at least listen to the numerous explanations I have made that make it clear how what I'm advocating does not resemble what Lenin, Hitler, and the European liberals advocated. 

Differences are plentiful.

The commonality is that all of these systems, even if with different goals and by different methods, seek to control the economy through regulation, expropriation, taxation and other means at their disposal.

Regardless of having different end goals or even differences as to the means, same as you ask us to consider all the nuances between these systems, you too must consider the ways they all failed upon their attempts to control the economy. You can't just dismiss them as "the conditions weren't ready".

Then you would be less able to use your famous pejorative description of "magickal," especially when your own understanding of capitalism is far more faith-based than anything culled from empirical observation.

Um?

You do know that "faith" means "belief without seeing", right?

If Marxian socialism has never been tried, how is that not faith?

Sorry, Balduria, but that the rampant amount of poverty, homelessness, crushing debt, 

Baldur and I have already talked about poverty and homelessness. I'll talk about debt now.

Debt is cultural. The amount of debt people take varies most of all by culture. This is why Americans take more debt than Europeans, and Europeans in turn take more debt than East Asians. At all levels of income.

I'll also point out that loans specialized on the poor were pioneered in Bangladesh, a Muslim country, and first copied in other Muslim countries. Because Islamic finance has a centuries old tradition of forbidding usury. Again, debt follows culture.

the constant crime borne out of desperation, 

Again, no. Just stop. You embarrass yourself. A dozen of very large and very poor countries in Asia from Pakistan to Indonesia are safer than the middle income countries of Eastern Europe and Latin America, and even than the rich United States. The correlation between wealth and crime exists if all you look at is Scandinavia, Japan and South Korea on one hand and Haiti and central Africa on the other, and ignore almost the rest of the world.

Nor can you show me any example of "free market"--i.e., fully unregulated--capitalism that is actually creating a prosperous system for everyone rather than just the owning few.

Hong Kong, Singapore, Monaco, Liechtenstein... not unregulated, but pretty close. I'd say close enough to show the tendency.

Unlike socialism, the free market doesn't need to be global to work.







Cuteness is to die for
Cuteness cannot fail
Cuteness knows no limit
Cuteness will prevail