Since when is capitalism is broken? Seems like during great recessions everyone wants Keynesian systems and when things are going great we want a classical economy.
Right now, IMO at least, the issue is that every time we have a recession, it takes longer and longer for "average folks" to be able to get work again. Last time, it wasn't until right before the bottom fell out again. This time, the jobs might never come back.
What do those people do now? That's what needs fixing in the current version of capitalism, IMO.
Or is that ridiculously and obviously stupid? Maybe it turns out that in order to do things right, you have to get into the weeds on an issue by issue basis and not rely on one size fits all approaches. Hands off economics are exactly the right thing to do most of the time, except when they aren't.
Also, 1929 in terms of government policy was totally different from now.
The key part of my statement was "consistent". Unclear direction creates uncertainty. The health care and tax legislation have created massive uncertainty. This is not good for recovery. This "lets take a new direction" approach played out in 1929 just as it is playing out today. In 1929 and forward there were many new approaches and many attempts at a "solution". All of these caused problems by changing the rules. Now, we will have more uncertainty because a new party controls the House. I don't see the rules stabilizing again for a while.
If disbanding the FCC is silly, then the absolute doesn't hold. That means we should evaluate on a case by case basis -- free markets are of course a good default position to deviate from depending on the exception, of course.
1929-1932 was most noteworthy for Hoover not trying a whole lot of new approaches. Then this FDR guy started, his whole thing was called "New Deal".
What?!? Where the heck does the "consistent set of rules" come from other than government? I have no real clue where your response comes from. As to you second 'point', look at the government changes and how long it took for business to recover.
I get giddy thinking about being persecuted for predatory pricing, gouging, and colluding.
Never mind those anitrust people often persecute smaller companies for bigger win, ignoring the big guys.
Oh yeah, let ignore copyright and patent laws, which creates monopolies. It's for the "benefit of the public".
You want to fix capitalism? How about restoring the rule of law? Nobody get special privileges. Not the writers, the inventors, the big corporations, or small corporations.
You have James Watt extending his patent 20 years longer, delaying the industrial revolution quite bit. Then you have American writers fighting for copyright recognition of British author just so they stop British competition.
The manipulation and abuse of law not only took place in modern time but throughout the existence of IP history. Not only that, you have scant evidence to prove that IP are beneficial.
Anti-trust regulations are unnecessary in a free economy, as inefficient monopolies by definition are vulnerable to competition, and efficient monopolies are already meeting their supply/demand ratio optimally.
Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.”