America Needs a Better Kind of Capitalism
Big corporations and entire industries constantly use their connections in Congress to get favors, no matter which party is in power.

Welcome to our regime of political capitalism, where merit matters but political connections matter even more. In an unalloyed capitalist system, money flows to those who offer goods and services of value to consumers. In a political capitalism system, money flows to special interest groups with friends in high places.
In his 2018 book Political Capitalism, Florida State University economist Randall Holcombe defines it as a regime marked by cooperation between political and economic elites for their mutual benefit at the expense of the masses. Among the benefits pursued by elites, of course, is maintenance of their positions of power.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement was born from opposition to political capitalism. Indeed, OWS members rightly sensed that financial bailouts and the Federal Reserve's rescue of the banking system during the Great Recession were products of a system favoring politically connected bankers and their friends in Congress. OWSers denounced the recipients of government favors as the "one percent" and contrasted them with the "99 percent" who were often left to shoulder the high costs of such policies.
What the OWS movement failed to see, however, is that it's not just Wall Streeters who are favored by the political capitalist regime. This broad organizing force underpins most government spending and regulatory decisions.
Consider the export subsidies that have been around for decades. These handouts mostly benefit the same giant manufacturers, like Boeing and GE, that were the main beneficiaries decades ago. It doesn't matter which party is in power: Big exporters will collect their largesse and express their gratitude to friends in Congress with campaign contributions and votes. This is why The Wall Street Journal's Andy Kessler calls this crony system "Kickback Capitalism."
Once you understand how political capitalism works, it becomes obvious that it drives most decisions in Congress. For decades, sugar subsidies have benefited the same small group of wealthy sugar-beet farmers and processors through an unholy alliance with politicians that goes far beyond who happens to be in power in Washington, Florida, or Louisiana.
The CHIPS and Science Act, passed last year, is another episode of politicians granting favors to their friends in the semiconductor industry. The previous episode took place in the 1980s and ran through the 1990s.
The COVID-19 era's $54 billion in airline bailouts were allegedly granted to avoid the layoff of some 30,000 airline employees. Yet during that same time, Regal Cinemas announced the temporary closure of all 536 of its U.S. locations and furloughed 40,000 employees. There was no one in Congress calling for a special Regal bailout (thankfully). The simple reason is that the airline bailouts were not about airline employees as much as they were a means of granting a favor to airline shareholders who have many friends in Congress.
Maybe the most striking example of political capitalism took place during former President Donald Trump's administration, on live TV no less. Back in March of 2018, Trump hosted a "listening session" with steel and aluminum executives he had invited to the White House. The whole thing was televised, allowing us to see Trump joking around with his CEO friends while they pleaded for government support for their industry. The head of Nucor, for instance, told the president how his 25,000 employees would really benefit from steel tariffs imposed on American buyers of steel. And just like that, those of us watching saw in real time the president grant Nucor's demand.
These are the same steel companies that will benefit from the semiconductor subsidy requirement that recipients of the government handout use domestic steel to build production facilities.
Political capitalism isn't restricted to companies. Other elite groups benefit too. Student loan forgiveness can be seen as a gift from President Joe Biden's administration to tomorrow's economic elites and to today's young voters. Last year's infrastructure bill, with all its requirements, is rightfully seen as a handout to unions. Unions are great political allies, always among the top political contributors during elections. The strong relationship between teachers unions and politicians in Congress helps explain the billions of dollars that went to public schools during the pandemic, even though most students were kept at home to receive subpar educations and large doses of anxiety.
From sugar and steel consumers to students who already paid off their loans or used their savings to pay for their education, political capitalism punishes those who aren't elite or can't organize to extract favors from politicians. Sadly, it gives a bad name to both politics and capitalism.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Big corporations and entire industries constantly use their connections in Congress to get favors, no matter which party is in power.
Let's just consider this thread a place of silent reflection.
PrIvAtE cOmPaNiEs
Capitalism and socialism are artificial constructs, cartoonish in the extreme and equally as unmanageable.
Their only purpose could have been to divide the masses, allowing the elite to exploit and manipulate them.
Nothing else do we construct so ideologically and hope it functions.
Somehow, I think corporatism is more your style there, Misek.
"Somehow, I think corporatism is more your style there, Misek."
Well, thinking certainly isn't.
Capitalism is not a construct and is the only 'ism' that naturally occurs without government involvement. Why is this concept so hard to grasp for so many people? What you are referring to is the unholy two humped monster that is corporatism, which is really modern mercantilism. Stop spewing nonsense.
Well, Misek has shown fascistic tendencies in the past so this isn't entirely out of the ordinary for him.
Ya he really doesn't try to hide it at all.
Yep, we did nazi that coming from him.
Lol
Just tendencies?
Where in the world exactly has capitalism occurred in nature without artificial aid?
Not being able to prove your claim might explain why rational people find your nonsense difficult to accept.
Take a traditional economics course. Or look up the damn wiki entry. They are more correct than you. The point is that capitalism is what emerges from a barter economy as it progresses. Government regulation and manipulation comes later. If you can't parse that then you are stupid. Which isn't a sin, but I can't help you further.
Apparently when your face is rubbed in your bullshit, your “point” changes.
Hahaha
My posts make the same point... It's ok. Go lie down.
“is the only ‘ism’ that naturally occurs without government involvement.”
Is not
“is what emerges from a barter economy as it progresses.”
Hahaha
Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.
That and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee.
Hahaha
"That and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee."
Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.
Insanity is defined by doing the same thing while expecting a different result.
Misek, take a Hi(n)t(ler) and Go(ering) take off to the Eastern Front, eh?
Eh, no. That was easy.
You should try refuting anything I say. Fill your boots.
Until you refute what I say, you’re my bitches.
Some of you have figured out that the bigotry button prevents you from even seeing what you refuse to consider.
You do you.
Yes, it is. Barter economies pre-date social structure with government. In fact, numerous animals operate barter economies.
Firstly, the two statements are entirely different. Capitalism does not exist without a governing force.
Secondly, for shits and giggles prove that dumb ass claim about “barter economies”.
Prove it.
Demonstrate proof of any actual barter economy ever existing anywhere.
The point is that capitalism is what emerges from a barter economy as it progresses.
There is ZERO evidence that barter ever started anything. It's happened in crises when existing money/etc breaks down. But it doesn't start anything. This was Adam Smith's delusion that has been perpetuated and passed down.
