but there are 49 other motherfucking states for me to choose from, especially when all 25 Earmilk employees work from f**kin’ home. We don’t need you California! Don’t you get it?! This isn’t a fucking child support check you just collect because you deserve it. You gotta give us a good REASON to pay you.

So let’s realize that this is also pretty much done on the federal level. What the state of California has added on drove out yet another business. So if we raise these taxes federally and keep these barriers to entry around, what will happen? We will see small businesses dying and larger ones leaving the country entirely. If we want business start-ups, we need to free up the markets.

Republicans can’t just focus on cutting taxes for “job creators.” It goes much further than that. We obviously need to halt the business cycle by removing central banking, and we also need to deregulate across the board. Disband monopolies by allowing businesses to enter the market and compete. If you want unemployment to go down and standards of living to go up, let these small businesses employ all over the country. Businesses like Earmilk need the ability to start and expand, not be pushed out by the corporations and government.

Ron Paul’s interview as a candidate in 1988. Notice how he’s speaking with the same opinions and in the same manner as he does today. The only real principled and consistent politician. His discussion on health care really definitely applies here today.

"While [Ron] Paul is on the ballot in 46 states, he has few illusions about his chances of winning. Rather, he believes is campaign is laying the groundwork for future libertarians." Well it’s been 23 years since and his chances have greatly increased. They’ve increased immensely from even 2008. I have hope this time around, and if he doesn’t make it this time, I’ve no doubt that very few elections down the line, a libertarian will be very successful in his hope for the Oval Office. But remember, Ron Paul 2012: it’s very possible. 

Why I’m A Minarchist As Opposed To An Anarchist


Many of my fellow libertarian bloggers take Libertarianism to the measures of a stateless society. In principle, I am an anarchist. But after calling into Stefan Molyneux’s show a few times to discuss basic anarchist ideals I have decided that in practicality, anarchy would fail.

There is an ideal that believes in a stateless society that there would be multiple competing legal-system firms to include one’s self in voluntarily. This type of legal system would just flat-out be a failure. I’m not sure how popular this idea is, but conflicting opinions would simply exclude themselves from certain laws that would perhaps prevent rape or murder.

This agorist theory does include free market dispute resolutions, which I think if privatized on too large of a scale would be disastrous. Having private courts be in determination of law and its practice could be detrimental to the freedom of the people and the true freedom of markets. It could turn into the situation that the Federal Reserve has always been, which would use the force given to it by the government as a private entity to keep corporations evil. It wouldn’t be as big a scheme as the Fed, though, considering it wouldn’t mess with our money supply. But it would be much easier for other businesses to lobby to the court-system, giving a ton of profit to the executives without actually giving fair hearing to the people who bring a claim to courts. Government must provide a strong court system, and it must be expanded to be able to handle many claims at once. With this system, lawsuits would be a more frequent occurrence simply because it would be easier for one party to hold another party liable for either a small issue or a larger issue.

I do, however, hold some principles of privatized Dispute Resolution, which includes privatized police. A privatized police force is practical and allowable, though the explanation for such a thing is for another post.

A privatized military (also existing in an anarcho-capitalist society) on the other hand would be a nightmare. This is because the military would then be upheld by shareholders looking for a profit. To start, I think the idea of a profit-seeking business in the market of murder is completely immoral. At shareholders’ meetings, the company could be voted to gain profit by attacking the oil kingdoms and becoming very active around the world. Though, and here is where the second problem is found, where would the incentive be for any soldiers to take part in this? During “peace time”, soldiers will be payed to sit around and do nothing; when combat comes around, there is no patriotism or nationalism and pride to motivate the soldiers to stay and fight. That’s a necessary trait regarding military, and without it, you’ll have a hard time finding any willing people. The whole thing would be a mess, and if you did happen to make it work, it would be pretty bad ethically.

Even if one country became an anarchist society, every other country won’t follow suit, and they’ll blame the entire region for mishaps and atrocities caused by this private military. This is then a liability issue for the company which would a) become so rich they buy their ways out or b) scapegoat someone else or c) use their military to defend their money-conquest. Now even though I recognize the need for a government to provide a military, the military’s job should be at a minimum with a defense budget that would require zero income tax or corporate tax. The function of this military is purely defense. If we are attacked, we attack back. If we are invaded, we defend. And that’s it.

As for laws for people to follow, I believe only in laws that protect a direct victim. This means rape, murder, and any crime dealing with aggression. These would be the only laws people would need to follow. The privatized police force would be of use here in carrying out their duties. All other “crimes”, deemed crimes by current law, could be solved in a court or totally forgotten when the laws are abandoned.

