

Free markets killed capitalism - pje
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/29/free_markets_killed_capitalism_ayn_rand_ronald_reagan_wal_mart_amazon_and_the_1_percents_sick_triumph_over_us_all/

======
pje
There's a lot of pre-19th century historical background here. To cut straight
to the contemporary stuff, start at the question "Okay. How does that industry
look now?"

> "we are having all of these discussions in America about inequality.
> Inequality in wealth. Inequality in voice. And yet no one’s looking at one
> of the main sources of that inequality, which was the overthrow of antitrust
> in 1981 by the Reagan Administration."

~~~
mindcrime
This coming from an article that uses the beer market to try and justify their
leftish wing nonsense, despite the booming craft-beer / micro-brew movement
going on around us. Color me unimpressed.

------
peterashford
I find the commentary here rather odd. Most of you have colored this as some
kind of left wing ranting but this stuff is the core of Adam Smith's
philosophy. When he talked about a "Free Market" the freedom he was talking
about was the freedom to enter or exit the market. These issues about people
not being able to farm without the say-so of a large purchasing corporation
goes right to the core of that freedom. That's as anti-free-market as it gets.

How you can call people asking for an actually free market "leftist" is kinda
weird to me.

------
timtas
Sigh. Ideologues drinking and re-drinking their own bathwater. The thesis of
this article is nearly opposite of the truth. Capitalism -- the kind we have
evolved (call it socio-crony-capitalism) -- has badly wounded free markets.

Here's at least a bit of an antidote:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw)

------
thatswrong0
The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion against the way in which tea was to be
distributed. The Tea Act (whatever it was called) set up a new system for
distribution in which the East India company designated specific people at
each port to receive their tea and sell it. This replaced an auction system.
In Boston, they chose Thomas Hutchinson's sons, the governor who was already
reviled by the public. So it was less about East India's monopoly and more
about the favors it received from the British government which allowed it to
maintain monopoly status. His point really holds no water.

Worse, he brushes aside the completely valid point about how the East India
Company's monopoly was granted by the government.

> And they actually understand that you have to regulate the system to get
> competition.

What about all of the monopolies that have been created by regulation? The
competition that has been destroyed? That _must_ be factored in before making
the decision that we need more regulation to get competition. We must try to
see the unseen consequences. For each example he provides of a lack-of-
regulation-created monopoly (And seriously, toothpaste? There are plenty of
brands besides those two.), you can find a government created monopoly.

------
mindcrime
_And they actually understand that you have to regulate the system to get
competition._

Talk about your gob-smacking statements! That's right up there with " _War is
peace_ ", " _Freedom is slavery_ " and " _Ignorance is strength_ ".

Oh well, Oceania is our ally, Oceania has always been our ally...

~~~
peterashford
The father of the Free Market economy agrees with them - Adam Smith hated
monopolies and he favoured (limited) government regulation.

