For that reason, “right-wing” governments funnel dollar after dollar into subsidies, tax breaks and investments in many corporations. Some argue it invigorates the market. This strategy ends up harming the economy more often than helping it.

The Bush administration is currently funneling an unspeakable amount of money into the oil industry through tax breaks and government grants, all the while knowing that oil is not going to be an economically viable energy source for very much longer. Had the market decided, there is reason to believe that there would be far better alternatives by now. It is important to understand the ideology behind these decisions. Richness is good for an economy, no matter how unequal the distribution, according to the somewhat distorted current view of capitalism, and it is the government’s job to make corporations rich.

Socialism has been wistfully gazed at as a miracle solution to capitalism’s evils, but 20th century socialism has not proven itself to be better. It is a virtual law of nature that bureaucracies become exponentially less efficient with size, and the greater the scope of the government the greater the general inefficiency. The problem of governmental inefficiency is partially solved by frequent elections, but as an entity, the government is not subject to competition, except from within. A government cannot be as effective as an independent venture whose entire existence depends on efficiency.

With the government prone to corruption and waste, and corporations answerable to no authority higher than the dollar, what is the recourse for the common man? The answer lies in a carefully concocted mixture of the two. Starting with the idea that governments can never be as efficient as private entities, it seems natural to leave all areas of production where efficiency is paramount to non-governmental organizations. But there are many problems which the market has shown itself to be unable to self-correct. Most of these have to do with long-term, gradual effects which can only be responded to in hindsight. Environmental problems are a prime example of this. The government should vigorously regulate industry, offering the highest standards of scrutiny.

I’m proposing a government scientifically engineered to respond only to matters that capitalism has proven itself unable to deal with. A government with more power is almost certain to misuse it, and the effects have the potential to be detrimental to the economy as a whole. For example, in prosecuting its war on drugs, the government succeeded only in creating a vast underground drug market that distributes contraband with increasing efficiency.

This is the sort of government intervention that should be avoided. On the other hand, the market has shown itself completely incapable of responding to gradual changes until they become a crisis. Its determined ignorance over declining labor standards until there was rioting, and its current denial of overwhelming evidence in favor of man-made global warming are evidence of this. An ideal government would be able to respond to these “big picture” problems, while still allowing the everyday market to continue with as little interference as possible.

Capitalism may be an all-out fraud at times, but it is one that is constantly subject to pressures both from the market and public. Government’s only saving grace is the fact that the public has the opportunity to choose new leaders every four years. Voting to give the government more influence in more areas of our lives by providing health care, jobs and pensions will only increase their capacity for blunder.

Pavan Vangipuram is a State News columnist and a chemical engineering junior. Reach him at vangipu1@msu.edu.