There is tons of historical evidence that LOANS (along the lines of lend me some seed and I'll pay you back double the seed when the harvest comes in - or lend me a spear and we'll split the hunt) started what you want to call an economy (or civilization for that matter) - writing, money, law, even religion
All of them constructs created by people to achieve a purpose, like buggy wheels.
This guy can't imagine anything happening without Top Men imposing it on the plebes.
This guy can't imagine
Well, there has to exist something to loan before loans can exist and that means a measure of surplus. Otherwise it could include Wimpy saying to Rough-House: "I will gladly pay you never for bottomless hamburgers forever."
Both bartering and loans were the basis of capitalism or at least one side of it. Todays going rate for a pig might be 4 chickens (bartering) or you can have the pig today in exchange for 1 chicken per week for 5 weeks (loan). On the other side, whether I raise chickens or pigs depends on both overall demand and which I can best gain a competitive advantage in.
The first time a person with a surplus of berries too big to carry around in the woods met a person with a bigger animal kill than could be humped on the shoulders, and they dickered about how much each wanted to exchange to the other, and then made the exchange, that was when Free-Market Capitalism was first practiced.
And when humans organized into settled spots to do such trading en masse, then villages and cities came into being.
On the flip side, the first time a person got what he wanted from another person by bashing them on the head or skewing them with a spear or ruseing them into a trap, and when this person found they could do this better by organizing other thugs, then Socialism was first practiced.
Of course, the effort of Free-Market Capitalist trade, the effort of relieving each other of these burdensome surpluses and getting a mutually beneficial result requires ability and a certain amount of trust and courage and maybe not caring about where this other person came from or what they looked like. It also requires an exploring and rational mind to discover and create new things to produce, raise, grow, and offer in trade.
By contrast, the organized plunder of Socialism tends to be practiced by unthinking people terrified of the world around them and who need the crutch and shield of others around them, usually others most familiar to them, such as kin or tribe or nation.
So, oh well, no berries and biltong for you unless you want to try plundering for it. If you do go this route, just don’t run up on the man with a quicker club or atlatl.
Fuck Off, Nazi!
“The first time…” What makes you believe that to be true, Kol Nidre boy?
Berries! Hahaha.
You can't have trade without surplus, Dummy!
And yeah, berries, for vitamins, antioxidants, and fiber to keep you what old folks would call "regular." Sounds like you could use some.
Fuck Off, Nazi!
Lil Hitler says that there's no internet citation of such transaction. I'm inclined to believe him since anything pre-internet shouldn't count.
Herr Misek thinks if it's not from Stormfront, it doesn't exist.
The first time a person with a surplus of berries too big to carry around in the woods met a person with a bigger animal kill than could be humped on the shoulders, and they dickered about how much each wanted to exchange to the other, and then made the exchange, that was when Free-Market Capitalism was first practiced.
Not quite. That was still barter.
The first time someone said 'here, give him this and he'll know you've given me the berries so he'll give you the meat' is the first time capital entered the picture.
That tool or carving or whatever that proved that the terms of the contract had been met was the first marker and would, over time, become money. Capital.
Ackshuyally, capital is anything that can be used with the intent to gain from mutual exchange. Real estate, machines, tools, supplies, ingredients, etc. can be considered capital.
What you’re referring to is money, the medium of exchange, which is an especially labor-saving, parsimonious form of capital, but not the only form.
Excellent short summary of capitalism and socialism, TheReEncogitationer.
Free enterprise occurs without government involvement. Capitalism (rule by capital) requires government involvement.
But free enterprise is not the only -ism that occurs without government involvement. How about alcoholism or vegetarianism? Sadism? Lutheranism? Sexism? Mechanism?
In fact capitalism is among the minority of -isms that do require government involvement.
Capitalism is not a construct and is the only ‘ism’ that naturally occurs without government involvement.
Yasure yabetcha. Just find the limited liability tree and the lion that guards everyone else's property and inheritance. Works wonders. It's why the animal kingdom builds oodles of wealth over time.
Ken Schultz actually thought that non-human members of the Animal Kingdom practiced Free-Market Capitalism. When I asked them about where I could find their stock exchange, he didn't have an answer.
🙂
That is completely wrong. Every civilization started with communism as cooperation was mandatory for survival. From the family unit, to bands of multiple families, to tribes, to villages ... everything was cooperative until they got big / advanced enough to start having a surplus of food/goods. Only in a surplus environment is any other -ism possible ; and then immediately exploited. You can't have capitalism if there is no 'capital' around to be had. There is only communism and the (community / common) need to survive long enough to develop a way to produce more than you consume. Thankfully, communism is the first thing to evolve away from and leave behind, as it sucks the minute you have the ability to create surplus goods and can start living like a normal civilization.
Take an anthropology or history class and stop spouting nonsense.
That's not communism, you fucking parasite.
Whenever resources are limited or humanity is otherwise stressed, civilization and survival requires us to discard greed and develop a cooperative social structure.
A mars colony, a military, a pandemic.
“Capitalism and socialism are artificial constructs.”
This implies that a superior natural state exists, and that human activity is outside that natural state. i.e. Utter. Horse. Shit.
Humans are part and parcel of the natural world, and the systems we (yes we) create are part of that natural world, even if they don’t work well.
What I stated was clearly not what you implied.
Your myopic conclusion was a self fulfilling prophecy.
Boaf sidez!
Regular reflection or "In some ways, California is a blue-tinted mirror of Ron DeSantis' Florida" reflection?
“In some ways, California is a blue-tinted mirror of Ron DeSantis’ Florida”
Sadly, I'm not sure if you're joking or if someone has actually said this.
David McGarry, yesterday: https://reason.com/2023/03/08/netchoice-seeks-injunction-against-californias-disastrous-internet-law/
Gov. Gavin Newsom's California—in some ways the blue-tinted mirror image of Ron DeSantis' Florida—seems determined to micromanage the internet to assuage progressives' anxieties.
It was an article all about California and Newsom, but he felt he needed to throw in this as an odd jab at DeSantis.
Sigh... I should've known. We're beyond parody.
I don't think I've seen anyone move into some people's heads and live there rent free as quickly as DeSantis has.
