One and the same
The free markets have reached their limit. If we examine them more thoroughly they appear to have two faults. The first is the global environment. Without government intervention the markets would pollute the environment beyond repair, and people would backlash against it. Just look at the super-fast economies of emerging markets like China and India, and the Western backlash towards them.
Second is that the markets only takes care of the select few and the rest are left to flounder in poverty. Inequality leads people to street politics, and in recent years we've seen more of this after the banking crisis of 2008. Governments tell the rich that they must pay more taxes, but they never seem to do that.
Wrestling back control
As global governments look to wrestle back control from large corporations, the democracies they were founded on tend to erode. The democracy of the free markets is now reduced - in this case hobbling them economically.
This leads to an almost Communist system of vast corruption that Eastern European countries have only left only 20 years ago.
Crony capitalists or Communists? The choice is poor. It seems we are not capable of solving these environmental or inequality issues anytime soon.
So which is the lesser of the two evils? I believe it's the free markets that creates the value, but they also require the creation of public sector goods like built bridges and furnished schools etc. The government is a requirement for all of these things.
So, how would you solve this crisis of environment and inequality? Does a decentralized economy also have drawbacks?
Look at the current feuds over Bitcoin. Comment below folks.
