Interesting Libertarian perspective again
You keep saying that, are you trying to be subtle and say you don't believe I'm a libertarian?
"fair" is determined by the market - the aggregate decision of every member of the involved industry, from producer to consumer.
And Friedman, Hayke, and Smith all agree that no employer should willing offer a wage that can not sustain a man nor should any worker willing take said wage. This is where morality comes into play.
why aren't they spending? Because of the mixed signals they get from the current regime
You are too focused on one aspect instead of the entire picture. Its not mixed singles from the white house, its mixed singles caused by conflict between the white house and most dems and most republicans and some (a very small minority now) democrats. Its the uncertainty that CongressCare will be upheld in court, the uncertainty of the European Debt Crisis, on going unrest in the middle east, disruptions in supply chains, etc.
To entirely blame 1 person for the woes of the WORLD is disingenuous, just like attributing the success of the world on 1 person is laughable.
I maybe mistaken but it seemed the author of this thread was surprised with this information. I do not know why people still side with Capitalism after reading story after story of people getting screwed over by the people with more money.
The problem is not Capitalism as it was "designed" but with how its been misconstrued by those with power. I'm of the belief that the system in which we live is naturally caused by capitalism meld with large pockets of power. However, capitalism is, by its vary nature, incompatible with large pockets of power and thus we haven't had a capitalistic society since at least the mid to late 1800s.
winners and those who plan on being winners like capitalism. Those who are losers or have no desire to win are those who support socialism. That or those who pander to people such as you.
You are wrong. The problem is that socialism, in its pure Marxist form, is a direct result of the failure, an inevitability I may add given human nature, of Capitalism
to remain pure. Re-read the statement so your head doesn't explode.
Power will use any system that is popular in order to further its own cause. During the mid to late 1800s, Capitalism was abused to create monopolies, sometimes with the backing or head-nod of the state (Railroads), other times caused by the failures of intellect of the competition (Western Union for instance), and sometimes out of pure necessity (privately operated and controlled Utilities, harbors, etc). Capitalism, while also fostering an unprecedented growth, innovation, and increase of the standard of living, the disparities between the "haves and have nots" was show in even more stark contrast. Our western sensibilities could not handle the contrast, and our inability to wait lead to the rise of socialism during this time, mainly in Germany. Those with power clung to socialism because it gave them greater control of affairs with justification. It wasn't until the end of WWII that the pendulum swung back to capitalism, albeit in a weaker form because those with power would not relinquish their gains (pre 1850ish). The Cold War solidified the public's aversion to socialism (and rightfully so) and lead to socialism's evolution to Welfareism. Welfarism has been used by the powerful to finally cast aside most of the chains of morality, this true. Had it been for crisis of the 70s and 80s, probably would have succeeded in using welfare to justify all sorts of private evils. The programs aim's weren't the cause of this, but the programs did tend to foster apathy and disengagement.
But what should be clear to any observer of history, is that power, while being amoral (good nor evil), is readily used by the selfish to no longer need to be moral. Capitalism demands morality, with it Capitalism cannot exist, and won't be allowed to exist.