@EmperorNero,
I invite you to refute my explanation of the present crisis, in which I placed blame on government intervention. What you don't realize is that greed is a fact of human nature. No revolution will ever change that. To begin your counter-proposal to free market capitalism with the suggestion that we should abolish greed makes that proposal hopelessly unrealistic. The question is not whether or not we can create a system that will eliminate greed, but what system works best in an atmosphere of greed. That system is capitalism, in which greed is actually helpful and productive. People tend not to do things, and so things tend not to get done (inventions, improvements, etc.) when they have nothing to gain personally.
You are blaming capitalism for the corruption of capitalism. I understand your argument that in a capitalist system, wealth tends to accumulate in a few hands, but power does not have to follow. Only the corruption of the free market and of the American constitution could enable political power be concentrated in the hands of financial oligarchs. Only via government intervention can such corruption occur. J.P. Morgan could not have gained political power by using his vast wealth to build an army and force people to use only his companies. He could however take advantage of a popular desire to 'regulate' the banking sector and ensure that it was 'regulated' to his advantage and to the disadvantage of his competitors. This is exactly what has happened. Government intervention in the market is always needed for a company or a bank to form a monopoly and pervert the market to its own advantages. If the government is granted the power to intervene in the market, it will intervene on behalf of whoever pays it the most. In other words, capitalism does not cause disaster and corruption; government interference with capitalism does.
Fascism isn't limited to what happened in Italy and Germany. Fascism basically means the rule of an authoritarian government on behalf of business (certain businesses): the merger of government and business. In practice we have a democracy dominated by two parties both owned lock, stock and barrel by the same special interests. The government puts into place socialist policies that they say are in the interest of the people, when in fact they are serving their private masters. What you don't realize is that the free market isn't pro-business; no specific companies are given any advantage. A monopolistic system, with government granted advantage over competition, is good for certain businesses. Why is it that the congressman and president's most opposed to corruption and greed in the free market, and who regulate the most, are also the ones who receive the most contributions from the very companies they regulate, and who fill their staff with their lobbyists? Socialism is always a vehicle for the ambitions of whichever company or cartel of companies is in control of the government. Yes, the government is always corruptible, but if we don't grant government any powers of intervention, the would-be-corrupters have no favors to buy.
