Our administration chose to bail these banks out (or really, the banks bailed themselves out but that's another story), which spread the pain throughout the population; this is textbook financial socialism. Or worse, because instead of aiming to help the poor it aimed to do the opposite, so maybe fascism is a better word.
I disagree. When it comes down to it, all capitalism really means is the existence of a free market. Capitalism builds itself using the free market as its building blocks. So before the banking system came around in the late 1800's, how could there not have been capitalism? Standards of living were fine. People had food, shelter, and their versions of comfort and entertainment. Sure, "normal" people didn't have luxury items in excess like today, but these things are a byproduct of capitalism gone bad. Perhaps your view on standard of living is skewed.I dont believe there's a point in talking about pure capitalism, I'm not sure that the oft quoted and seriously idealised "frontier age of capitalism" ever really existed and it certainly beggars an economy which is much less developed, has less productive powers, provides a much lower standard of living to all involved, rich and poor alike, and people need to be satisfied with something more closely resembling subsistance or survival living standards.