5 ms·

Pure free market Capitalism is playing a game of Monopoly where after each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Gues

Pure free market Capitalism is playing a game of Monopoly where after each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. Consolidated money is power. The only way that capitalism can work long term is if there are rules actively countering/fighting using that power to change the rules. Money is power and capitalism consolidates money. So capitalism consolidates power. Consolidated power can change the rules in its favor to consolidate more. The only options are prevent entities from consolidating money (which means you're risking losing capitalism), Or prevent entities from using money and power to change the rules (which, if you think of all the ways gratuitous money could be used to influence, is the social equivalent of solving the halting problem).

L_Rahman 9y ago
> each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. We call that crony capitalism and it is very much the opposite of a free market. I do agree with you however that we don't have effective barriers between money and government (or other forms of) power and therefore the stable state for liberal democracies with capitalist markets is crony capitalism and regulatory capture.
enraged_camel 9y ago
>>Consolidated money is power. The only way that capitalism can work long term is if there are rules actively countering/fighting using that power to change the rules. Yes. This is why I'm in favor of term limits, as well as a rule that outlaws "revolving doors"[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
- shkkmo 9y ago
  This is why I favor making our representatives an actual representative population using random selection. Our current selection process overwhelmingly favors white male lawyers who are good at talking corporations into giving them money for their election campaigns.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  That sounds nice, but why don't proponents of term limits ever offer evidence for their claim? We already have term limits in California. The result? Politicians spend a lot of their time in office figuring out how to leapfrog up the political ladder - usually city/county school board, to supervisor, to state assembly, to state senate, to Congress. They are never in one place long enough to build stable networks of influence (superficially a good thing) but that just means they're easier for lobbyists to manipulate (definitely a bad thing). I have an open mind on term limits, but since they exist in multiple jurisdictions why don't you show, with data, that they are leading to qualitatively different outcomes where they have been implemented?
  - no-s 9y ago
    Sad but true. In California the legislature is just a tool for the bureaucratic state to pander To itself. Legislators who fulfill the wishes of the state bureaucracy get favorable treatment on the career ladder. I often suggest we should have term limits on laws, not politicians. An absolute sunset on every law and regulation with up/down votes only, no debate, will do a lot to show whether elected public servants are on the job and who they are working for.
  - komali2 9y ago
    >easier for lobbyists Elsewhere in this thread, the concept of lobbying is being questioned as well. Find a way to prevent this and that removes a huge chunk of the problem, in my mind. Not that I can figure out how to prevent it. Stopping corporate donations to political campaigns would be another thing.
- neil_s 9y ago
  @shhkmo, are you proposing choosing random people off the street to be our elected officials for short terms? That is such an interesting idea!
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    Right? It would be like jury duty, but with a salary and amazing benefits! Brilliant!
microcolonel 9y ago
> Pure free market Capitalism is playing a game of Monopoly where after each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. I think you've misunderstood the free in free market. If anyone is allowed to make rules like that, it is not a free market, not superlatively, not normally, not even slightly. The problem here is that you have a government apparatus which has outgrown its mandate in ways that were not adequately accounted for, which makes it ripe for the picking.
- bduerst 9y ago
  I think their point is that in a free market, the vacuum of power leads to organizations (with the means to) filling that vacuum and establishing rules that rationally favor themselves.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Which is why you have to constitute a power structure which is actively prohibited from the unwanted behaviours, while filling the void of an organization with said behaviours. This is partially accomplished by the U.S. constitution, but there are some holes either in the formulation or in the interpretation.
- pm90 9y ago
  I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, you actually make a great point. If there exists a Govt. which has the power to impose certain rules which change the markets, its by definition not "free". If there was no Govt. to create and enforce these rules, corporations could not influence said Govt. to create unfair rules (since it does not exist). But I don't agree with your conclusion. If there were truly no Govt. creating and enforcing rules, there would be Guilds/Cartels that would (e.g. see how criminal gangs behave and operate). Which is why we do need an overarching authority that has the power to create, change and enforce rules that make the market less free, but potentially more beneficial to more rather than a few. The problem isn't that the government apparatus has outgrown its mandate. Its that its become more easily influenced by money. Reduce that influence and you will have a Govt. that works for the general interests of its people.