Moving on to economics briefly. Liability is a wonderful word used to begin an explanation/justification for Austrian economics; disputes would be resolved with cases in courts, whether it is just a claim against a person or a case with need of a lawyer in response to a business’ behavior. The government would not regulate business or support the person claiming a business has liability, but simply give a hearing for the prosecutor and make a decision. It’s just one simple way an industry would have to keep honest as well as at a modest size; keeping liability costs lost in court low is a good thing for business, so it would be in their best interest not to screw with consumers.

I do fervently believe in a free-market. This means entirely free with zero regulations on business practices because I believe, as many libertarians do, that consumers can and will regulate the economy more effectively than government. But in an anarchist society, a business could lie about their revenues, outputs, costs, stock information, etc. I believe the only reason a business must be regulated is for a business to be totally honest in their accounting and finance reports. Giving the consumers enough information so that the free-market can regulate itself is what is needed. Corporations would then be transparent but still allowed to practice whatever they want. The argument of liability, costs for businesses, etc. would not work if the businesses had the ability to lie to the public. 

As a note on my debate style: I largely take the utilitarian approach to arguing for free-markets, rather than using the Non-Aggression Principle as an argument. Logicallypositive describes the situation with the NAP the best, stating that it’s usually used as an axiom and as a fact rather than a personal worldview, which is what it is.

So where do anarchists and I differ in summation?

  • I advocate for a state-run defensive military, not allowed to go beyond its means other than direct defense. The budget should be low enough for funding to come only from a small sales tax. In a booming capitalistic economy, it would cover more than the military budget.
  • I advocate for a state-run court system that could take many hearings a day, from small-claims to class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits would be a key-role in consumers and employees regulating the economy. Class-action lawsuits are more effective than government-supported unions which are completely immoral (also for another post). The courts may be state-run but the actual process would be a free-market process.
  • The only laws on people would be those to protect people from aggression: murder, rape, etc. All other laws abolished. If there is an issue, let the courts settle it. This would eliminate jails in the country to a much smaller number (they would still exist in my ideal society, as I oppose capital punishment).
  • The only regulation would be to make businesses disclose information to allow for a consumer-regulated economy.

Four very small roles of government all upheld by a small sales tax. With a complete removal of public-sector regulation, the negative effects of a mixed economy would be removed (because it would no longer exist!) Of course, with the State around, it could always come back and allow businesses to become corrupt again. This is why, by principle, I am an anarchist. We’d need government reform to prevent this from happening. Though, this would be tricky to do without also removing any voice of the people, which is imperative to society to keep around. Freedom in all parts of life is what will drive us forward, not regulation.

For my new followers since the original date of this post.

Talks about the Debt Ceiling have found its way to talks of tax hikes as a remedy to possibly defaulting on the U.S. debt. Republicans have a huge problem with this, however. And rightly so. Other than the fact that it simply won’t pass (because who likes raising taxes that much?), the damages to the economy, as well as other sources of revenue for the government, would be pretty bad.

Let’s take, for instance, taxes on business. It’s common knowledge that businesses are taxed based on profit. So suppose we give tax hikes to some people based on their income. People now have less money to buy whatever goods they would otherwise buy. Businesses are having less and less profit as a result to a lack in demand. Not only does this not allow the business to reinvest in themselves by expanding, it diminishes the taxes given to government by these businesses. 

In addition to less government revenue and less breathing room for businesses, the lack of aggregate demand for goods reduces huge revenues from sales taxes. It also would force businesses to lay off workers as a result of the lack of demand. As unemployment rises, less people are paying any income tax, let alone paying sales taxes. What is a result of less government revenue? Higher deficits. The fact is that raising taxes is really only going to hurt the economy as a whole, and it won’t at all help fund the monster debt we’ve accumulated. 

In Response to One in Support of the Federal Reserve

I figure some (or one) of my readers might enjoy reading this.

"Indeed, I believe some form of monetary control is neccesary to control inflation and the money supply. The Federal Reserve I believe fulfills this function by determining interest rates. Higher rates, lower money supply, slows inflation, or vise versa."

Well the primary function of the Federal Reserve has been to control interest rates by keeping them low. The point was to make credit available to everyone. But the fact is that that’s horrible for an economy. The credit cycles we have today are enabled by the low interest rates. 

