"Bush campaign ads using team"

[dwa]

Actually, it isn't obvious at all. Ever since the 'evolutionary socialism' of Eduard Bernstein and the British 'Fabian Socialists', there have existed social democrats/democratic socialists who envision socialism as an evolutionary rather than revolutionary process

This still results in the replacement of capitalism with socialism.

It is obvious that in order for capitalism (or should I say, market-oriented capitalism) to function properly, the market must be as free from manipulation by any group (be it the government, monopolies, and even unions) as possible; it's part and parcel of the meaning of the word.

As a side note, the Corn Laws weren't socialist; they were mercantilist. In fact, Marxists actually supported the anti-Corn Law movement as it was seen as a class struggle against the landed aristocracy.

This is borderline amphiboly. I did not use the example as proof of avowed "Socialists" mismanaging affairs, but of government control of the economy (which is, ipso facto, socialism, regardless of the motives or socio-political orientation of those advocating the laws) resulting in disaster.

Another point worth noting is that, particularly in Canada, the public ownership of utilities was viewed as a boon by capitalists, and it has often been argued that the public ownership of industries and utilities povided capitalists with the necessary infrastructure to advance industry in general. Of particular note is the Canadian National railroad and Ontario hydro

I'm sure the Canadiens are quite thrilled about it; unfortunately, that does not answer the question of whether Canada's economy has in fact performed well, especially in comparison to it's more market-oriented peers. Perhaps every bit of economic data I've ever read is wrong, but Canada's economy is positively anemic compared to say, the US, Japan, South Korea, et al.

Furthermore, capitalists and economists alike endorsed the Keynesian economic movement of the 1950's-1970's and, more than any other period in history, that period was marked by an explosion in the creation of jobs and capitalist infrastructure. This was the period when the Western world truly separated itself from the rest...

I suppose one could give credit to the Keynesians for the economic boom. I would posit that it had a lot more to do with the fact that, given the unparalleled destruction of economic infrastructures during WW2, left those who escaped with said infrastructures unscathed (aka the US), had something of a leg up, which began it's downturn in the late 70's and early 80's, as nations finally started to emerge from devastation in force (namely Japan and South Korea). But hey, to each his own.

In other words - and the net increase, over the past 20 years, in the gap between our own economic well-being and that of those in the third world serves as proof - protectionism and public ownership isn't always a burden on capitalist economies. In fact, the development of native infrastructure and industry can often benefit greatly from it.

I would suggest that the third world's lack of economic growth has more to do with it's general trend toward authoritarian governments running the economies into the ground.

I would also suggest that the historical record indicates that, in the long run, protectionism hinders the ability of it's industries to compete with those of other nations (cf American auto industries in the early late 70's/early 80's, Japan's relative decline in control of the electronics market to South Korea, Macau, Hong Kong, and others, et al)