DT: Capitialism Is Under Attack


Janet Daley argues that Cameron is doing proposing right thing compared with ZNL's socialist nationalisations.

He (Cameron) is stating unequivocally that the idea that a state takeover of institutions is the only alternative to failures of judgment and incompetence in private finance is both wrong and dangerous.
Now I'm getting very confused. Nationalisation is viewed as being socialist, however privatisation of assets and nationalisation of debt in support of the "market" is also very "Chicago School" capitalist.

So is it Broon that is the uber-capitialist in this situation not Cameron? And if so, does the press even understand what's going on?
The very crux of what is going wrong and will continue too, untill it is seen that both the capitalist, and socialist models are flawed if applied completely, IMHO finding the middle ground is both safer for the taxpayer but still leaves the best of capitalism too encourage growth.

For me that means strategic assets power water transport communication are kept like defence within the realm of national assets therefore controled and regulated by the state, not a perfect system and one that also can allow to degrees some free market entry, i.e. Build a privatly funded motorway or bridge and allow road tolling, however this asset must be UK owned. not perfect however workable.
I'd hope we'd take this as a big hint to review our assumptions about what constitutes 'development'. After all, by many of the classic definitions, the western world has been de-developing for some time now as our industrial bases crumble.

Perhaps 'development = economic growth' is overdue to be replaced, having served since Smith’s time? It was this view after all which was the foundation on which 'finance ≠ worth of actual stuff’ was built. I personally believe we'd all be a lot better off if so much power wasn't left in the hands of people whose primary professional skill is, when all's said and done, being able to count in 'creative' ways.