What you’re also forgetting is fractional-reserve banking taking effect. The Federal Reserve also enabled this practice to make sure that money from depositors could become liquid assets. The liquid assets and low interest rates combined allow credit expansion. If you’re in the business of giving out lots of credit, you’re in a lucrative position. But the fact is that this creates a larger boom and bust cycle than would occur without the Federal Reserve. 

With credit expansion reaching everyone, other people’s money is being spent; the money isn’t really there. So when all this credit is being spent, the markets have to clear at some point. This is the bust. But since the whole country was buying on credit, when the bust comes, it comes with a lot of impact. We saw this in 2008 when people constantly were taking loans out and using this credit to buy houses. We saw it in 1929 when the stock market crashed as a result of over-investment from money that simply didn’t exist. 

And it’s a vicious cycle when it bursts, too. When markets crash and a lot of people lose money and recessions are created, what do people want? Money, naturally. So why not get the money they put in their banks? A novel idea. It’s a good practice until when people get there, the money doesn’t exist anymore. It was all lost when the market cleared. People don’t have the money because it was turned into credit. The bank only kept so much of the deposits. 

And thus comes a run on the banks. When the banks fail, it is depression. Unless they’re bailed out by the Fed, which is at the expense of the taxpayer. Also, what do you mean by vice versa? Low interest rates, more money available, more inflation? Because that’s the practice more common than not. When the interest rates are higher, credit is still overbloated, and the practice becomes inefficient. It makes more sense for interest rates to borrowers to be self determined by the supply and demand of credit provided in a full-reserve system.

"It was created to stabilize a system that had booms and busts that occured pretty regularly from the end of the Second Bank of the US till 1913, notably the Panic of 1907."

Don’t forget that after the end of a huge system like that, it’s similar to a drunk man losing his alcohol. It’s eventually good but things are a bit rough at the beginning. This is the ending of the Second Bank of the US. Once it settled, however, you are correct that boom and busts were more common than they are now today. Busts are common today as well, and not many of them are noticeable until they slowly build upon each other. Busts without the central bank wouldn’t be nearly as bad as they are now, though, because the amount of credit that would clear wouldn’t be detrimental to business. People would still have their money. Also, the busts wouldn’t pile up on each other. 

To cite the Panic of 1907 as a free-market failure is to forget the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The OCC was essentially a central bank, as it enabled a large amount of national banks all over the country. These national banks behaved much like the large banks/Federal Reserve do now. Save for printing money, they utilized the government the same way. They were widely used for being cheaper than other commercial banks because the public sector controlled the way they acted. Fractional-reserve systems were active in these banks, causing the Panics from ‘73 to ‘07. The OCC was detrimental to the system and still is a large part of it.

"It also needs to increase the money supply as the amount of trade increases." 

Markets can control the demand of money, and what with the large amounts of inflation now, it certainly does not need it anymore. Without this monetary policy, the fiscal policy would have to diminish, restoring a lot of value to the US Dollar. 

"I do however believe that it needs more supervision as the knowledge to determine these rates is highly variable and subject to bias."

No one entity should determine interest rates to firms. It creates credit cycles and huge busts. Now I can understand the arguments for the regulations of a central bank, but what of the printing of money? Printing money to deliver it to large banks and being given the ability to buy US bonds (Quantitative Easing) which incur huge amounts of inflation. QE2 will be bringing us considerable amounts of inflation and dollar devaluation soon. Why argue for that in a central bank?

"The fact that it is private is distressing, however there are a few watchdog agencies notably the GAO which may audit the Fed under the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act."

The Fed hasn’t been audited since the 20’s. In 1933, the GAO had the Board of Governors removed from their jurisdiction. The Fed wasn’t really able to be audited. They really started auditing themselves. Until the FBAA Act, that is. And even then, many of the main functions of the Fed are not at all allowed to be audited. Audits of the Fed truly don’t exist, which is why Ron Paul attempted to bring up a bill that will thoroughly audit the Federal Reserve system. As much as we’d like to believe that the central bank is government controlled, it truly is not.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Title I (Part 1 of 2)

Title I is titled “Financial Stability”. The purposes of these posts are to provide an overview of the Title’s provisions and potential effects on the economy.

The first part of this title reads as following:

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, there is established the Financial Stability Oversight Council. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Council shall consist of the following members: 

(1) VOTING MEMBERS.—The voting members, who shall each have 1 vote on the Council shall be— 

(A) the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall serve as Chairperson of the Council; 

(B) the Chairman of the Board of Governors; 

(C) the Comptroller of the Currency; 

(D) the Director of the Bureau; 

(E) the Chairman of the Commission; 

(F) the Chairperson of the Corporation; 

(G) the Chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; 

(H) the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency; 

(I) the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration Board; and 

(J) an independent member appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, having insurance expertise. 

