9 ms·
In the US the rhetoric is "free market". But in political practice this means responding to large corporations who often want laws that make if difficult for o
by georgeecollins 9y ago
In the US the rhetoric is "free market". But in political practice this means responding to large corporations who often want laws that make if difficult for others to compete with them. Telecoms want to be able to coalesce into an anti-competitive oligopoly. IP holders want to control their rights for longer and longer. Commodity producers like farmers want state subsidies.
Americans love capitalism because it is the best system known to distribute resources. But we need to separate the idea of being pro-capitalism from the idea of being pro-corporate lobbying. They are not always the same.
- coldtea 9y ago>Americans love capitalism because it is the best system known to distribute resources. Well, as far as "distributing resources" goes, Swiss or Nordic capitalism (which Americans would call "socialism") is far better.
- somecallitblues 9y agoSpot on! But American exceptionalism will not ackgnowledge that. Freedom!
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fivestar 9y agoYes, entrepreneurs are flocking there to take advantage of their low, low taxes and non-stagnant economies.
- coldtea 9y agoI don't care what "entrepreneurs" do. Their citizenry doesn't have large swaths living like third world workers / peasants at the mercy of their corporate overlords and sudden illness and such, and that's enough for me.
- zuminator 9y agoWhy the smugness? In particular, Norway's GDP per capita is notably higher than that of the US in both PPP and nominal measures. And both countries outrank the US in terms of the so-called "quality of life" or "where-to-be-born" index.
- electricblue 9y agoYou want to be born there because they are relatively small groups born on top of huge reserves of oil. Not really applicable or relevant to the economy in the US.
- dv_dt 9y agoNorway is not freely spending the oil wealth, instead it's going into a sovereign wealth fund with protections on spending. So I really don't think you can dismiss their success with their oil reserves. Norway's approach seems to be a very smart way to handle the oil wealth and atypical of most outcomes. See the phrase "resource curse," natural resource riches like oil typically hurt the economic growth of the nations that should be benefiting from it.
- tanderson92 9y agoWhy organize one's society solely around the interests of entrepreneurs, or those who prefer a particular form of government?
- coldtea 9y agoSo that you get innovations like the iPod, Facebook and various gadgets -- while working 60 hours/week to make ends meet and you're still a sudden illness away from debt.
- Apocryphon 9y agohttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/stockholm-is-rivalling-silicon-valley-with-a-hotbed-of-technology-start-ups-9931876.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/fea...
- kesselvon 9y agoCompanies don't start because of a low tax environment, but because of market demand. If low taxes mattered, Kansas would lead the way in business creation and economic growth
- eli_gottlieb 9y agoSwitzerland's pretty nice, actually. Sweden's economy grew by 3.3% last year, which is not bad at all.
- maxxxxx 9y agoI used to believe in "free markets" until the financial crisis of 2008 . Then it became clear that the people who shouted "free market" the loudest didn't like it when market forces hit themselves. And they changed the market rules to their benefit. It's a rigged game. We should replace "free market" with " functioning market". It's pretty clear that a lot of markets are dysfunctional and benefit only a few.
- Pungsnigel 9y agoOr actually mean free market when we talk about "free markets". That is, we should make it very clear that the market rules shouldn't change to benefit specific corporations.
- theseatoms 9y agoYes. I had a similar realization as GP during the financial crisis. I realized how small a minority of people actually want free markets, themselves included.
- awinder 9y agoThat's all well and fine until one market segment (finance) can grind capital for unrelated industries into the ground by crunching credit. It's a classic ecosystem problem, some of the critters in the pond are going to rise above others in the chain, and that can cause ill effects everywhere if not properly controlled. Given that one of the defining characteristics of humanity is that we've been cultivating ecosystems for millenia, it's not that much of a stretch to say we're going to cultivate our own invented ecosystems for the betterment of the system. It's actually a stretch to say -- we're just going to throw all these actors into a system of shared responsibility, and they'll just work it out.
- maxxxxx 9y agoIn my view there is no free market. It's all man made rules. The only free market I can think of is total anarchy with no state enforcing any rules. The (probably physically) strongest wins.
- 9y ago
- twoquestions 9y agoCapitalism is great because it divides decision-making authority in resource distribution to many people who can't distort the market on their own. The disturbing trend I see is more and more decision-making power collecting to relatively few people, whose power is enough to change the market environment rather than reacting to it. Our democratized political environment is far from perfect, but I'll certainly choose that over Communist despotism, and I fear if we don't do something we'll continue our slide to privatized oligarchy/despotism.
- mabbo 9y agoThe problem is that American culture has a permanent belief that any form of socialism is guaranteed to come alongside totalitarianism, and an end to liberty. Which isn't necessarily unfair to believe- the two have a history of correlation. But the result of that fear it's a form of corporate totalitarianism. You're free to choose your fate, but the options were dictated ahead of time by those in power, those with wealth. And all of the options will give them more power, more wealth. The system exists today, sadly, in a form where those with wealth and power are also able to strongly influence culture, beliefs, society. And once you control those, you can control a democracy.
- nradov 9y agoThere's no such thing as a permanent belief. The strong association between socialism and totalitarianism only started in the late 1940s as a reaction to the horrors of the USSR. Before that, socialism had been expanding in America with widespread public support.
- Synaesthesia 9y agoI'd say a major turning point was the Bolshevik Revolution, which was instantly demonised in the US, and led to Wilson's "red scare" - which effectively destroyed organised labour. It rose again in the 30's only to be crushed again after WW2
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- theseatoms 9y agoExactly. Rent-seekers love to appeal to 'free market' capitalism while actually doing the exact opposite—using government power to create competitive moats.
- mac01021 9y agoI would love to be able to point to several specific examples of rent-seekers using government power to create competitive moats, but I like almost everyone , am not nearly well enough informed.
- theseatoms 9y agoIntuit's lobbying to keep the federal tax code complex is a fun example.
- geebee 9y agoHow about law schools forcing everyone to do massively expensive degrees to be allowed to take the bar? Keep in mind, you can support some kind of exam and educational requirement while asserting that the scope and scale of ABA requirements represents regulatory capture.
- maxerickson 9y agoThere's a surplus of lawyers, so they aren't doing a great job of abusing their capture. There's also states that have an apprenticeship pathway to the bar, but people seem to think those are pretty onerous too.
- geebee 9y agoThe median salary for a lawyer in SF is about 200k a year. Try finding a lawyer who will work for cheap. Plenty of people are denied essential legal services because they can't afford a lawyer. Sure, the regulatory capture of the legal market does extend to areas beyond the standard law school market.
- api 9y agoCorporations of a certain size start looking and acting awfully Soviet. An economy dominated by mega-corps is almost indistinguishable from the Soviet economy. Over time due to regulatory capture and revolving doors it becomes a fully socialized planned economy, but one whose socialism only benefits the rich and the connected.
- fivestar 9y agoYes! You are woke!
- pasbesoin 9y ago"Free market" is a political trope. It has been used in various ways, in various contexts, over the years and generations. But at base, it remains a political trope.