I think that could work. Lower taxes is good for everyone, and no minimum wages means companies will be willing to hire more people so say goodbye to unemployment (and the need for welfare). I wish countries had the balls to do this sort of thing, or at least find a middle ground between the current system and pure capitalism. 

It Just grinds my gears knowing that while productive individuals like us are working are draining white collar jobs there are leeches getting their school lunches subsidized by the goverment!

Er, yes... the New Deal did fail... it created a second dropoff in fact, because economic "boosts" created by government intervention always stop after the money stops.

It's like increasing the buisness of your car dealership by using the company's money to buy cars.

Had the New Deal not existed... we probably would of gotten out of the situation quicker.

Unemployment remained stubbornly high, and exceptionally high was unemployment when you don't count the government.  The government ended up crowding out private employment and basically just delayed the recovery.

People often consider Hoover as proof of the New Deal working... when Hoover in his term expanded the federal government more then any other president... before FDR.

It was actually his defense as he left office.

Even Kensyian's don't argue the new deal worked.  They argue that the New Deal would of worked but wasn't big enough and didn't prolong the depression, that's just how long it was going to be anyway.

Which is what they're argueing about the US stimulus now as well.  (How big does it have to be?)

Er, yes... the New Deal did fail... it created a second dropoff in fact, because economic "boosts" created by government intervention always stop after the money stops.

>>It'd be more fair if you argue specific programs or acts did or didn't work.<<

Had the New Deal not existed... we probably would of gotten out of the situation quicker.

>>That's just history revisionism. You're comparing scenario that did happen with hypothetical one. It's very comfort position to be in - it's easy to attack scenario that did happen, and it's almost immposible to argue a hypothetical one. You've put me in tough position - I have nothing to argue.<<

Unemployment remained stubbornly high, and exceptionally high was unemployment when you don't count the government. The government ended up crowding out private employment and basically just delayed the recovery.

>>Did this unemployment rate includes employment in WPA? CCC? Nope, as you've mentioned. Did the situation required and immediate response to unemployment? Yes. Was that achieved somehow? Yes. What could have happend if "labour camps" didn't exist? Again, a hypothetical situation, but it's easy to assume that social disturbances of bigger scale than it actually was might have happened with unpredictable results before hypothetical (in such case) recovery would occur.<<

Even Kensyian's don't argue the new deal worked. They argue that the New Deal would of worked but wasn't big enough and didn't prolong the depression, that's just how long it was going to be anyway.

>>Speaking about critics of New Deal. He did recieve his fair share of criticism during his presidency and especially afterwards up until now thanks to revisionists (somewhat hot topic nowadays for obvious reasons). The important part though that private sector, which suffered the most during New Deal, expert and bureaucracy society surrounding it did get their satisfaction through Supreme Court AFTER the recovery. They simply lobbied their interests with justified or not justified criticism of whaterver kind (leftists, rightist, kensyian, monetaristic etc.), and this was right thing to do at existed circumstances.

Again what we're discussing here? A "pure" capitalism? Mind I remind you that we're discussing a person who passed away long time ago alongside with the last adepts of Adam Smith and social darwinists. It seems people like car analogies here, so I give you one. Imagine you're driving a car, which engine fails every few miles or so, so you "intervent" by fixing it. Then you drive yet another few miles until your fix results in yet another f**k up of the engine. If engine could have worked properly without any fixes from the very beginning, we could have discussed a "pure" capitalism, but it didn't, so we fix engine every few miles until it fails to condition beyond repair.<<

1.  Government has to provide or regulate public goods, as they led to market failures when provided by the free market (if they can be provided at all).

PLEASE READ (short definitions):

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?term=marketfailure#marketfailure

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=P#publicgoods

2.  As above, government has to regulate public goods due to market inefficiencies.  America, like many other countries, use to not have worker rights, but it produces a very volatile political and economic climate in democracies.  With laws protecting workers from needless harm and exploitation, unions are no longer needed and are going to the wayside.  Nothing would make unions more relevant than eliminationg worker rights.

3.  Amusing, a pro capitalist rant ends with the most qualified people being paid too much.  Professionals get paid high wages because thats what the market deems their price to be.  There is no engineer, lawyer, or doctors union making improving working conditions (though a doctors union to bring weekly working hours below 80 would be great), they get paid what they are worth.

Actually unemployment did cover the WPA and CCC.  It was worse if you took them out of the equation however.

What we're discussing here, is the fact that the New Deal failed... and the vast majority of economists will tell you the new deal failed, with the only lasting arguement generally being "Did the New deal prolong the great depression."

I don't care so much about the rest of the arguement, outside the fact that the new deal did in fact fail.

The arguement tends to be, "Did the new deal fail because of government intervention or because Roosevelt cared about deficits.'

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Critical_interpretations_of_New_Deal_economic_policies

Americanism is to Capitalism as Communism is to Socialism. That is, the system that is in the US today, or the "ideal" one will NOT produce the best fo cheapest. Why? Because companies spend millions on how to lie to the population, and it is very often the case that the best and cheapest is NOT the one that makes money. In other words, the system you propose is extremely broken and doesn't work. The same problem Socialism has, human nature, is also the very same one that Capitalism has. Then you end up with Communism and Americanism which are pretty broken.

Furthermore, the sole reason why the US did not meet an end like the Soviet Union is pretty clear. When the US foudn itself in the shitter, it just runs up the credit card bill. Did you know that between Ford and Obama, Republicans are the only ones that increased the national debt while Democrats reduced it? One of the biggest offenders being Reagan. He increased the debt tremedously, which is funny because I'm sure that is what had the nice effect of removing stagflation, none of his other bullshit. If you trey to point to the US' success as proof of how Capitalism works, I hate to break it to you, but if you give more than $13 trillion to any nation, they too would be very much at the top.

Lame argument, actually not an argument at all.

Supposedely you're citing some authorities to give weight to what you imply is commonly accepted opinion (which if anything is obviously the opposite, though I'm not saying that commonly accepted views are automatically true), but didn't tell whom do you actually mean by "vast majority" nor you gave me any quotes. If you're too lazy to bother with this discussion (seriously, I can understand that, I'm starting not to care too), just tell honestly that you just don't care =)

UPD: Ok, you gave me a link, but this's still lame. I could have done that myslef (though hold no respect to Wikipeadia as serious source of information) and in fact I did read that article previously.

http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2008/04/11/did-the-new-deal-work?PageNr=1

"In 1995, economist Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University published a survey of academic economists that asked them if they agreed with the statement, "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Fifty-one percent disagreed, and 49 percent agreed."

51% think the New deal didn't lengthen the great depression, while 49% thing it did increase the great depression. 

That's not even considering the question of "did it help at all." or "Did it shorten it at all." 

How much do they teach about the New Deal in Russia anyway?

I really don't care to bring up 50 pages worth of academic economic articles to bring up the points, but I'd simply just say... if you really care, look it up.

Economists are a lot more negative about it then the general public who is taught in history class that the great deal saved us from the gerat depression.

And also that people wouldn't give Christopher Columbus money because they thought he was going to fall off the edge of the world.  (Actually it was because they thought the world was larger then he thought it was... which it was... but hey his mistake let him find a whole new continent.)

Extreme/Pure Capitalism in a nut shell is extreme individualism and selfish interests of greedy, self centred rich people wanting more and more. The rich people crying poor and asking: "What About Me?" 

What about me, it isn't fair
I've had enough now i want my share
Can't you see i wanna live
But you just take more than you give

Naomi Cline wrote a thorough detailed account on Extreme Capitalism: "The Shock Doctrine"examines neo-liberal principles, theory and context behind Extreme Capitalism.