Taken over in our daily lives.

The message of the book is: "it's brutal capitalism and is brutally imposed by an elite of some individuals temporarily outside derutati". Competitive capitalism but, it's not brutal, nor is brutally, at least by comparison with any other system. The new liberalism was not imposed by an elite outside nor in the 19th century in 1989. In the mid 19th century was adopted in consensus of all social, beds in a national liberation movement. In 1989 it was especially the recognition at last, all from inside of the planned economy and the inability of this is largely true about all revolutions from 89. If the author suggests a model of capitalism's penetration but just ignore the time of ' 89, cognitive Enterprise fails.

The goal of convincing, however, will be achieved, because many will fall prey to three confusion:

The first is that of corporate capitalism and capitalism itself, competitive capitalism or market economy. While capitalism is characterized by private property, free exchange and entrepreneurial initiative after general rules the same for all, especially criticism of corporatism quickly faltered, flaws in different sectors of economic activity are outsourced to private managers, but in conditions of monopoly State-facilitated protects competition.

The second is that we live in capitalism, so the market's to blame for everything we see. Don't live in capitalism but in different forms of interventionismului and, thanks to concentrated interests in neliberale democracy.

And the third is the assumption that the results of democratic political processes (such as voting on certain public projects), correctly reflect the preferences of individuals and hence capitalism would be unpopular. This subestimeaza assumption of interest groups influence concentrated in political processes. Public projects are rather a way of focused interest groups to squeeze money from taxpayers-and uninformed, rather than the result of citizens ' preferences. Things are just the opposite, the market reflects the preferences of individuals better than political processes.

Beyond those three, confusion followed the book addresses a natural desires, desire to be free. In general, people don't like to be dominated, neither nobles nor proletarians, nor politicians, nor corporations. And the domination and brutality are insidious. But they are not institutionalized primarily in capitalism, but in interventionisme, sindicalisme, substantial programmes so that they are managed with the help of the force of the State without the consent of individuals. I'm also in institutionalized limitations imposed by States on the free economic trade on the global market. Dominance and brutality are institutionalized and "corporatism", but this is not the problem of capitalism, defined by free competition and free economic initiative. The problem is the constitutional rules that allow the State to facilitate the monopoly positions of certain corporations and thus put at the entrance barriers in certain sectors of activity. In the absence of obstacles put in competition regulations and taxation, we can hardly speak of domination.

Thanks Professor Mihail Radu Solcan CADI and Associates for extremely useful discussions on the margins of the book. 

I wish also to make important observations. Article reviews and Madan takes up Lady in the area of the intellectual left and secure, in order, the views of Lord Campbell Sadani sit adversativ face of the Emi's opinion and that of my Sad. There is a common body of criticism of substance-present in all the comments from the article that we approach all-at the address of corporatism quickly faltered; This disagreement is not radical but is due to some terminological differences regarding the ' capitalism '.