I like to think of "honesty" as the determination to see reality as it actually is and not pretend that what is isn't or that what isn't is.  How can we deal effectively with reality if we are unaware of precisely what it is with which we must deal?  It's a problem. 

   

               The concept of "capitalism" ably illustrates the dilemma. It is no wonder that debates over the benefits and costs of the thing rarely produce any resolution or change any minds. 

​

               To debate the merits of "capitalism" is to wrangle over the viability of something that does not exist.  What so many of us all too casually call "capitalism," is a concoction of two entirely separate arrangements.  It conjoins

 

(1) a laissez faire, free market economic engine busy inventing, innovating, and introducing life-saving, labor saving goods and services to improve the quality of our lives, and

 

(2) a political economy driven by cronyism and corruption on all levels of government, at once.  Both arrangements have massively contributed to prevailing economic conditions.

             

               Distinguishing between these very different endeavors will allow us to determine  which promotes and which impedes steady progress and improvement  For each of these conceptual models do actually exist and, for better or worse, create the conditions in which we all prosper or perish.  What does the empirical record reveal?  In a nutshell:

​

             The periodic Panics and devastating economic plunges caused not by free market activity, but by CORPORATE welfare policies (protective tariffs, internal improvements, national banks, transcontinental railroads, farm and business subsidies, etc., frequently fueled by monetary expansions) created the "need," the demand, and the excuse for SOCIAL welfare reform from the Progressive Era to the New Deal and beyond.