[chiefalchemist]

To your point, it's ironic that firms who push a free market ethos don't actually want to compete. Instead, they want a thumb on the scale that tilts the advantages in their direction.

Welcome to Crony Capitalism (which should not be confused with traditional capitalism).

[js8]

The absence of "traditional capitalism" from history makes it really hard not to confuse it with "crony capitalism".

Perhaps you mean liberalism, as an ideology of capitalism.

[chiefalchemist]

Perhaps. But, for example, we didn't always have The Fed. We didn't always have WS. We didn't always have "too big to fail". We didn't always have taxpayer financed bailouts. We didn't always have a top heavy (Fed) government (that has more influence than it has common economic sense).

At yet all those entities verbally champion "free markets" and "capitalism being a superior economic paradigm", Etc. Minds get lulled into the repetition of the words and stop checking the action. Reminders to turn on your BS detectors add some balance. Not much, but some.

Fwiw, I'm speaking freely and in broad strokes. If liberalism would be a better word then sure, whatever helps cut through the BS. Thanks.

[js8]

Sounds like you are, in "broad strokes", longing after 1870s or something. I think you forgot how crony (or crappy?) it was.

What I am saying, if you really want this "traditional capitalism", which never really existed, you need some mechanism of how to avoid rich getting richer and becoming cronies (as they always did). I don't think you have an idea what such a mechanism should be.

[chiefalchemist]

To clarify, crony capitalism is when "regulation" and "oversight" are euphemisms for thumb-on-the-scale rules that result in a less than level playing field. The winners? The cronies.

And back to my previous point about The Fed, etc. We're told that those are "for the greater good" (words) but - and to your point - the rich are not only getting riche (actions),the rate of that wealth transfer (to the top) is accelerating.

We can call it whatever you want. And I'm not saying I want anything. I was simply pointing out that the majority of those - at the top of the financial food chain (e.g., WS) - who advocate for "free markets" are full of shit. They're lying. So maybe to make you happy we shoukd just say: Less Bullshit Capitalism? Will that satisify you??

[js8]

I think I understand what you're saying, but this has always been simply called "capitalism". The "fake" regulators are simply a response of people with power in the system to societal attempts to fix the most egregious flaws of liberalism (laissez-faire).

You seem to be similar to naive communists, who, in the face of communism turning totalitarian, tried to "save" the idea of planned economy (for instance) by claiming that totality isn't what they wanted. Ignoring the fact that the totality was put up to prevent bad behavior of people and companies, to which the planned economy led to.

Similarly, here you complain about natural consequences of laissez-faire capitalism, without admitting that the latter is the cause.

I am not saying that good ideas in capitalism (or communism) are unsalvageable. But then you need to detail the mechanism of how to prevent the natural course of action (empirically observed) to take place.

(My personal preference would be to replace free market for labor with worker democracy, while leaving most other things up to free market. Although such a system could hardly be called capitalism anymore.)

[chiefalchemist]

> I think I understand what you're saying, but this has always been simply called "capitalism".

Perhaps. But just because it's called that doesn't mean it is that. In fact, even crony capitalism is kinda a joke because it's such a perversion it's not even close to capitalism. Manipulation is the antithesis of free markets. Along the same lines, bails outs by defintion don't mean capitalism is a more successful paradigm. That just doesn't make sense.

My favorite way to reframe shameless newspeak is this: If your pet barked, would you still call it a cat? Of course not? So when there isn't a free market for miles, that's not capitalism.

My fav thing would be to see more co-ops. There's no reason why the more workers can't own a piece of the action.

[golergka]

Offering a contract with whatever stipulations to a potential counterparty that he can sign or not sign on his own accord is competing. Forbidding your counterparty from putting certain stipulations in their contract by using government intervention is not.

[chiefalchemist]

If they limited the vendor's (i.e., employee's) options, how is the being competitive?

And if the market colludes to handcuff vendors (to the benefit of the hiring companies) how is that being competitive?

Employment is already at will, and that is mutual to both parties. Why should one side be allowed to purposely disadvantage the other side? How is that being competitive?