5 ms·
It's fair to say it's a non-capitalist power, I think. It's the government interfering in the operation of companies instead of allowing it to be entirely contr
by kevingadd 6y ago
It's fair to say it's a non-capitalist power, I think. It's the government interfering in the operation of companies instead of allowing it to be entirely controlled by the market players - for good reason, of course.
A capitalist alternative would probably look more like levying fees or capping prices to try and balance the market... which is something that also happens from time to time.
- sudhirj 6y agoEven fees and price caps would not be considered capitalist or free-market - they both interfere with the market dynamics. In all cases, we need to interfere with the free market to improve goodness for society as a whole. But we don't need to attach moral connotations to this – the companies have done nothing illegal, and the executives are doing their jobs. The issue is when technology is applied to natural free markets, a monopoly logically results, which kills the market if left unchecked.