Ozandy
"Will the extreme capitalist acknowledge the massive public bailouts ..."

I don't know why you're identifying massive public bailouts with capitalism. Do you identify government ownership of companies with capitalism too? Government taking money from the population, and giving it to political favourites is not "capitalism", which refers to the private ownership and control of the means of production. If you are going to use the term capitalism to refer to *government* interventions based on a *socialist* idea that government
a) can, and
b) should
manage the economy, then what term are you using to refer to socialism, and what term are you using to refer to actual capitalism, you know, the one based on private property, not political decision-making?

"and the need for infrastructure and rules?"

What is the difference between infrastructure and other capital goods?

Just because there is a need for infrastucture does not mean that government should provide it, nor even that it does so passably well: https://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

Similarly with rules. Governments themselves are in a state of anarchy. Who are they to talk?

Ultimately, there are only two possibliities. You will decide what to do with your labour and your property, or someone else will force you to do what you don't want. To talk of "balance" between these is j like saying there should be a "balance" between making love and rape, judiciously using a bit of each as social need requires. It's nonsense, like calling government's socialist interventions 'capitalism'.

"Bust will continue so long as the price of money is manipulated for political reasons. (Why are interest rates set by committee?) Don't these folks *believe* in the free market? (Hint: The RBA is like a bit legal insider trading service...able to profit from any market!)"

Totally agree with you on that one.

Peter, I believe we are closer to agreement than most with regards to the limitations of government, however I don't share your faith in the ability of private enterprise to provide services that fall under the "natural monopoly" category.
I like your analogy...but unlike sex I believe a little collective decisions making can occur in economics! Sometimes what's best for us isn't what we want...(Should tobacco be marketed at kids?)
As well as being able to raise funds cheaper than smaller entities, government projects (in theory) have more transparency and can more effectively do "one off" large projects. As more and more privatisation and out-sourcing experiences show, private enterprise requires competition, which requires duplication of all business functions plus the addition of marketing which is a major cost center. Private entities also require secrecy and tend to stretch accounting rules as far as they go. There is also the element of the cost of profits...which public projects can minimise but private companies do not.
The major problem in government is that like really big businesses, there is way too much management...about 8 coxswains to every rower! There is a plague of "senior" staff who cannot work hands-on, refuse to lead or manage yet still have "roles". There is also the consultant factor where senior staff do not know how to perform a function, so they hire in folks who profit from bum-hours on seats...these folks are very, very good at making projects go forever.
I subscribe to "Money Morning", who's author believes there is *no place* for taxation and government of any form...this is fine in theory but in practice I've seen too many countries, big and small where only some sort of collective community action will get necessary jobs done. Only when there is fat obtained from collective action can the profit motivated entities start working. Our plague of welfare and useless adult daycare roles is more of the issue than the system itself.
Personally I'd like to try city-states run by democratic corporations...this one dimensional "commie-fascist" dimension is a little too restrictive for the real world.

excellent article & almost all of the comments.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12424#214867

Squeers, really, communism is more dead than capitalism ever was & the problems with all capitalist nations are the closet communists in them together with the white ant jobs they have been doing while desperately trying to destroy their own lifeline.

The RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance is a walking corpse, a b grade movie zombie that is so brain dead, it does not even know it is dead yet.

the simplification idea is on the money, we need to simplify our system of government, society/culture, return to the family unit.

Those conservatives of a libertarian bent, so down on collectives.

Can i ask you this question, is a family not a collective? especially if you are talking about extended family groups or clans? Yet these provide the most effective, efficient small businesses?

Peter Hume, if i am remembering my Austrian eCONomics correctly they advocate tax/welfare/societal structures that promote the family first, above all else, as this provides the foundations for farms, small businesses to start, stabilise &/or grow into medium businesses.

Between 1945 & 1965 did we not have an economy which had more small & medium business? less big business? Did not our leaders at the time speak derisively about big business, un fettered capitalism?

Perhaps repealing almost all laws federal, state & local passed since then might return us to those days of prosperity?