I think the crux of the matter is how one approaches "adjusting" FMC. We've fallen into the trap of trying to micromanage the economy, and to some degree I agree that it's gone too far. I don't think it's a matter of malicious intent, and in fact I'd observe that if our system of self-government has worked as well as we say it does, then it's self-evident that America has about as much government involvment in the economy as its citizens want.

Sure I think that more government involvement is appropriate than you do, but that doesn't mean I want it to be coercive. That's why when I take off speculating about improving the system, I tend to ideas like the one about a Fannie-Mae-like business capital agency. No laws required to restrict what private capitalists do, but now there's a competitive alternative. It's still government (or quasi-government like FNMA), but it in a self-protective role more like an insurance pool or mutual fund...or for that matter, our system of government that bands together lots of individually-weak people to stand up against the concentrated power of monarchs and oligarchs. Balance-of-forces, like what the Founders practiced, as an alternative to coercion.

That sort of thing's an example of what I meant about the malleability of economic systems. I'm not sure I'd even include passing prohibitive laws as really engineering an economic system so much as trying to patch up its flaws. If the system as it is seems to require so much tinkering and patching in the form of laws and regulation, then looking at the areas that need the heaviest regulation might reveal the part of the system that needs fixing most. Lots of antitrust and antimonopoly and anticompetition laws on the books, which suggests problems in the area of capital and ownership--concentration of economic power. Maybe following the time-honored practice of diffusing power through that FNMA-business capital idea would address the problem?

I think the areas of economy that you believe are most burdened by government are probably the ones most in need of it (see my opening paragraph about the presumed effectiveness of representative democracy). So I think it's smarter to address the underlying problem than to, of all things, just relax the regulation and doing the baby-bathwater thing.

I promise, Tom, that whatever economic system I ponder will be with the intention of producing results similar to free market capitalism, and if it's worth the effort, I'd hope better, as in, even more so. I come to praise FMC, not to bury it.