You have some good points, but you seem to have a large blind spot. Corruption is not always in service of wealth. In Washington, in particular, power is far more important. I could make a long list of politicians who obviously value power over money, if you go by what they could be doing in the private sector.

Minimum wage laws are an interesting example, raised high by liberals to show how wonderful our government is, and how awful life would be if they didn't force goodness upon us.

In fact, such laws are primarily intended to buy votes, and service the unions, whose wages are driven by them.

A grand total of less than three percent of all hourly workers in America work for minimum wage. Even less if you include salaried workers. Half of that three percent are under 25, and a quarter are teenagers. The image of hordes of people trying to support a family of four on minimum wages is largely mythical, but good for winning elections.

If market forces were worthless, and employers as evil as everyone makes them out to be, you'd think EVERYONE would be working for minimum wage, wouldn't you? After all, the government can't force you to pay any more than that, can they?

Such economic monkeywrenches are politically useful, especially in the modern age where economics is a lost art. As with many similar types of legislation, the politician can strut about like a hero, having taken credit for giving the voters something that cost him not a cent of money or a bit of work.

David has already shown in his post how the government deals with energy problems.

In a mixed economy, where the government has tight control over how business is done, a less-than-ideal relationship between certain businesses and government is inevitable. The inside boys play the game, and the outside guys get the shaft. Under a mixed economy, corruption pays.

As P.J. O'Rourke once said, when buying and selling are controlled by the legislature, the first thing to be bought and sold will be legislators.