The Economy, some thoughts from the left that are still Capitalist in principle

So I understand how the right has this divine reverence for the marketplace, and how it and the corporations that reside within it, must be left to their own devices. But that's ridiculous. Taking rules and regulation out of the marketplace is like taking rules and regulation out of a football game. It only leads to chaos.
Wouldn't a better market be one that was controlled, so that it would not periodically destroy itself. Wouldn't you want rules in place to prevent or even eliminate the chance of cheating, or unfair trade practices? Like all human systems, the market needs periodic upkeep.

And there is the argument on the right the periodic crashes are a good thing, that they weed out the problems, that it is natural selection, but what is so great about a system doesn't work all the time?

What I'm saying is that humans have this great ability to make self-correcting systems. We have thermostats that regulate the temperature of your house. We have refineries that use complex chemical engineering to create fuels. And if any of these systems failed or blew up, we would trash them. So shouldn't an economic system follow the same principles?

We need sound principles in place to prevent economic catastrophe. Because would you let a refinery run itself with no oversight?

I can add more to this point. For example, what if we combined the laws of the so called free market with the laws of nature to determine how things play out. I'm sure we'd come to some interesting conclusions.

How aren't banks that are "too big to fail" any different than dinosaurs? And following this point, if we use the dinosaur idea, what happens when a major catastrophe comes along?

The dinosaurs were large and specialized to the lifestyle of which they best could profit from. So when that disaster hit, they died. However, what survived the catastrophe that took out the dinosaurs? Mammals survived. Why did mammals survive? They were smaller and more responsive to change. They also had the ability to breed quicker. Therefore, small mammals survived because, being smaller, they didn't need to eat as much, they reproduced faster and more plentifully. So if some died off, there were others to replace them. So following this logic, small competitive banks would be more responsive to change than large investment banks. And if some of these smaller banks go under, there are others to replace them, so the hit on the economy is lessened.

Working off of that same vein, a system with smaller businesses, would work across the board for increased survivability during times of economic downturn.
For example, this model is used in Germany where these businesses are known by the name "Mittelstand." These small to medium sized enterprises do a great job weathering economic instabilities because they are more responsive to change. They are smaller, so they have less sprawling supply lines and infrastructures in place. Larger supply lines and infrastructures lead to trouble when trying to change production lines or re-educate the workforce. Consider trying to turn in Galleon around as opposed a small Clipper ship. And also if one of these enterprises goes out of business, there are always others to pick up the hole left in the economy by the business's exit.

Smaller businesses have another advantage. They actually encourage competition amongst one another: leading to lower prices, better quality and more jobs. Smaller businesses also have less of a damaging effect on government, as smaller businesses have less lobbying power.

And though it is only my opinion, I see lobbying power by businesses as a problem, because the voices of the business interests outweigh the voices of the public. However, I think that it is not a problem if the administrators and workers within a business work together to actively lobby, because then it is people that are lobbying not property.

Also, since workers make up the vast majority of the people working for a business, they will most likely only lobby where both the business's interests and the worker's interests are one in the same. It is another way to check the power of business, and theoretically discourages practices unfair to workers. It also encourages consensus between workers and administrators, thus tying their success together.

Christine Lagarde is the bee's knees

Although she will most likely be viewed negatively by the world press and Wall Street due to her stark honesty, she is now a leading individual in the analysis and understanding of the world economy. She is also the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Born in 1956, Christine Lagarde is one of those rare individuals that combines brilliance with pragmatism, which is illustrated by the fact that instead of using the IMF to trumpet a fractured world economy, she instead has very clearly illustrated its problems--namely Europe. Regardless, it would seem the IMF has found the right woman for the job--even though she probably won't make any friends on Wall Street. I think she's great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde

Check and Balances on Capitalism

It seems that the America political elite needed to find a way to maintain cash-flow into their coffers, and thus the Citizens United case was viewed favorably.

Now I don't necessarily agree that the political elite (who do have close ties to the moneyed) see themselves of overlords or societal masters, but recently the interests they represent belong to a shrinking margin of the nation. So even if they are not intentionally only benefiting their wealthy elite companions, they are in fact still guilty of not listening the rest of the population.

So it seems that what is happening is the the political elite have turned away from the public for support, for ideas and no longer provide service to the people. They've given up on us. And this corresponds to increased connections between the wealthy and business class with the political class. After all, they went to the same schools and often have the same acquaintances. An aristocracy is forming, and we're not in it.

Therefore, I believe that if we have a representative democracy, where "crony" capitalism is the dominant economic structure, and the influx of money into the representative democracy is encouraging the growth of an aristocracy, not to mention that aristocracies are essentially un-American and un-democratic, then the "crony" capitalism has had a negative effect on the political system, and our "crony" capitalism must be better controlled as to not create aristocracies in governance.

Thus, I have some solutions and I consider them to be checks to the capitalist system. Because if we have checks and balances in government to stop tyranny, then the same must go for capitalism. Furthermore, these checks are not regulations, they would be laws.

First, a Corporation is not a person, but rather a business entity. And though I believe that this business entity should have property rights, (to buy and sell goods and services) seeing as it is in fact property itself, I do not believe that it has personal rights--not protected under the Constitution. Therefore, Citizens United is an abomination.

Second, the the Corporate business entities should not unduly or adversely effect markets. A Corporation must not have the ability to buy or own another Corporation. This leads to a greater domination of the free market, and by default limits freedom of consumer choice in the free market. Even Adam Smith warned of the "conspiracy against the public" and by allowing Corporations to grow we have only opened the door to allowing them to have dangerous influence and set market price.

Third, the statute that declares that a Corporation must put the interests of it's shareholders ahead of all other competing interests is nullified. This frees the board of a Corporation from putting profit over people.

Fourth, limited liability is no longer in effect. When Corporations break the law, there are not merely monetarily responsible, but the guilty parties within the Corporation are personally responsible for the decisions that they make in the name of the Corporation. In egregious cases the Corporation itself is dissolved through a Corporate death penalty, assets are sold, and victims are compensated.

So finally, only through the checking of power in the capitalist system will we have the responsibility that led to sound governance. All systems need rules. After all, if we take the referees out of a sports game, it only leads to chaos. And capitalism, or more aptly the free market system, is also a game. Without rules, it will surely crumble to disaster.