LOL
Crony capitalism is an attempt by Big Business to use laws to restrict competition.Every large business in Corrupticut has a few Congressmen in their pocket to pass legislation keeping any upstarts out.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link……….>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
While I don't disagree with the point here, the premise, or the framing, is awful. Capitalism is another term we use for the free market. What we need is more capitalism, more freedom, and less government. The problem is the power of government to control and regulate businesses and to pick the winners and losers. Capitalism itself isn't the problem, nor do I recognize there being legitimate other varieties of capitalism. The freer the marketplace, the more capitalistic you are.
So the problem isn't that we've got some wrong type of capitalism, the problem is that we don't have enough capitalism. We have other forces that are intruding upon the marketplace. We have subsides, handouts, regulations (including requiring gasoline to have ethanol in it!), bailouts, anti-competitive practices, enforced union memberships, and fucking minimum wages. All of these are major restrictions upon the way people can conduct business. Not every mom-and-pop shop can afford to pay $15.00 for two full time employees with health insurance, and yet they might be willing to pay $7.00 an hour for a teenager getting his first job to sweep up the floors and restock the shelves.
Want better capitalism? We need to roll back 100 years worth of government interventions in business practices.
China needs a better kind of capitalism. Not the kind we're giving them.
Progressives took capitalism and then made it run a race wearing a weighted backpack. When capitalism kept winning, they took a baseball bat to its knees. When it continues winning but not by as much as they'd like, they say, "See, capitalism clearly is failing! It's now late-stage capitalism."
Take the shackles off and we'll see how well capitalism works.
I hate that term "Late-Stage Capitalism," or for that matter "Late-Stage" anything else. Like they even know what time it is.
The CCP only survives because of the greed of outside corporations.
They all pull out after a few years stripped of their patents and procedures.
The problem is the power of government to control and regulate businesses and to pick the winners and losers.
Can't be said often or loudly enough. 'Late stage capitalism' is a term they came up with to denigrate the results of their own policy agenda.
It's one reason why they have to lionize FDR even though he did little things like put the Japanese in concentration camps. He's one of the major architects of their whole world view. They'll pull down statues of Confederate generals but leave up statues of Lenin and FDR. Says most of what you need to know about them.
Another axiomatic thinker. Are cartels ok? Isn't patent protection a form of government involvement in the market? Is "polluter pays" freer than "companies can pollute the commons without penalty", or less free? Do you recognise that asymmetric bargaining power subtracts from the freedom of a market?
Finally, provide me an instance of your truly free market in the real world. Failure to do so indicates that perhaps it's not actually implementable. By contrast, I'm a pragmatic capitalist, that is to say, I find capitalism to be clearly more effective than any other economic system yet devised but I'm not an axiomatic idiot.
"...Finally, provide me an instance of your truly free market in the real world..."
Dope dealers, slimy pile of lefty shit. Fuck off and die.
I always knew you were one of the dumbest here. Dope dealers LOL. You mean the people who artificially inflate prices based on government enforced prohibition? You fucking moron. You dumb Trump retard. Kill yourself.
Seriously, he immediately names a black market, which is in no way free.
I always knew you were one of the dumbest here. Dope dealers LOL. You mean the people who artificially inflate prices based on government enforced prohibition? You fucking moron. You dumb Trump retard. Kill yourself. A business run by cartels is a free market. Jesus fucking christ, you idiot. This is basic shit. Dummy.
The United States from 1788 until about the 1930s. Was it perfect? Nope. But it built the world's strongest economy, and even then, ended up less restricted than many of other world economies, letting the United States maintain their economic lead.
You need to explain to me how you imagine a cartel is able to maintain itself without the cooperation of government. If they're using violence, then obviously they're using coercive power of their own and that's wrong. But in a competitive market where they're free to set their own policies, some other producer of the same or a similar product will come along and offer either a better version of it, or a better price. And people interested in justice will defend that competitor's right to do so.
But in a competitive market where they’re free to set their own policies, some other producer of the same or a similar product will come along and offer either a better version of it, or a better price.
This is pure faith-based economics.
“While I don’t disagree with the point here, the premise, or the framing, is awful. Capitalism is another term we use for the free market. What we need is more capitalism, more freedom, and less government."
That is it in a nutshell. Smaller government, less-centralized government, and much, much, much smaller.
Freedom oozes prosperity.
Capitalism is another term we use for the free market.
Then the term is being misused. It was invented by Marxists. Now you want to use it in such a way that would tie it to the free market? As what? An effect, as Marxists meant by the term?
The right term for a regime in which people are free to acquire and use capital as they see fit is “free enterprise”. “Capitalism”, like similarly constructed -isms, means rule by capital, or rather by the owners of capital. As Clarence Carson pointed out, that was a pretty good description of the USSR.
No, the problem is exactly that we do have capitalism, not free enterprise. "Capitalism" means the thing you're calling "some wrong type of capitalism"; it does not mean "free enterprise".
Have to agree here.
Anyone who speaks of capitalism rather than free market is letting the enemy set terms.
That's a losing strategy.
Parse, parse, parse.
OWS members rightly sensed that financial bailouts and the Federal Reserve's rescue of the banking system during the Great Recession were products of a system favoring politically connected bankers and their friends in Congress.
Congress panicked and passed TARP but all the TBTF loans were repaid with loan shark interest and penalties.
Your other examples are swampy though. The Swamp is Donnie's natural habitat.
Hey shrike. Why didn't you comment on Bidens budget spending 1T more than last year as you were defending him this morning?
*crickets’
Turd, the ass-clown of the commentariate, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Libertarianism does NOT support capitalism !
The platform makes clear it supports a more limited view of Free Markets !
This allows for non-capitalist free markets !
I just started 3 weeks ago and I've gotten 2 check for a total of $15,000...this is the best decision I made in a long time! "Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
Go to this site for more details.............>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
What America really needs is a system in which severely unpopular policies, opposed by the vast majority of voters, nevertheless get implemented because a silver spoon billionaire spends his inherited fortune promoting them.
That's right. We need unlimited, unrestricted immigration and a $0.00 / hour minimum wage. Reason.com's sugar daddy demands it.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
a $0.00 / hour minimum wage
100% in favor of this. Government mandated wage floors are simply price controls, and price controls do not work.
They do work, they just don't do what people claim they do.
The people in favor of minimum wages are the same people who don't know anything about economics and wouldn't know a second or third order consequence if it punched them in the face.
The irony of things like the minimum wage being constructed to freeze out immigrant labor will forever be lost on these idiots.
Like the typical Trump supporter.
You're a bot
From a TDS-addled pile of shit.
