Having worked in business for over a decade and having a degree in business administration I will you that free market capitalism is a unicorn (talked about and understood, but never existed). If I own a business I'm not insterested in the free market, I'm interested in gaining market share and driving my competition out of business. To that end business leaders will use whatever tools they have at their disposal; that includes bribing politician for special favors then that's what happens.
So to say that crony capitalism isn't capitalism is cannard as crony capitalism is one of the results when business leaders are given too much reign.
On point with the analysis. When things are really "free" without any restriction, there's a world of mess that is also open and always comes alive.
Buisnesses left to themselves never give people options---and will eventually lead to corruption. The Founding Fathers were very much in favor of others who had economic wisdom....with folks like Adam Smith being used as reference for some of their concepts...yet even Adam Smith, when talking about Capitalism, made this plain when he noted how there was a need for governement to intervene to a point to ensure balance...but not to get too involved where things are thrown off. "
The Hesitant Hand: Taming Self-Interest" is an excellent read on the issue, as it discusses Smith's views when it comes to self-preservation and the realities of how Smith was not necessarily for government intervention to the extreme while also examing the reality of how government does have a role in coming in to lessen the bad results done by self-interested behavior.
When it comes to the many discussions on "The Wealth of Nations" and Smith's views on "The Invisible Hand", his view was that interference of government in business and economic affairs should be minimal. For I understand that Smith made clear that unrestrained greed is in no way beneficial to a nation--though his principles were taken out of context/used wrongly by others. I realize that he advocated markets with more freedom than were available in mid-18th century, alongside criticizing the regulation/interferences of legislators. Laizze-Faire politics is not something that was foreign to Smith. Even though he did not invent the term "Laissez Faire", he was very much familiar with it/supported the concept in "The Wealth of Nations in 1776"..especially when it came to his advocating a free enterprise system established in private ownership and not hindered by governmental bureaucracy. The principle of the "invisible hand" is what the essence of Laissez Faire is about (i.e. "market economics," "free enterprise", "free competition" , etc). And when the term's used today, it's the case that his critique of government intervention in the economy is often taken by others to the extreme in saying the MARKET is never to be tampered with by government.
There's a tendency, IMHO, for things to always get out of hand when there's not enough true vigilance occurring and others. And with all of the demonization toward things focusing on government regulation (which is a part of what many camps in socialism teach), it seems odd that there's resistance when many for capitalism/not having centralized government often advocated the need for such rather than throwing out terminology like "socialism" or "communist" and other things as an issue.
In speaking of government duty Adam Smith said,
"erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works which may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society." & "are of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals." Adam Smith recognized certain industries do not have nature which a market is the best way of allocating the resources. Thus, he indicated that there are places other than property rights and national protection for a government to be involved.
Indeed, without government there is anarchy---but too much government and its oppressive. The people self-governing themselves without any kind of restraint is JUST as damaging as only a select group of people in power determining the shots...or a governement so big it cannot do anything in time. Nonetheless, limited governement with checks and balances did not mean the government held the states accountable when it came to rules/regulations federally that affected ALL of them.
Limited socialistic policies are benefical…..and it has never been the case that absolute capitalism without interference by government in some sort of capacity has been beneficial. In example, if capitalism based on competition means “mutual beneficial cooperation”, I must square with what occured in our nation when the Slave Trade was going on and innocent men/women and children were all seperated from one another/abused while companies were competing with one another on who could sell a slave at a better price—all the while those benefiting from the profits claiming how good the “American Dream was” and how capitalism was good for the sake of the nation” (as hey, slaves were needed for the economy of the South and other means).
States did things differently and all cooperated with one another…including on the issue of the Middle Passage/Different Trading Ship Unions and how they all worked together due to the reality that the cash crop of Tobbaco was using up the soil in the SOuth and Cotton became the new cash crop afterward–though it required work and therefore the states got into the buisness. And from there, as there was no protection, things go messy…..from the man at the docks who gets to compete with the man next door at setting the prices for how much it costs for boats to land….to the man transporting the slaves…to the man in charge of AUCTIONING the slaves, to the people who chose to buy/use the slaves in their homes/plantations…to the men paid due to their services for “training the slaves/breaking their wills” through any means necessary…and of course, for those who owned slaves, one can recall the slaves being sent into the market places to buy things for their masters/the plantation and for those not slaves they could rejoice at the benefits of “capitalism” and how “free” things were (as slaves weren’t really considered real people of value who needed to be taken care of).
