Very interesting article. I agree with the sentiment that the media, with it's need to evoke fear, often clouds the real situation, but some of the arguments you have used fall a little short of need for a free market. Your comment,

'That was in 1975, but the drive for corporate profits has subsequently given us the personal computer, better cars, the Internet, microwave ovens, flat screen TVs and much more. Not bad for a system that is failing, you could be forgiven to think.'

was most difficult to swollow, as well as your throw away line about poverty and people starving. Unfortunately we do live in a world where people are starving if you like it or not. And many of the copporate profits giving us such wonderful toys,... I have to question who the 'US' is. Definately not most of the world, just the select few who benefit from capitalism. what about the rest of the world? Only a third of the world has seen a telephone.

Till

I agree somewhat with what you said, but have you through about the fact that these country ie Russia and China had been under a failed socialist regime and is only now coming out to embrace capitalism.

A lot of African/Middle east are poor, but can you blame this on capitalism? Most of the causes of these had been lack of a system to create wealth, lack of resources, or lack of government ensuring some equity in sharing the wealth

Wise words. I wonder if it is entirely coincidental that the rise of global warming hysteria coincided with the declining after-effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the financial crisis with the steady accumulation of evidence that global warming is bunk? Perhaps one day governments will trust their citizens to make rational judgements on their own, without relying on the effects of fear and greed -- but I can't see it happening in my lifetime.

I believe you are confusing quantity of government with quality of government.
Liberals support large government too in reality...they just want resources thrown at profitable business instead of unprofitable education, roads, poverty, etc. They *say* they want small government, and pretend they do, but history seems to show they "tax and spend" just as much, just on different things.
The fact that all bank profits for the last 10 years were in effect illusionary after the taxpayer bailouts seems to indicate that the "profits" were in fact just Ponzi-like schemes. Parasitical industries supported through mateship.
Every major industrial country needs government to invest. What they invest in is the issue. Australia has shifted its traditional government investments from social infrustructure to supporting selected (well connected) industries.
The hypocricy of the supposed "free market" exponents in that they don't want a government hospital, but don't mind millionaires being made by private companies that rely on taxpayer funding to be viable.
Take the money and run is the Liberal way!

The political scientist, Louis Wasserman, asks that ask ourselves; "In whose interest does Government government? ... The People, corporations or the unions". I would hope the former, but, perhaps, this is not the case. I think we are in a phase of Corporate Socialism going back decades, and that particilar capitalism does not seem likely to change soon. Were it to waver, all that would happen those whom would be protected would trend progressively more and more towards the top of the wealth triangle.

Ozandy, exactly and point well made !