There's a counter argument which says that you, too, are ignorant.
In theory, with no feedback loops - the second and third order effects that by mentioning, you no doubt think gives you economic cred - it is reasonable to intuit that there should be no minimum wage for reasons you and I no doubt agree on. You would apparently stop there.
The question is whether in practice it's true. As Henry Ford intuited, perhaps if there's a higher minimum wage, money circulates faster, to the benefit of the economy overall, and so net everyone might be better off. Obviously a $100 minimum wage would simply not work, but to think therefore no minimum wafe above zero is to commit what might be termed the monotonic fallacy. It may be that there is an optimum minimum wage above zero that maximises beneficial impact that lies somewhere between zero and $100. Now you apparently recognise no such possibility. I, on the other hand, thinking that while in theory the original argument may be correct, perhaps in practice the Ford argument might work, will consider whether there is in fact research that supports a higher minimum wage in some economies - there's no reason to suppose that all economies will function the same, nor that circumstances in one phase of a business cycle (to the extent such cycles exist) will remain the same in others.
So what does the real-world research say? That is how I decide. YMMV
"...The question is whether in practice it’s true. As Henry Ford intuited, perhaps if there’s a higher minimum wage, money circulates faster, to the benefit of the economy overall, and so net everyone might be better off..."
Yes, in practice, it's true. Henry Ford was able to offer what he pleased and see if there were advantages.
Mandated M/W has no such qualities, and yet sophists like you fantasize someone CAN plan portions of the economy to the benefit of all.
You are wrong.
As Henry Ford intuited
Henry Ford wasn't required by law to pay a certain amount. He offered higher wages than his competitors to draw in the best and most dedicated workers, who would value their jobs and earn that value. He was free to set and adjust the rates he was willing to pay, either up or down, in order to balance just how much value he was getting from increasing wages.
Ultimately he simply did the math and found that retraining and rehiring was costing him more money than establishing a higher trained, better standard of employee. That's the free market at work, and he got a huge lead in the marketplace until his competitors adapted.
Beyond that, it only worked because he was paying MORE than other employers were paying. That was the whole point-it lured him better, more dedicated workers who were willing to show up to work sober and on time. If the law had changed to pay every work $5 a day instead of just workers at HIS company, he wouldn't have gained the competitive advantages he did.
He was not sued by the Dodge Brothers for paying up for better or more dedicated workers.
"He was not sued by the Dodge Brothers for paying up for better or more dedicated workers."
And that matters exactly how, you pathetic sophist?
According to Werner Keller's East Minus West Equals Zero, Henry Ford utilized slave labor under both the Nazi and Communist systems. This probably explains how he made up for the higher wages he paid to his U.S. workers. Decidedly not Free-Market Capitalism.
Illegal immigrants work for starvation wages and keep prices down for honest people.
You're full of shit. Cite or STFU, asshole.
You missed no age labor laws. Need immigrant CHILDREN to really take in the dough.
That's what their teachers are for
Indeed. What kind of government overreach cannot be justified by "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?"
Child labor laws are just protectionism to force the employment of grown adults in jobs that children can do. Useful labor that would be profitable if a child did it for a low wage but which is not profitable if a high wage adult performs the same task simply doesn't get done and society is impoverished in its absence.
First, America needs to jail politicians and bureaucrats that take bribes and the CEOs of companies that offer them.
Second, make a rule that no politician or bureaucrat can serve on the board or act as a consultant upon retirement, with a company operating in a field related to committees, departments and legislation that they worked on.
Third, make insider trading for elected officials illegal and double the penalties.
Corruption is going to destroy America.
"First, America needs to jail politicians and bureaucrats that take bribes and the CEOs of companies that offer them."
Those aren't bribes, they are "campaign contributions".
The US is among the most, possibly alone at the top, corrupt governments in the world.
The difference between our government and 3rd world shitholes is that our government codifies corruption and bestows legitimacy upon it.
The real difference is that people here haven’t woken up yet.
We are decadent and timid, like sows being fattened up for the slaughterhouse.
Well... that time is coming.
Roberts has said, basically, that if there's no identifiable quid pro quo in a campaign contribution, it's not bribery.
That sounds like Roberts.
Insider trading should be made legal,so every investor can expect it.
Then the smart ones will gamble someplace else.
"In his 2018 book Political Capitalism, Florida State University economist Randall Holcombe defines it as a regime marked by cooperation between political and economic elites for their mutual benefit at the expense of the masses."
A whole lot of words for fascism.
Otherwise known as Corporatism. And right now, we need to get back to proper capitalism, not the crony corporatism we have right now.
We need free markets, not capitalism.
When I say capitalism, I mean free markets. I don't know what the rest of you weirdos are talking about 🙂
I'm with you. They're making shit harder than it should be.
The problem with "political capitalism" is not on the capitalism side of that equation - it's on the political side. And it's a direct result of letting the politicians have those favors to hand out. A smaller government would still be filled with fallible humans but with less of them and less influence, the actually-accountable parts of society could flourish.
Speaking of capitalism, boy, the markets sure did great today, didn't they??
So how is everyone's 401(k) doing here in year 3 of the wonderful Biden regime? If they're anything at all like mine, I'll bet they're stuck in the gutter and going nowhere, no matter how much you and your employers are contributing!
https://www.theonion.com/in-the-know-should-the-government-stop-dumping-money-i-1819594755
Back when The Onion knew how to be funny.
I bet the Reason staff still thinks the Onion is funny.
And I'm sure they're devout Daily Show watchers as well.
Must've hurt when Samantha Bee's show got canceled though.
I remember 2012…
So you too are one of those rich Wall Street fat cats?
Like almost working wage slaves?
Mine is down 3.4% yoy. Not that the Biden admin isn't ultra corrupt but good investment strategy is a hedge against ruin...up to a point.
>>Maybe the most striking example of political capitalism took place during former President Donald Trump's administration
willing to throw down another fiver there exists a more striking example.
how about the “work” halliburton did during the recent mideast excursions. tag... show me ONE thing trump did that was as rifle shot crooked
halliburton ... rifle shot crooked
I see what you did there.
I agree that the cash and carry halliburton moves are better examples overall, but I think the notable part of the Trump example is that it occurred live on TV, out in the open, obviously. Understanding what happened with Halliburton would take effort, it's nowhere near as obvious/out in the open.
^this is gaslighting
This totalitarian is your enemy, and must be treated as an imminent threat.
