7 ms·

The name for this is crony capitalism. Policy that benefits businesses instead of policy that benefits markets. Luigi Zingales's book "A Capitalism for the Peop

by verg 10y ago

The name for this is crony capitalism. Policy that benefits businesses instead of policy that benefits markets. Luigi Zingales's book "A Capitalism for the People" is a good read on the subject.

mlmlmasd 10y ago
He`s not talking about policy. Most capitalistic businesses are anti-competitive regardless of policy.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  That is patently ridiculous. The vast majority of firms that you give your dollars too have direct competitors. They may not prefer to have competitors, but neither do you when applying for jobs or bidding on a house, that is pretty basic human nature.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    They have what is generally considered an unfair advantage though. Typically at least effects of scale and cartel-like contracts with other major players.
  - Stillrigged777 10y ago
    Toyota and GM happily get together to battle against support for alternative forms of mass transit. They have little worry about losing out to light rail for example. No, I'm not interested in a debate about the cost benefit blah blah. I'm using light rail as an example to facilitate the point. IMO, that's what the previous post is talking about. GM and Toyota largely release the exact same product if you look at it from an engineering data perspective; combustion engine, suspension, cupholders. And the "market" is highly protective and curated towards them (oil industry subsidies helping bring down gas prices, bailouts). Alternatives, like GM's battery car in the 90s, are mothballed and too expensive for outsiders to really get in on. Plus the key players obviously don't want to get away from fossil fuels, right? So they keep getting favorites.
  - mlmlmasd 10y ago
    Wait, so you say 'that is patently ridiculous', then completely agree with me while trying to add your own little spin on it? Okay bud.
RachelF 10y ago
>Why Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor? A simple, if specious answer: The Golden rule - she who has the gold, makes the rules.
warcher 10y ago
Nah, there are lots of ways to get that unfair advantage. Network effects are a big one. Facebook is only facebook because everybody is on it. MS Office is only MS Office because everybody has it. Are they superior products? Meh. Would you particularly miss them if they were destroyed? Unlikely. Somebody just as good would come along by and by, or one of the other ones would rise to replace them. Are you gonna pay for them anyways? Bet your ass you will.
nodamage 10y ago
An examination of all current and historical implementations of capitalism quickly leads to the conclusion that all capitalism eventually becomes "crony capitalism", and playing the "no true scotsman" game with regards to capitalism does not demonstrate anything meaningful.

by verg 10y ago

The name for this is crony capitalism. Policy that benefits businesses instead of policy that benefits markets. Luigi Zingales's book "A Capitalism for the People" is a good read on the subject.

mlmlmasd 10y ago

He`s not talking about policy. Most capitalistic businesses are anti-competitive regardless of policy.

cmdrfred 10y ago
That is patently ridiculous. The vast majority of firms that you give your dollars too have direct competitors. They may not prefer to have competitors, but neither do you when applying for jobs or bidding on a house, that is pretty basic human nature.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  They have what is generally considered an unfair advantage though. Typically at least effects of scale and cartel-like contracts with other major players.
- Stillrigged777 10y ago
  Toyota and GM happily get together to battle against support for alternative forms of mass transit. They have little worry about losing out to light rail for example. No, I'm not interested in a debate about the cost benefit blah blah. I'm using light rail as an example to facilitate the point. IMO, that's what the previous post is talking about. GM and Toyota largely release the exact same product if you look at it from an engineering data perspective; combustion engine, suspension, cupholders. And the "market" is highly protective and curated towards them (oil industry subsidies helping bring down gas prices, bailouts). Alternatives, like GM's battery car in the 90s, are mothballed and too expensive for outsiders to really get in on. Plus the key players obviously don't want to get away from fossil fuels, right? So they keep getting favorites.
- mlmlmasd 10y ago
  Wait, so you say 'that is patently ridiculous', then completely agree with me while trying to add your own little spin on it? Okay bud.

RachelF 10y ago

>Why Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor? A simple, if specious answer: The Golden rule - she who has the gold, makes the rules.

warcher 10y ago

Nah, there are lots of ways to get that unfair advantage. Network effects are a big one. Facebook is only facebook because everybody is on it. MS Office is only MS Office because everybody has it. Are they superior products? Meh. Would you particularly miss them if they were destroyed? Unlikely. Somebody just as good would come along by and by, or one of the other ones would rise to replace them. Are you gonna pay for them anyways? Bet your ass you will.

nodamage 10y ago

An examination of all current and historical implementations of capitalism quickly leads to the conclusion that all capitalism eventually becomes "crony capitalism", and playing the "no true scotsman" game with regards to capitalism does not demonstrate anything meaningful.