Let's get this straight.
Most economists have observed that capitalism very much becomes dependent on government during its direst needs to keep it afloat. This dependency and the government's involvement should now be accepted as an element of a developing and constantly evolving capitalism.
The recent so-called bail-outs present this as the most obvious evidence and recently initiated by President Bush. During the great depression, another defender of laissez faire, President Hoover initiated his reconstruction finance policies. President Teddy Roosevelt dealt with monopolies during his presidency.
Yet conservatives present themselves as strongly opposed to government intervention. Many of the programs that still exist, initiated under President Franklin Roosevelt, FDR, in the “thirties”are viewed by conservative as socialistic, anti-capitalistic and to be done away with.
On the other hand, the Social Security program may in the future be considered as one of the important contributers to stabilizing our present economy. While Medicare and unemployment insurance may be two other important counter-depression programs.
Yet these are considered to be the very programs that must be rolled back because of their deleterious and socialistic natures.
Economic stimulation and especially the type of stimulation brought about by the second world war is not going to produce the same results in our present globalist economic situation.
Efficient and low cost shipping today makes it possible for firms to remove themselves from all the socialistic and higher labor costs. And these features seem to be greater stimuli for off-shore operations.
Cultural changes, however have also contributed to the less disastrous effect of an almost economic depression. Many middle and working class families have been headed by two primary income earners rather than one as in the great depression.
Therefore, it is possible for most better off families to remain economically afloat on one income while the other is unemployed for a sustained period of time.
With the movement toward lower labor costs in other countries, factory-type employment is likely to play a lesser role in economic recovery here in the future.
The capitalism of a generation ago is not going to remain for this nor for the next generation.
The stock market has not yet recognized this situation but when it does, it is going to take another spill unless some new stimulus-generating features are in place or in progress.
And what could these be?
What we need are employee-owned corporations that create products and services that are special, customized and personalized, unable to be duplicated elsewhere.
A secondary goal of these corporations should be an orientation toward training their member workers to the fullest of their possibilities and talents to better serve their self-owner interests.
Their products and services are less likely, if not impossible to be out-sourced as is the same situation with infrastructure upgrading, so that revenue and jobs produced here would remain here.
Not all enterprises would function in this manner of course.
But the social goal should be oriented toward developing a sufficient number of businesses that would significantly reduce unemployment and that by their very nature remain here on a rather permanent basis.
Other firms by various means would vigorously improve their selling efforts of American products abroad.