How about the fact Congress and the Senate are allowed to trade in the market when they have direct knowledge of pending legislation that will directly affect those markets?
Ever wonder how someone goes into Congress broke and comes out a millionaire? That's how.
Kind of sounds like fascism.
This is not a parody.
Repeat, this is real.
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1633874644955430921?t=2I8gCzkbYG2wMBXIPSa_jw&s=19
Glenn Greenwald showing his Twitter game
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1633866757398986763?t=_kt4M1f2XasVlZPWh-2J9Q&s=19
Greenwald has been on point... if he ever wasn't on point, that is.
Even better.... he perfectly predicted exactly what Taibbi said minutes later when he was finally allowed to speak.
Someone might want to get Debbie Wasserman-Shultz some aloe-vera, 'cause she just got burned.
Quit shitting up the Ron DeSantis threads with Twitter files crud.
LOL
lol
LOL!
I get that not everyone is all fired up about the Twitter files… But just do me a favor and watch this.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1633873417958211587?t=30Kze8hGfgxauE9SluGjKg&s=19
This is your government at work. This is who we trust to make the laws that govern us.
"They are not sending us their best"
BTW.... this tweet is by a far left activist who thinks that she actually wrecked Taibbi here....
For those who don’t know the context, Taibbi, Weiss et al were given free access to see what they wanted, and publish anything at all about it.
The only conditions: proper attribution and publish on Twitter first.
They are trying to pretend that this means he is just publishing what he is told to and is lying about everything.
Also…
He submitted his prepared statement to the committee before testifying.
The democrats (several of them) are trying to pretend that this is them “working with the republicans” because the committee staff is republican, since they hold the majority. So he "provided it to the republicans, but not the democrats".
Yes, really. They are being that dishonest.
Also, the same document was published online before it was provided to the committee.
Really… it is that bad.
I'm amazed at Taibbi's decorum here.
Bari Weiss posted about it... and was amazed that they held it together.
They did snicker quite a bit. The dem attack was unusually farcical.
From the clips I saw on Twitter, he and Shellenberger acquitted themselves rather well. The Democrat Congress critters, not so much.
Shellenberger claimed he voted for Biden.
"Centrists" cannot be counted on when everything's on the line, though they can be useful on the road there.
Just have to know when it's time to toss them aside.
Yeah, I'm not sure I would be able to keep myself from calling these harpies a bunch fascist cunts and then just getting up and leaving.
"I get that not everyone is all fired up about the Twitter files…"
I do, too, but wonder why. We have agents of the fed gov't actively attempting to influence a POTUS election and that's, a yawn?
What gets your attention? Pulling a gun and shooting one of the candidates?
She looks like the kind of shrill Karen that wouldn't even know what a threesome is. Hell, I'd be shocked if she's ever been invited to be a part of a twosome.
And Reason will probably continue to ignore it until Papa Koch says it's OK to discuss.
I have doubts about the words "real" and "twitter" in the same discussion.
Uh, good luck getting rid of political "crony" capitalism.
First, because human nature (and pre-human nature) is to use tribal power and status to reward select people and groups, and punish others. This democracy thing is a thinning veneer of principled behavior towards others.
Second, because people have been conditioned to expect government support of the economy, including the elimination of risk. "Capitalists" can be as stupid as they like, knowing that they can get bailed out to the tune of billions (or trillions) because failure would make people sad.
Just a note on the elimination of risk. This country allows too much consolidation and in doing so creates larger risks than the economy can handle. In the 2008 recession, the government was forced to act to prevent the risk of large bank failures. The response to the problem early on was to call for the breakup large banks to lower risk levels, but this was then opposed by large powerful banks. In the end we still have large banks that prevent more risk than the economy can handle and so we still require government intervention.
Perhaps, before a corporation gets a government subsidy, the managers will have to agree to resign their positions and stand in the stocks for a specified period.
https://twitter.com/ecb/status/1633383166227431424?t=G-hHaINEyO2x7YvZEl2oag&s=19
Equality is no longer enough. Today, on International Women’s Day, we need to take it a step further and embrace equity.
This means not just giving women the same opportunities but exactly what they need to succeed. We support #IWD by striking the #EmbraceEquity pose.
Ecb stands for European Central Bank, btw.
Basically the federal reserve
In a political capitalism system, money flows to special interest groups with friends in high places.
Business decisions.
I agree with the author's point but she needs to check some basic facts. Sugar subsidies are not aimed at sugar beet farmers, they actually hurt sugar beet farmers and sugar beet factories are closing all around the nation, the one in Sidney, Montana just announced this was their last season and they're shutting down before next harvest, one that's been operating for a century. No, it's the sugar cane growers in Florida and Louisiana (which the author references) that dictate the sugar subsidies. Sugar growers in Florida and Louisiana aren't sugar beet growers, but sugar cane growers. Sugar cane is more efficient to grow, but we have so limited areas suitable in the US to grow sugar cane, that to meet demand we have to plant sugar beets in colder regions. The sugar cane operators don't like this because there is far more land suitable for sugar beets than for sugar cane, so it drives down sugar prices, so they lobbied for subsidies and regulations to limit sugar production and thus drive up prices, which would hurt sugar beet growers more than cane growers because cane has such a higher sugar content than beets.
Remember Louis the XVI didn't ally with the US out of altruism, enlightenment or humanistic ideals, but to target sugar plantations operated by Britain. It's because cane is far easier to make sugar from, but requires very specific conditions to grow that most of the globe isn't suitable for growing it. The process of extracting sugar from beets was first performed in Germany in 1747, which largely broke the sugar plantations' monopoly, one they've been trying to regain since then.
Meant as a standalone comment.
The author's point was the political influence. Florida has 28 House seats and Montana has 2.