The laws prevented many from speaking out against slavery since it was a buisness—with it later taking h Government Involvement to make a difference (which thankfully was used to begin the ending of slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation by Lincoln). But at some point, people had to realize that the government not being involved to stop the process was very much damaging. The same with other issues in which people sell things in our nation which have DAMAGED many and all of them claiming capitalism/the right to “make a buck”—whether with the inappropriate contentagraphy Industry in the U.S , Human Trafficking, Prostitution, or with Ciggarettes/Drugs or even other things that’d be moreso found within the Black Market and Criminal Activities.
One can quickly think back to 1930′s and the Development of Organized Crime and how profit/competition fueled things from greed to extortion to embezzelment and a host of other means….including making a profit at any cost. Some of it often seemed necessary for others who felt that many buisnesses wouldn't hire others and essentially left them with "Black Market" options to go with (
if remembering folks like Bumby Johnson, more shared
here/
here ). The same dynamics with what often occurs whenever they’re “Mom & Pops” stores that’re owned by many in the working poor class and larger corporations come in and run their mega-stores, effectively driving out smaller buisnesses and causing harm on others—sometimes resulting in revolts and acts of violence…and hence, why there were laws made by government to ensure that monopolies would not occur. And the list goes on. Capitalism relies on absolute freedom, otherwise it becomes regulated.
A “free market” has no restrictions. Once restrictions of any kind are imposed, it is a “regulated market”, not a “free” one. In a truly FREE market, with no restrictions enforced, accumulation of wealth is the name of the game. That means I can accumulate wealth in the cheapest, easiest way possible. If I can sell child inappropriate contento and make money, it is OK. Or I can sell addictive drugs. If it I want a new Lexus, and it costs $50,000 to buy one, but I find someone who will steal one for me for $5,000, then it makes sense for me to pay someone $5,000 to steal one for me. A lot of “free market” advocates will say that a true “free market” also protects the rights of ownership.
So how does that happen? Through some form of GOVERNMENT. And who defines rights of ownership? Well, whomever it is, they must get the GOVERNMENT that is going to enforce the rights of ownership to agree with them on what the rights of ownership actually are, so that they can enforce those rights.
And how will they enforce these rights? Through whatever means necessary, up to and including physical violence and coercion. Add into the mix that since in a capitalist economy MONEY is the measure of wealth, one can see where the entities with the most money can determine what the government believes “the rights of ownership” actually are. They can then basically use the government to enforce their own version of “the rights of ownership” while violating someone else’s idea of the “right of ownership”.
IMHO, capitalism only works because it exists in a larger framework of socialist government intervention. If I could find a person who is able to steal the milk and sell it to me for 50 cents instead of $3, that’s the cheaper way to go. However, the reason that there are no people stealing milk is because the government intervenes and says, “No, no, there will be no stealing, because we consider that to be a violation of ownership, and we will make this battle not between the would-be thief and the vendor, but the would-be thief and all of society, and we will punish such thieves with societally imposed criminal charges and corporal punishment.”
And the reason that such a government exists is because people all pool their money in the form of taxes and pay it to the government so the government will provide this service for them collectively. So, when people often discuss capitalism, IMHO they often seem to be talking about capitalism blended with socialism, not pure unadulterated capitalism. In pure capitalism, with no influence from socialism, there would be no government involved. So, if I could find a way to steal the milk, it would be cheaper than paying the $3. Or, if someone else could steal the milk and sell it to me for $2 then I’m better off paying that person. So “capitalism” is worthless if it’s not blended with socialism, at least a little bit to have a government that enforces certain aspects of “mutual cooperation”.