[shkkmo]

> Most of the fluffy scenarios he describes, whereby private individuals make voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements with each other, is almost the very definition of capitalism!

No, that is the definition of a free market. Capitalism is a framework of ownership that operates in markets of varying degrees of freedom.

A barter economy is a free market, but not usually a capitalistic one.

The author is pointing out ways that the free market is starting to outgrow it's reliance on the ownership framework of capitalism and how capitalism's framework of ownership has problems dealing with the valuation and ownership of information.

I suspect we will increasingly see the old capitalistic structures use governments and force to hold the line against the free market.

[wycx]

Indeed. Ultimately, I think most private enterprises would rather not be competitve contestants of a free and open market but would rather be monopolists, monopsonists and above all, rent seekers (ideally a monopolist rent seeker earning rents from a entity spending other peoples money).

It is often much easier to compete by sabotaging competitors and potential competitors than by competing on the merits of the product/service that you provide.

Neoliberals have been very effective at promoting confusion between free and open markets (which most definitely require some form of regulation to remain free and open) and captialist/private ownership framework, largely to further deregulation and the rent seeking opportunities it affords.