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.

Did the former vice president lie to Congress? Wouldn’t shock me. Unfortunately, as noted, he wasn’t under oath.

Is that what TARP is? Looks like it to me. Of course, government can do lots of things that you and I would go to jail for (including the way they keep their books). But this looks even worse, and an actual violation of the law.

It’s easy to guess that Barofsky is looking into the possibility that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson coerced the CEOs of the nine largest banks to accept capital investments from TARP, even though several of them didn’t want the government as a stakeholder. Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich, for example, says that he was “forced to take the TARP money.” Philip Swagel, who served at the time as assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury, admits that “there is no authority in the United States to force a private institution to accept government capital. This is a hard legal constraint.”

Is that the “public corruption” Barofsky is talking about?

But then again, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the statute that authorizes TARP, doesn’t give the Treasury the power to make direct investments in banks at all. It gives the Treasury the power to buy troubled assets and to write insurance against losses in troubled assets. But there’s not one single solitary word in the act that authorizes the Treasury to buy stock in banks.

And there’s not one single solitary word in the act that authorizes the Treasury to do anything at all for auto companies like General Motors and Chrysler. The act only authorizes helping “financial institutions.” Yet billions of TARP dollars have gone to the two automakers.

I think these people have simply gone mad with power. Acton had it right.

Appropriately frightened CEOs are hampering the recovery:

The yield curve predicts growth. Check. Consumer sentiment is ticking up. Check. But CEO confidence is lousy, and CEOs are (not) spending accordingly. Whoops. This begs the question: Why are CEOs in such a low mood?

Answer: If you are a CEO in financial services, manufacturing, energy production and health care, you are going to be more regulated. Period, end of story. Your response to forthcoming regulation of yet-to-be-determined complexity will be to hunker down. Keep your name out of the news, improve the balance sheet and hold tight.

This is why the U.S. economy, which wants to turn the corner, is still stuck in the intersection as it decides which way to go.

In her book The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes (now a Forbes columnist) wrote that the 1937-38 “depression within a depression” occurred when “capital went on strike.” President Roosevelt’s willingness to “try anything”–including retroactive taxation, laws against discount pricing and an attempted Supreme Court packing–had businesses and their backers so confused about Roosevelt’s rules that they simply withdrew.

This is the risk of Obama’s willingness to “do what it takes.” The words sound positive and action-oriented. But in practice, “do what it takes” really means “anything can happen.” Tearing up of legal contracts … that can happen. Limits to salary and travel … that can happen. Bullying by the Environmental Protection Agency … that can happen. Nationalization of General Motors and Citigroup … that can happen. Nobody knows for sure. Government is sorting it out, day by day.

I’d be happy to triple Congressional salaries, if they wouldn’t come in to “work.”