I know her point. My point is she got the facts completely fucking wrong. It's like idiots dressing up as Holsteins to protest beef operations. It makes them look fucking stupid because it isn't even hard to find out the difference. Do a little fucking research, and you won't look like a fucking idiot. It's so typical of people who only reference to agriculture is the supermarket and "farmers" markets, which is btw thanks largely to two things progressives hate, capitalism and the internal combustion engine. We went from 50%+ of the country directly involved in agriculture at the start of the 20th century, to less than 5% at the end. Without capitalism and the internal combustion engine this wouldn't be possible. So in a story about capitalism, maybe getting some basic facts about agricultural subsidies negative impact might be worth considering, especially when you get the most basic facts fucking ass backwards. If you don't know that Florida and Louisiana are the largest sugar CANE producers and lobby for subsidies to benefit them, and instead make the mistake of saying they're sugar BEET producers, then you didn't do enough research. Hell, it would have taken her 30 seconds on Google to find out that information.b
Sugar beet refining also requires bone char. Rumor has it that Napoleon's troops were dug up for their bones because they were buried near a local sugar factory.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11119607/Battle-Waterloo-dead-used-make-white-sugar.html
Interesting. I knew sugar beet refining needs lime, and the best source of lime at the time of it's invention was bone char, but didn't know that factoid. Wonder if it's true or apocryphal. Wouldn't surprise me either way. I mean they paid soldiers for the teeth of corpses to make dentures at that time too.
All ag subsidies are intended for the owners of land - not the farmer/operators. Sometimes they are the same people - but the subsidy is always for the land owner
We do NOT have a "capitalism" problem whatever you call it. We have a government largesse problem. Ultimately the voters approve of government largesse because they tend to only see the largesse that they think benefits themselves and ignore the hidden costs that outweigh any benefit they might actually get. And, of course, groups like Occupy Wall Street only see the corporate greed side of the issue, but tend to approve of government largesse that they think benefits the 99% even when it's not actually benefiting the little guy.
And this is why American voters simultaneously have a very low opinion of Congress, but much higher opinions of their own constituency reps in Congress.
Reason spends a lot of time talking about stopping socialism, but favorable views of socialism rise because of the failure of capitalism. Political capitalism is a major reason young people in particular have a negative view of capitalism. We see periods where an unbalanced economy shifts interest from a free market to one of accumulating and holding wealth. This country is in one of those periods when the focus of the politicians is on keeping the wealthiest happy. There is a need to return to a capitalism focused on the middle class and free markets. This will strengthen the economy and result in greater political stability.
As a left-leaning economics prof friend of mine put it, people make the mistake of thinking that when capitalism fails there must be another solution that's better
What do “capitalist,” “Quaker” and “queer” have in common?
They all started as taunts from enemies, but were later appropriated by the target group as positive labels.
But “capitalism” doesn’t necessarily mean “free market” or “no corruption;” just so long as there’s capital involved, it can have a broad variety of applications, good and bad.
A global corporatist DEI, ESG and “stakeholder capitalism” scheme has subsumed actual free market capitalism. It should maybe be a target of a little more ire from this publication if they want the individual freedom free markets promise.
I’d add the COVID policies that torpedoed brick and mortar entrepreneurship into the mix, but I guess Reason was halfway ok on that topic.
https://twitter.com/FromKulak/status/1633890990288191510?t=m1DYUk6nZhC-VBXqgsrbDw&s=19
The Law that made Social Justice and killed the constitution
1/
America now has two Constitutions
The one you all know comes out of the revolution of 1776 and was adopted in 1789
The other, which has now supplanted all the rights of the old constitution... is from the 60s
2/
America is a country that guarantees free speech... yet everywhere every institution seeks to censor you.
America guarantees private property...yet everywhere regulators tell you what you can do in your own home or business.
This is not a coincidence.
3/
Communists Advocate: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"
Sounds nice, like how things work amongst very trusting family or friends
But the wise or knowledgeable will ask the obvious question: What about the third group?
4/
When you make the communist principle a governing principle, the most important group is not those with ability, or those with need... It is those who DECIDE who has ability and who has need.
And the communist Commissariat claim that total power for themselves.
5/
And every aspect of why communism is horrifying is immediately understandable as soon as you understand this.
The Commissariat can decide what is ability, what need, and thus can take everything.
When "property is theft", all things are the property of the bureaucrats.
6/
In 1964 America adopted an equivalent governing principle:
"Anti-Discrimination"
Sounds nice... No one likes discriminatory behaviour amongst their friends or family...
But the most important group isn't who has or is subject to prejudice, its who decides and enforces.
7/
The '64 civil rights act and follow on anti-discrimination law, via logical necessity, created a class of bureaucrats, lawyers, advocates, and administrators who get paid to debate and decide whether your speech and personal conduct constitutes discrimination.
8/
If you are at school, work, volunteering, or at all interacting with the institutions of modern life, administrators get to decide if your basic speech and associations are discriminations, and legally punish those institutions if they do not expel or discipline you for it
9/
Your basic constitutional freedoms of speech, association, property, privacy, and conscience are completely surrendered in every institution or association you might interact in if they at all touch the vague possibility of "Discrimination"
10/
Is it at all surprising that this group, with the power to completely control or punish anyone and everything to do with "Discrimination", has chosen to define absolutely everything as discrimination?
11/
Social justice is NOT an ideology, it is NOT a bizarre madness of college graduates.
Social Justice is the logical consequence of 60 years of suspending basic US constitutional freedoms and elevating a system of social control in its place.
It is Commissars seeking power
12/
You will never have freedom of speech or association as long as the '64 civil rights act or "Anti-Descrimination" law stands.
You will never be free of social justice as long as the laws which allow social justice to rule are in place.
13/
And instead of attacking the root of the problem. The Source of every HR department and university administrator's power...
Instead of fighting to restore the constitution...
"Conservative" politicians focus on bullshit fist shaking and do nothing symbolic statements.
14/
But boomer conservatives will not oppose the 64 civil rights act, nor oppose university funded activism, nor enforce even existing indecent exposure laws...
Because they believe in the authority of Antidiscrimination law.
15/
Boomer Conservatives believe in the moral authority of people who hate them to judge their thoughts and associations more than they believe in the constitution or what the founding generations would have considered basic human freedom and property rights.
16/
This is a totalitarian system. Already judges are making descisions against institutions, and individuals not for any active descrimination, but for their failure to fully embrace the ideology
Being "Colorblind" or an insufficient "ally" can cost you millions in court
17/
What is to be done?
If social Justice is to be defeated If our basic freedoms of speech, conscious, and association are to survive We must root out all antidiscrimination law.
We must repeal the 64 civil rights act and remove the statues of MLK who got it passed
18/
And most importantly we must destroy the diversity and inclusion commissariat, down to the employment lawyers and HR reps
Every single one needs to be removed from power with their pensions confiscated
These are the class enemies of liberty. Treat them as such
[Links]
Argued with geometric precision and eloquence.
