Support for a free-market economy is high, and increasing:
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of U.S. voters say that they prefer a free market economy over a government-managed economy. That’s up seven points since December.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey also found that just 11% now prefer a government-run economy, down from 15% four months ago.
Funny what a few months of seeing a government attempt to run an economy can do. The other encouraging news is that the support is even stronger (though probably within the margin of error) among voters under thirty. “Capitalism” gets less support, but it’s good to see that people make a distinction. The other interesting result is the number of people who recognize that big business tends to capture the regulators, while free markets are better for small business:
Seventy percent (70%) of voters believe that big business and big government are generally on the same team working against the interests of consumers and investors.
A plurality of voters (46%) say that small businesses benefit more from free markets than big business. Thirty-five percent (35%) hold the opposite view. Most Democrats think big businesses benefit more from free markets, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters say small businesses are more likely to benefit.
By a 62% to 23% margin, voters also believe that small businesses are hurt more by regulations than big business. This finding is likely driven by public understanding of the way Congress works. Earlier surveys found that 68% say most business leaders contribute to political campaigns primarily because the government can do so much to help or hurt their business.
Which just shows, once again, the result of government, and particularly the federal government, having too much power. And, as would be expected, Republicans and Independents are more sensible on this than Democrats, who (conveniently) fantasize that small business does better under more regulation. Mark Steyn has some related thoughts:
There was an old joke in Britain: “Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?” In fact, it’s a profound observation about the nature of government. We wouldn’t like it if there were only one automobile company or only one breakfast cereal, but by definition there can only be one federal government – which is why, “when the Government’s monopolizing”, it should do so only in very limited areas.
This isn’t an abstract philosophical point, but a very practical one. Fans of big government take it for granted that Barack Obama, Timothy Geithner, Barney Frank and a couple of other guys can “run” the financial sector better than 8,000 US banks all jostling for elbow room like bacteria in a petri dish. Same with the auto industry, and the insurance industry, and the property market, and health care, and “the global environment”. The skill-set required to run a billion-dollar company is the province of very few individuals. The skill-set required to run a multi-trillion-dollar government is unknown to human history.
And speaking of not understanding how economies work, Instapundit has an observation on the president:
…when Obama says “We’re not producing enough primary care physicians,” he’s making a mistake. We don’t produce doctors. They’re not widgets. People choose to become doctors — or something else — based on their analysis of what will produce the best life. Medicine has gotten less pleasant, and less financially rewarding, really, over the past several decades as it’s become more bureaucratized and subject to the whims of third-party payors. So will Obama’s plan fix that? Seems doubtful. Will he recognize that you don’t produce doctors the way you produce, say, cars? That’s doubtful, too.
Of course, as James Joyner points out, we don’t exactly have a free market in the medical profession, either.
[Update a few minutes later]
You already knew this, but Eleanor Clift and Jim Warren are economic morons. Not to mention Obama sycophants. It’s a perfect illustration of Rasmussen’s gap between the voters and the Washington elite.
This means very little, because the same 77% will vote for the government health care. People lived under the present government for so long that they have no idea what freedom is.
There was a previous poll from the same organization that showed that only 53% of Americans preferred “capitalism”. This is a very different result than this poll. I believe the difference can be explained by noting that “capitalism” and “free-market” does not necessarily mean the same thing to most people.
I believe most people are actually referring to corporate socialism when they say “capitalism”, whereas they are referring to the guy starting a company in his own own or the small company down the street when they say “free market”. In other words, most people do not consider “capitalism” and “free market” to be the same thing.
Health care is a tricky issue. Although I despise any kind of national health care, I do admit that costs for medical treatment have gone completely crazy and that a “ER run” can easily cost you $10,000 or more. Given this, it is certainly understandable that people would want the government to cover this cost, even though it is the wrong headed way to go.
I am self-employed. I have a high-deductible health insurance policy that cost me and my wife around $400/month. I believe that many state mandates have increased this cost, by restricting my ability to “cherry-pick” a policy suited for my neads (like mental health insurance coverage and the like).
I strongly believe that the health insurance coverage that employees get should be taxed like regular income. I also believe that employees should be required to pay the same social security tax that self-employed people pay. That employees get these benefits that the self-employed do not is criminal.
The more I encounter that little gem of wisdom from the good professor, the more pissed off I get about it. Like hell we don’t produce doctors – “we” meaning “society as a political economic entity”. He’s only saying otherwise because he’s in the business of producing *lawyers*, of which we clearly have an unwarranted surfeit.
There is a serious economic distortion which is the result of a politically motivated series of mal-aligned & reinforcing incentives, the product – that word again! – of a self-interested segment of society, namely, lawyers. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” How better to describe modern American-style government, but a series of contrivances for the production of lawyerly conspiracies against the interests of the whole?
The only goo argument in favor of a literal landed aristocracy is its propensity for the occasional, vigorous suppression of the conspiracies and pretensions of the lawyerly class.