Capitalism Isn't Corporatism or Cronyism

In fact, capitalism is the system of rights, liberty, civility, peace and non-sacrificial prosperity; it’s not the system of government that unjustly favors capitalists at others’ expense. It provides a level legal playing field plus officials who serve us as low-profile referees (not arbitrary rule-makers or score-changers). To be sure, capitalism also entails inequality – of ambition, talent, income, or wealth – because that’s how individuals (and firms) really are; they’re unique, not clones or inter-changeable parts, as the egalitarians claim. Capitalism is the political system which ensures that innocent “economic power” (i.e., the power to produce) isn’t mixed with force to become invalid political power (i.e., the power to loot); it’s the system that separates business and state, for the same good reason that it also makes sure to separate church and state. Neither of the two recent political movements – “Occupy Wall Street” or the “Tea Party” – seem to fully grasp this.

Yes, there’s an alternative system that does entail the government unjustly ruling business and government, in turn, improperly controlled by business for business’s exclusive benefit (whether by subsidies, special favors, monopolies and franchises, tax breaks, or bailouts), even as it nominally still permits private property holdings: it’s called “corporatism” (sometimes, synonymously, “cronyism” or “fascism”). Corporatism was the system originated almost a century ago by the American “Progressives,” and later by Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Roosevelt in the U.S. (see his 1933 National Recovery Act, struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935 as unconstitutional because it was so corporatist). Corporatism goes hand-in-hand with statism, with abandonment of the fully free economy and adoption of the welfare-warfare state. Yet while many oppose cronyism, corporate welfare, and bailouts, they also endorse handouts to almost everyone else, including to the politically-valuable cronies so easily found among today’s labor union leaders, “green” companies, under-water homeowners, over-indebted college students, and war-happy munitions makers.

In the world today (and for most of the past century) we haven’t had capitalism per se but instead the welfare state and corporatism; we’ve had what are commonly called “mixed economies,” those with some remaining vestiges of capitalist freedom but also many (and fast-proliferating) controls and taxes. Obfuscations about capitalism’s real nature and the blurring of distinctions between the terms capitalism and corporatism make it difficult for most people to discern cause and effect whenever some disaster or corruption arises, and thus it’s difficult to assign proper blame or achieve a lasting remedy. Yet people should always remind themselves that freedom breeds peace, justice, and prosperity, while coercion breeds violence, exploitation and poverty. When a mixed economy fails, it’s not its capitalist aspect that fails – unless you believe freedom itself fails.

Whenever we observe indisputable socio-economic disasters or injustices – in the best recent example, the Great Recession of 2007-2009, the 2008 financial crisis (and TARP bailouts), the sub-prime loan debacle, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, underwater mortgages and defaults, persistently high jobless rates – we shouldn’t waste any time disputing whether they were caused by the freedom or rather the coercion part of the mixed economy. They were caused by the coercive element, not the free one (or from “deregulation”) – and that’s where all remedies must lie. We need more freedoms and less controls.  We must identify, locate, and excise all those many government agencies, subsidies, taxes, and regulations that violate our liberties and rights, those that transform officials from mere referees on life’s field into savages running amuck, altering rules and redistributing well-earned points – and thereby wrecking an otherwise perfectly fine and fun game

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/12/07/capitalism-is-decidedly-not-corporatism-or-cronyism/2/

That's where the propaganda commences mr vuk11. You are suckered in to thinking CAPITALISM is the the responsible efficient way to carry out commercial operations. lol. it doesn't surprise me that you are easily swayed by this spin crap.

When you set up a capitalist SCAM of socialist corporate welfare, and externalities that are passed on to future generations or to the tax payers purse, then things appear efficient and profitable dont they vuk11.

the problem is YOU don't even understand what CAPITALISM is and how it is avoided in the world.

China has a state run pseudo capitalist system whilst the USA has a Socialist Corporate run pseudo capitalist system

Both are tyrannical in nature and promote fascist ideologies within their societies.

Efficiency has nothing to do with the Capitalist ideal.

An ideal which is only interested in WHO makes the profits and how efficient you can shut out the actual WORKERS who are responsible for the profit.

(Citing nut case fascist Chicago economists only weakens your arguments vuk11 you smelly freak)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 12:34pm:


No when you set up corporate welfare, socialist programs it appears under control when it really isn't. I see nothing about out current system that appears efficient to me in the slightest. Too much red tape for small business to compete = inefficient. Horrible court system geared to wards protecting the wealthy = inefficient. Socialized; health, education, income = inefficient. What appears efficient to you?

Quote:



A lot of noise yet nothing was actually proven Chimp.
I love how you bag Friedman yet he was right in my above quote how you talk about people shutting out the workers. They can do this with militant unions, corporate powers in bed with the state etc etc but he was right, the marrying of industrialists with the politicians is a union against the worker and against the consumer. Free market capitalism removes that.

Just saying it's inefficient isn't proving that the core concept of trade as being inefficient.

I understand what is in effect today in the US and China, are you going to explain why they want what they have now instead of free market capitalism? Is it because it makes the people more powerful and happier? No it's because they're afraid of competition and afraid of anything that threatens their monopoly, Or do you have a different opinion?

You make so many statements and think that's an argument:

- I don't understand free market capitalism? Prove it, or are you referring to the current Crony social corporatism? Which I do understand but that isn't what I'm talking about
- Nut case Friedman? Prove it.
- Inefficiency? Prove it.
- Immorality? Prove it.

Prove what you say otherwise it's just noise mate, the only thing you've attempted to prove was that unfettered capitalism is dangerous because Keynes said so....bad example of a capitalist Chimp, may as well get a socialist call them a capitalist and then say "see they hate capitalism too!"