But I don't see how a law against race discrimination *had* to create more bureaucrats. They could just allow the courts to hear discrimination cases, with the burden of proof on the plaintiff(s), even if some guilty defendants escape the net. That's what the presumption of innocence does, it lets some guilty escape for want of proof.
Leave race discrimination questions (incuding quote-unquote reverse discrimination) to juries, dismantle the bureaucracies which have an interest in "finding" discrimination to boost their empires.
Also, go easy on creating new suspect classifications.
Found that account a week or two ago.
It's brilliant, but kind of a pain in the ass because of the length, and lots of line spacing that I cut out to try to keep the reposts here as short as possible.
The things I do for you people...
Your "jury trials for everything" idea is good in theory, but no way it's practical. There aren't enough judges or potential jurors in the US for that, and it would be a massive waste of time as susceptible to corruption and perverse incentives as the status quo.
Just eliminate the CRA.
There's nothing wrong with discrimination. Indeed, it's Man's super power and what propelled homo sapiens to the top of the food chain.
The laws of nature are consistent and simple. You just have to be able to see fundamental structure at different scales and complexity.
We get all nervous when it comes to people because they are more complex than "blue berry equals food and red berry equals poison" but there is no fundamental difference in the processes.
Okayyyyyy... sorry for the ramble.
Anyway, discrimination is unavoidable. The CRA artificially infringes and directs it according to the State's desires. It is anathema to freedom and meritocracy, and it's killing this country.
What you really mean, then, is that America (and every other country) needs free enterprise, not capitalism, because "capitalism" (a Marxist's term) describes exactly what you're complaining about, wherein the owners of capital use it to control us politically.
If you accept Marx's definition of capitalism.
Since he coined it, why wouldn't I? It's perverse that in the last century, anti-marxists started using the term for something they liked. We might as well be using one of the newer pejoratives, like "neo-liberalism".
I just started 3 weeks ago and I've gotten 2 check for a total of $15,000...this is the best decision I made in a long time! "Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
Go to this site for more details.............>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
what america has now is called 'crony capitalism' or more accurately, "fascism"
what we should have is free market capitalism but everyone left or right hates that with all their might.
what america has now is called ‘crony capitalism’ or more accurately, “fascism”
Nope. One can have a system of crony capitalism rife with explicit and implicit subsidies, protection of corporations, bribery of politicians, etc. without ever having a government waving nationalist symbols., talking about national greatness, appealing to the chauvinism of the workers, eliminating a free press and jailing political opponents. Those are the kinds of things one finds with authentic fascism.
what we should have is free market capitalism but everyone left or right hates that with all their might.
Certainly we need a freer market than we have. I’m not sure that everyone hates the idea, but largely unfettered immigration and free trade are abhorrent to the (anti-globalist) right, while the left are all too often tempted by central planning and over-regulation.
"...Maybe the most striking example of political capitalism took place during former President Donald Trump's administration, on live TV no less. Back in March of 2018, Trump hosted a "listening session" with steel and aluminum executives he had invited to the White House. The whole thing was televised, allowing us to see Trump joking around with his CEO friends while they pleaded for government support for their industry. The head of Nucor, for instance, told the president how his 25,000 employees would really benefit from steel tariffs imposed on American buyers of steel. And just like that, those of us watching saw in real time the president grant Nucor's demand..."
Notice the TDS-addled shit-pile De Rugy is so impressed by the staging of what had (undoubtedly) already been agreed as "the most striking example"; those with limited intellects are really impressed by circuses.
Stuff it up your ass, DeRugy.
Government is a big problem, but let's not act like capitalism doesn't have problems of itself
We have hedge funds that control massive swaths of the economy and who want to impose their own morality on society - ESG. If you don't agree, you'll be blacklisted and expelled from society.
We have banks that want to monitor and ultimately not permit sales of goods and services it doesn't like. Drugs and sex work (for the Reason writers) and for the rest of us, guns and ammo are probably next.
We have tech companies that actively censor speech and actively try to prevent people from building a different platform or hosting a web site.
We have colleges that want to brainwash students into thinking everyone white is racist. Is government a problem there? Yes and no, they get money, but most big colleges have huge endowments and don't really need that money. But colleges wield power because corporations have deemed credentials matter.
https://twitter.com/willempet/status/1633728910775967748?t=lGidsAAxPvsphOLnkCvcVw&s=19
The South African experiment explained (thread):
Today, South Africa is the world's first country to be built on, and destroyed by, the "Critical Race Theory" (CRT) philosophy.
If America or any other Western country continues down the same path, it will suffer the same fate.
Eskom, the state-owned electricity provider, is in trouble due to high operating costs and debt obligations stemming from ambitious power station building plans that were flawed from the beginning due to political meddling, and a small bidding pool, specifically due to BEE.
BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) is an economic policy built on the idea of CRT, aimed to ensure resources are redistributed to "disadvantaged groups," particularly black South Africans.
BEE can be described as Communism based on Race, rather than socioeconomic class.
The BEE policy requires companies to meet certain criteria for black ownership, management, and employment in order to qualify for government contracts or benefits. The goal of BEE is to create a more "equitable and inclusive economy" in South Africa.
Eskom has experienced a skills shortage, partly due to race-based policies, and has lost thousands of skilled personnel since 1994.
BEE caused an exodus of competence and skills, and a small "mafia" of incompetent and corrupt contractors to control all resources at Eskom.
BEE has led to naked cronyism, insider dealing, and corruption, and burdensome racial quota laws have hindered small and up-and-coming businesses, causing formal Small/Medium Enterprises (SMEs) only to account for 28% of jobs, not 60-70% as expected based on international trends.
South Africa's narrow unemployment rate (People actively looking for jobs) is at a record 32.7%, with its broad unemployment rate (Real percentage of unemployed individuals) rising above 50% for the first time in 2021.
The country's GDP per capita has fallen by 44% since 2010.
[Anecdota about an Indian oligarch,, Gupta, illustrating the corruption]
Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), used the CRT narrative the most effectively, claiming that whites are monopolizing SA's economy. He has also made controversial statements about killing white people, leading to further hatred and economic destruction.
The African National Congress (ANC) government has moved toward a constitutional amendment that would allow the state to confiscate land from white citizens without compensation. The justification for this is built on the country's CRT ideology.