L_Rahman 9y ago

> each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. We call that crony capitalism and it is very much the opposite of a free market. I do agree with you however that we don't have effective barriers between money and government (or other forms of) power and therefore the stable state for liberal democracies with capitalist markets is crony capitalism and regulatory capture.

enraged_camel 9y ago

>>Consolidated money is power. The only way that capitalism can work long term is if there are rules actively countering/fighting using that power to change the rules. Yes. This is why I'm in favor of term limits, as well as a rule that outlaws "revolving doors"[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

shkkmo 9y ago
This is why I favor making our representatives an actual representative population using random selection. Our current selection process overwhelmingly favors white male lawyers who are good at talking corporations into giving them money for their election campaigns.
anigbrowl 9y ago
That sounds nice, but why don't proponents of term limits ever offer evidence for their claim? We already have term limits in California. The result? Politicians spend a lot of their time in office figuring out how to leapfrog up the political ladder - usually city/county school board, to supervisor, to state assembly, to state senate, to Congress. They are never in one place long enough to build stable networks of influence (superficially a good thing) but that just means they're easier for lobbyists to manipulate (definitely a bad thing). I have an open mind on term limits, but since they exist in multiple jurisdictions why don't you show, with data, that they are leading to qualitatively different outcomes where they have been implemented?
- no-s 9y ago
  Sad but true. In California the legislature is just a tool for the bureaucratic state to pander To itself. Legislators who fulfill the wishes of the state bureaucracy get favorable treatment on the career ladder. I often suggest we should have term limits on laws, not politicians. An absolute sunset on every law and regulation with up/down votes only, no debate, will do a lot to show whether elected public servants are on the job and who they are working for.
- komali2 9y ago
  >easier for lobbyists Elsewhere in this thread, the concept of lobbying is being questioned as well. Find a way to prevent this and that removes a huge chunk of the problem, in my mind. Not that I can figure out how to prevent it. Stopping corporate donations to political campaigns would be another thing.
neil_s 9y ago
@shhkmo, are you proposing choosing random people off the street to be our elected officials for short terms? That is such an interesting idea!
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Right? It would be like jury duty, but with a salary and amazing benefits! Brilliant!

microcolonel 9y ago

> Pure free market Capitalism is playing a game of Monopoly where after each time anyone passes go, the player with the most money gets to create a new rule. Guess what? The game is gonna get pretty skewed, pretty darn fast. I think you've misunderstood the free in free market. If anyone is allowed to make rules like that, it is not a free market, not superlatively, not normally, not even slightly. The problem here is that you have a government apparatus which has outgrown its mandate in ways that were not adequately accounted for, which makes it ripe for the picking.

bduerst 9y ago
I think their point is that in a free market, the vacuum of power leads to organizations (with the means to) filling that vacuum and establishing rules that rationally favor themselves.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Which is why you have to constitute a power structure which is actively prohibited from the unwanted behaviours, while filling the void of an organization with said behaviours. This is partially accomplished by the U.S. constitution, but there are some holes either in the formulation or in the interpretation.
pm90 9y ago
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, you actually make a great point. If there exists a Govt. which has the power to impose certain rules which change the markets, its by definition not "free". If there was no Govt. to create and enforce these rules, corporations could not influence said Govt. to create unfair rules (since it does not exist). But I don't agree with your conclusion. If there were truly no Govt. creating and enforcing rules, there would be Guilds/Cartels that would (e.g. see how criminal gangs behave and operate). Which is why we do need an overarching authority that has the power to create, change and enforce rules that make the market less free, but potentially more beneficial to more rather than a few. The problem isn't that the government apparatus has outgrown its mandate. Its that its become more easily influenced by money. Reduce that influence and you will have a Govt. that works for the general interests of its people.