Clearly you have never studied Austrian economics, as I did, or you would understand the fallacy of your positions. The economy has thrived in spite of, not because of, the drag caused by government taxes and regulation.
You are also not a student of history or you'd know that all of your social welfare giveaway programs have indeed been in large part responsible for running this country far away from its ideal of freedom of opportunity for all. You have only to look at France or Germany or even England to see the problems with massive public welfare and government-run health programs and their effect on human behavior. ie, Why should people save for retirement when the nanny state is taking almost 15% off the top of your income for SS and Medicare ? You are forgetting about incentives - and perverse incentives. Tsk, tsk, if you are an economist. Stop running regression analysis and instead read Ludwig von Mises book "Human Action".
Your economic policy prescriptions are populist in nature and are designed to appease the lazy. You don't believe the adage: give a man a fish and feed him for one day, teach him to fish and he'll eat forever. You think like the Romans - have bread and circuses for the masses and let the elites keep the country in one piece while the masses are distracted.
To answer your question, no, capitalism doesn't count you a winner or a loser based solely on the amount of money you amass. After all, the Harrimans of Union Pacific fame made their mega millions on government favors and land grabs aided and abetted by the federal govenment. I wouldn't cll Bill & Hillary Clinton capitalists either, yet they've made millions by being government servents. That doesn't make them capitalists. The definition of a capitalist is someone who invests capital in an enterprise. The function of "regulating" the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated. Government action can only distort market forces.
In point of fact, Republicans with your viewpoint are usually called "Rockefeller Republicans" and there's not much to choose between your type and a moderate Democrat. In fact, why don't you explain that distinction to me. What does make you different from a FDR-type Democrat in areas other than national security ?
I, on the other hand, am a strict adherent to Austrian economic thinking and I know that a large part of the reason Republicans lost this last election (and that wasn't by much) was because they were the party presiding over an explosion in government. Just wait 'til voters get a load of how much the Democrats want to spend. As long as Republicans go back to fiscal sanity they will win.
Of course, the fact that the media is in the bag for Democrats didn't help any Republicans either - didn't Evan Thomas of Newsweek mag in 2004 say that the MSM favorable coverage of Democrats gives them a 15% advantage ?
And BTW, I didn't call you a fool. That must have been someone else. I don't engage in name-calling or emotive-type labels. I believe in providing substance to my arguments that name-calling precludes.
I will be happy to discuss these many issues in detail this evening.
No, I have not studied "Austrian economics".
I have studied a lot of applied economics in the place where the economy is made to run.
Great post. I would add to your post that the "value" of a person in a capitalist economy is not determined by income or wealth alone. von Mises, for example, rejected the materialism of Marx, as well as that of the institutionalist economists who wanted to measure all aspects of the economy so that we could be "managed" into prosperity.
The idea of liberty is not just to make the most money, since that is a very narrow definition of value. Most highly capable people fall well short of the $5MM+ salary of a CEO or hedge fund manager, not because of a lack of wherewithal, but because they have other priorities and values, the pursuit of which may not result on monetary gain.