T.C.O.W. 1: Is Capitalism the justification for Corporatism..

[HappySqurriel]

Jim6860 said:

HappySqurriel said:
I would personally argue that "Democratic Socialism" is far more likely to lead to corporatism than free market capitalism ...

In a free market (laissez faire) system the rules are supposed to be equitable for all participants in the system and the market is supposed to determine who is successful of not. In this system there is no advantage for businesses to get "into bed" with the government because there is nothing the government can do to benefit them.

In contrast, in a social democracy the government is always arbitrarily deciding what has "merit" or what is "damaging" which often determines who is successful or a failure. With this in mind there is a significant incentive for businesses to manipulate the government.

As an example, in a social democracy a company that manufactures electric automobiles can become far more profitable if they can manipulate the processes of the government to pay for R&D, provide buying incentives for customers, and introduce legislation that creates fines on their competition.

You have it wrong with the highlighted part of your quote. Ever hear of "Lobbying"? The fact that wealth management in any industry has access to government for for any benefit to the corporations is fact, while the average Joe or Jane can't even get a congressional ear. Example, do you get bail-out(s) for failing to control your own economic situation? Do you get special tax incentives for your business by just creating a company (just look at the oil companies)? In true capitalism, companies should succeed or fail based on a sound business foundation, not on the premise of gettimg government support, in which some the largest corporations get. You hear many pro-business people, and even those who are part of that electorate, screaming for Social Security reform (or even its removal) and getting rid of Medicare because it is "Socialism", which I can only agree with to an extent. But, then they can get tax breaks and bailouts for making bad decisions, well, it can't go just one way; talk about a warped reversal role to corporate socialism.

Look at IPOs in the stock market, only the wealthiest people have access to them before the remainder of the stock goes public, and by that time, the IPOs become more valued as the general public buys into any IPO related stiock once it is available to them. This rule is government controlled. Considering this, I think 'laissez faire' in a misnomer considering the benefits government gives to large corps and those who have the money to get access to congressional members. But it certainly works as such once they get their way :/.

The current relationship between the government and corporations has nothing to do with free market (laissez faire) capitalism ...

If you take away the power of the government to give special benefits to particular favoured organization, and eliminate the ability for corporations, unions and special interest groups to buy influence from the government, corporations and government officials no longer would have anything to gain from eachother.