(2) NONVOTING MEMBERS.—The nonvoting members, who shall serve in an advisory capacity as a nonvoting member of the Council, shall be— 

(A) the Director of the Office of Financial Research; 

(B) the Director of the Federal Insurance Office; 

(C) a State insurance commissioner, to be designated by a selection process determined by the State insurance commissioners; 

(D) a State banking supervisor, to be designated by a selection process determined by the State banking supervisors; and 

(E) a State securities commissioner (or an officer performing like functions), to be designated by a selection process determined by such State securities commissioners. 

So the overview of that is that a new council is formed with all of the heads of public-sector-financial-institutions and regulators to collaborate and decide what to do with our economy. It’s funneling all the power into one decision making Council. The good news is that all Council members already an employee of the Federal Government won’t receive compensation for Council work; however, four new members of the government will be receiving high paid salaries, like their new co-workers, at the expense of our tax dollars. More to the deficit!

So what does this council do exactly? I bet the bill is super specific on its duties and abilities! Wrong. 

Read More

President Bushama

I’ve been reading on a lot of posts lately the huge disdain for all of the Republican candidates (which is understandable, seeing that most of them really can’t seem to understand the idea of personal liberties) and, consequently, a huge support for Barack Obama. These bloggers, at the same time, ridicule President Bush and his policies. Again, I agree that George W. Bush was a very bad President. But what are the true differences between Obama and Bush?

Some new legislation came about, sure. Such as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the ratification of START. But the similarities truly outweigh the differences. Let’s run down a short list.

And this is just a short list of what is practically Bush’s third term. So to say you love Obama and hate Bush and Bush-esque Republicans is ignorant to facts. It’s equally as ignorant to have loved Bush and hate Obama. Look at the similarities and realize that the policies have changed little. 


DEMOCRATS.ORG- 5 horrible things we should know about Ron Paul. This is great.

When people say “Ron Paul said he opposed a low flat tax” I tell them exactly what this man just said: He was talking about a 30% flat tax when he said that. He was not making a general statement about flat taxes. In actuality, he supports a flat income tax of 0%. 

Watch this video. He discusses the corporatism of bailouts, the false allegations against a gold standard, and the debt-ceiling topic. Detailed, some areas not specific enough in its arguments though, which decreases some of its validity, but it’s generally very good.

4 Popular Myths About The Free Market


  1. “The higher the minimum wage the better!” To say that the state should decide how much you pay somebody that is doing work for you is morally wrong, and economically wrong. The minimum wage makes it illegal for somebody to work below a given amount. That creates unemployment for very obvious reasons. An artificially high wage is also shifted to the consumer, making you have to pay higher prices for a product, making the cost of living skyrocket. A minimum wage creates unemployment, makes prices rise, hurts minorities, and creates poverty. (making people have to pay more taxes for welfare programs)
  2. “It is immoral!” What is moral about theft, force, and authority over another person’s life? Capitalism is the only form of government that emphasizes property rights. This means you have the right to your life, money, and anything else that would fall under that category.  Capitalism is the only form of government that respects the rights of the people. It is the belief that you have the right to run your life, and nobody has any authority over you. Socialism on the contrary, is a government with large amounts of government power. The free market creates freedom, prosperity, happiness, and the goal of self governing. Socialism is slavery, poverty, and large amounts of power given into the hands of the state. 
  3. “The free market creates monopolies!” History has shown us that the only way a company can create a monopoly at the expense of the people, is with special hand outs by the government. Government hand outs are the opposite of a free market.  A free market is where people are in charge of prices, who goes goes out of business, and who succeeds. Corporatism is when corporations get big at the expense of the people, with the help of government hand outs. The United States is a very good example of corporatism. Obama just like almost all the others, is a corporatist. 
  4. “Doesn’t the top few percent own almost all the wealth!?” Yes, but this isn’t the fault of capitalism it is the fault of government intervention in the economy.  One of the biggest reason’s of this is inflation. When a government prints endless amounts of money to pay for a welfare/warfare state that is unsustainable, it hurts the middle class. When money is printed and given to special interests, it makes the rich more wealthy, only inflating the money of the poor. Government is the reason for the wage gap. Not capitalism.