SA's police force is understaffed and undertrained, and its leadership is politically appointed for loyalty rather than competence. South Africa currently experiences 70 murders per day: [link]
South Africa's CRT-induced obsession with apartheid and the distant past is hindering progress, as law enforcement (Especially the minister of police, Bheki Cele) focuses on decades-old unfounded allegations against white people rather than dealing with present-day issues.
South Africa's affirmative action and redistribution policies are fundamentally flawed and based on unrealistic assumptions, fueled by CRT, leading to the country's impending collapse.
If America or any other nation continues down the same path, it will suffer the same fate.
South Africa's affirmative action and redistribution policies are fundamentally flawed and based on unrealistic assumptions, fueled by CRT, leading to the country's impending collapse.
If America or any other nation continues down the same path, it will suffer the same fate.
Step #1 in UN-Learning leftard-indoctrianted brain-washing....
It's called "Crony Socialism".
Crony Capitalism is an oxymoron (contradiction of terms).
Title correction: America Needs Capitalism not Crony Socialism.
Big corporations and entire industries constantly use their connections in Congress to get favors, no matter which party is in power.
----
Now who in their right mind would call that Capitalism???
beware of leftard indoctrination.
Veronique should be ashamed of herself. What she's describing isn't Capitalism. It's Cronyism. By calling it Capitalism, you're handing Capitalism's enemies a rhetorical victory.
Capitalism involves no government involvement in the economy. (Which part of 'private ownership of the means of production' isn't clear?) Now, no economic system occurs in the 'wild' pure and unblemished, so in practice, economies will invariably be a mix of different systems, but, to the extent the government is involved in the economy, that's not capitalism.
+1000000; Gov-Guns only human asset is to ensure Liberty and Justice for all against conniving/armed theft-criminals. There’s an unprecedented problem when that “only human asset” of a monopoly of Gun-Force starts working for criminals instead.
de Rugy isn't "ashamed" at all, she is a progressive. That's why she deliberately uses the socialism/capitalism distinction.
A libertarian would talk about how the US needs to move closer to the libertarian ideal of free markets. The term "free market" appears nowhere in her article. And that's not an accident.
What makes Reason think we have any kind of capitalism right now? Between lobbying, government grants, regulations, bailouts, and incentives. Also Trump was not the worst of it, live TV is transparent, the worst of it is back room secretive deals like Biden giving money to Twitter and support from the government like the FBI. If not for Musk we would have never heard about Biden’s back room deals. Yet Veronique can’t miss a chance to demonize GOP transparency while failing to even mention Democratic back room secret deals!
The way socialists define “capitalism”, we have “capitalism” right now. That’s what makes Reason/VdR “think” that we have it right now.
What libertarians actually favor and what we don’t have is free markets (or “free market capitalism”).
de Rugy knows that. She is deliberately using the ambiguous progressive/socialist terminology because she is a progressive.
It’s not stupidity or an accident that the term “free market” appears nowhere in her article.
de Rugy wants a European style “social market economy”, a weasel word referring to something little different from socialist/fascist economic models. The fact that GMU, Mercatus, and Cato employ someone like her tells you everything you need to know about those institutions.
Wouldn't be a problem if politicians weren't so susceptible to bribery.
Which they wouldn't be if there hadn't been so much precedent for government to control business.
The terminology problem is like what one WSJ writer wrote of some politician's stances. He was said by some to be "pro-business", but the writer pointed out that actually he wasn't that, but rather "pro-businesses" — meaning particular businesses. Which actually doesn't help business overall, nor customers.
We could easily call it crony Socialism or crony Communism. The mistake is thinking there is an ism at all, and we double-down on our mistake by thinking some kind of ism can get us out of it or thinking there is a "pure" free market to save us.
The fact is that in any system pockets of wealth and interest groups will capture the levers of power and bend it to their will. If we got rid of all regulations and stripped government to its bones a crisis would soon occur and powerful people would start reconstructing government to favor their interests.
The answer is to acknowledge this reality and hash it out using the concept of a mixed economy. We need to call out all interest groups and not pretend they will go away if we just will it. And besides, why should we have a problem if the steel industry influences government? Someone has to influence it. The problem is that the steel industry is ultimately controlled by private investors, aka rich people, who don't care about steel, but care more about their own power. I would happily give subsidies to industries if I knew the money was being used for infrastructure improvements and not bigger yachts. But it is in the interest of the steel investors to make government look bad while they reap the benefits because they know that there is no other game in town. It's a form of distraction.
This is why a libertarian magazine shouldn’t use socialist economic terms. The term “capitalism” can be anything from free markets to fascist economics, and that equivocation is deliberate.
Libertarians favor free markets, or if you must free market capitalism. A libertarian should NEVER use the term without that qualifier. There are no "better free markets" and you can't "save free markets"; there are imperfect free markets, and the close you bring them to the ideal free market, the better.
But I keep forgetting: Reason has become a progressive propaganda rag, so articles about "better capitalism" and "saving capitalism" are to be expected.
Reason is not libertarian, and never was.
Capitalism - free market. ANYTHING else is not capitalism.
When “Libertarians” talk about “freedom”, do they mean,
Freedom to do whatever you want
Or
Freedom from coercion.
Because the former doesn’t result in freedom for all and the latter requires government enforcement.
Or is it a much more narrow definition?
Lefty-Libertarians want whatever they want no matter the consequences.
Right-Libertarians want a Constitutional USA. Government being LIMITED from coercion authority it was never granted. See enumerated powers.
Nothing special about libertarianism then. If anything, it’s more divided than most other political parties.
"Nothing special about libertarianism then. If anything, it’s more divided than most other political parties."
First Time?
Welcome to our regime of political capitalism, where merit matters but political connections matter even more.
That is NOT capitalism. It is CRONYISM. We don't need a different kind of capitalism. We need ACTUAL capitalism.
As long as momna keeps the fridge full of pizza pockets you can be as greedy as you want.
Greed is using Gov-Guns to STEAL. There is nothing greedy about offering products and service for a price both parties agree upon.
Agreement is irrelevant to greed.
Crony capitalism is capitalism. It's just not free-market capitalism (as someone else upthread mentioned).
You can't call it 'socialism' or 'communism' just because you don't like it and you don't want to contaminate the blessed word 'capitalism'.
If it’s decided by government, it ain’t capitalism. I can't share this despite many excellent points because it gives the false impression that this is a good thing and is what we are rooting for.
Socialism leads to fascism.
Socialism, fascism, communism. Same shit, different shovel.
Correct