Rick Lowe (http://www.weblogbahamas.com)

I would like to thank someone called "Avid Reader" for attempting to critique my support of Capitalism. Unfortunately he or she only confirms what The Nassau Institute has been saying for the past 15 years. We need more free market and capitalism not more government and socialism.

First, Avid Reader asks if I have read The Shock Doctrine. Having read most of Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, it is clear to me that she was simply out to make a quick buck (could she be greedy?) by instilling fear in people that might not be familiar with economic principles.

Specifically, Klein uses an awful lot of ink trying to convince us that crisis benefit free markets and limited government. For as long as I can remember crisis has given the world more government involvement in the economy. The exact opposite of what Ms. Klein attempts to sell us. The most recent examples, 9/11 and the present economic crisis serve my argument well.

As Johan Norberg pointed out in a review of The Shock Doctrine, "In the absence of serious arguments against free markets, we are left with Klein's reasonable critiques of torture, dictatorships, corruption, and corporate welfare. In essence, her book says that Milton Friedman's limited government ideals are bad because governments are incompetent, corrupt and cruel." So one must ask, why should we want more government as opposed to a more free market?

Second, with regard to the point "politicians no longer address real issues," Avid Reader will get no argument from these quarters. He or she confirms another reason why we need more of a free market and not more government.

The Nassau Institute has provided volumes of enlightened food for thought on public policy and its unintended consequences. Please see www.nassauinstitute.org.

Third, Avid Reader asserts that Unemployment Insurance terrifies me. Not really.

What does concern me greatly though is another government Ponzi Scheme like the country's National Insurance scheme. A programme where the present generation leaves debt for future generations to pay because we lived off of their future prospects for an enjoyable life. The National Insurance scheme is going bankrupt because, not unlike Bernard Madoff, it pays current retirees from the payments of present day workers. As the work force shrinks and benefits increase, new entrants into the scheme are left with little or nothing or ever increasing taxes to sustain it. The same thing will happen with the unemployment scheme now in place.

Surely Avid Reader is not advocating we should not be concerned about what we leave future generations?

Fourth, the letter writer suggests that Capitalism and free markets are bad, but Socialism as in Cuba is worse because as he or she admits, they could not live there. Avid Reader then recommends the democratic socialism found in Scandinavian countries as a solution.

But let's look at the so called Nordic Model for a moment or two.

It is important for us to decide if economic growth is important to our nation. As Dr. Dan Mitchell pointed out in a Cato Institute Policy Analysis, the claim that the Nordic Model of big government and good economic growth as being the best of both worlds, "does not stand up to scrutiny".

As Dr. Mitchell's analysis tells us, the bigger burden of government "hurts Nordic competitiveness", however, the Nordic Model countries manage to have "open markets" with "low levels of regulation, strong property rights, stable currencies, and many other policies associated with growth and prosperity".

Interestingly, every Nordic nation is moving toward free market policies like low corporate tax rates and flat taxes. Countries like Iceland and Sweden have already "partially privatized their social security retirement systems".

So even the Nordic countries that pursue so called democratic socialism are moving toward more capitalist or free market reforms.

Fifth, Avid Reader suggests that the "world economy is in considerable difficulty at present as a result of unfettered and largely unregulated capitalism which feeds off human greed and selfishness".

To paraphrase Dr. Milton Friedman, is/was there no greed in Communist, Socialist or Fascist systems? Does Capitalism cause greed, or is greed a normal human attribute?

Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that there was a huge failure of those government entities that supposedly monitor the very highly regulated banking industry, not to mention the responsibility the Central Banks of the US and the world bear for their excessive monetary policies to feed the voracious state.  

Capitalism is by no means perfect, it's just the best economic system available, but before we jump off all bleary-eyed into the mist of Socialism, one of the "most ambitious creations of the human spirit, …" (Ludwig von Mises), shouldn't we at least offer enlightened critiques of Capitalism?