Is Free-Market Capitalism Impossible?

Tyler Durden's picture

In a genuinely free market, rich corporations people have both the resources and incentive to corrupt the government in order to make the market less free. In other words, Capitalism only works in a world in which people have integrity and are accountable to others and themselves - which is the weakest link. And so you end up with? America. In short: "there ain't no such thing as a free market" - which is not to say that we shouldn't try. The following clip points out that even seemingly pro-business legislation is not beneficial to society or businesses themselves broadly with the analogy that "what's good for GM may not be good for America after all"; which begs the question: do humans doom capitalism by default?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AnAnonymous's picture

For US citizens, everything is situational.

Right side of the fence, wrong side of the fence.

Change in perspective.

forexskin's picture

for ananonymous, everything is muddled and senseless. lets all just take his advice. what no advice? just a bunch of pointless bullshit? at least you're consistent, idiot.

AnAnonymous's picture

just a bunch of pointless bullshit?

The point is usually 'Americanism' but feel free to qualify 'Americanism' the way you are pleased.

forexskin's picture

oh so sorry, my mistake.

thought the point was uscitizinism.

so uscitizinism = bullshit

now we're clear

AnAnonymous's picture

US citizenism is just another word for 'Americanism'

'Americanism' is the point, and this with us being clear or not.

But hey, 'Americans' are 'Americans' and for 'Americans', congregation of agreements (consensus) makes facts.

forexskin's picture

oh boy, now we got a label.

what gives this label meaning, idiot?

ok now, got it, its a pretend idea of actually knowing something.


akak's picture

For Chinese Citizenism citizens, every act of public defecation is situational.

Right side of the road, left side of the road.

Change in squatting perspective.

debtor of last resort's picture

And when they tell you to jump over the fence for a 300k student loan it's called 'subprime' huh? I get it. Well, we got rid of the indians for you. Marshal return? OK. But the euro as greenback in exchange. No, just joking. Where narcism and money come together, things go wrong.

Noktirnal's picture

Everything is situtational. All things in known existance act, react, or do not act according to situations.

Change in perspective... there is no fence.

Dr. Engali's picture

We have never had freem market capitalism. As long as the government props up one entity, or pays out one subsidy, the system isn't free.

Pants McPants's picture

'Pockets' of free market capitalism exist, in places like eBay and Craigslist for example.

Of course forcing everyone to use some version of counterfeit currency kinda defeats the idea, I won't dispute that.

Dr. Engali's picture

Garage sales, yard sales, and flea markets are the closest things to free markets we have,

AnAnonymous's picture

Woooo. Big.

I sometimes suspect that 'Americans' bemoan what they destroyed.

A garage sales close to free market?

Woooo, it takes a US citizen to outdo a US citizen.

Wooo, if something, garage sales are closer to subsistence markets, when people sell the surplus of their own consumption.

Subsistence markets were condemned by 'Americans' and somehow depicted as an antithesis to free markets.

Wooo, big.

forexskin's picture

what? what? you saying something, idiot?

Noktirnal's picture

In some cases, yes. In other cases what is traded is the surplus of their own production. So what? It it wrong to trade unwanted items for wanted items? Is it wrong to trade the excess products of your labor or creativity for others you want or need? Is it wrong to trade service(s) for service(s) or goods?

In my opinion, no. Mutually beneficial transactions between informed participants are not wrong.

What would you consider a free market, if you could create it as you like?

Would you want to create such a market?

If not, what sort of market would you create?

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous said:

Woooo. Big.

Woooo, it takes a US citizen

Wooo, if something

Give a woot,
take a poot,
on the road and walk away.

rambles on.
Not much difference there, I'd say.

debtor of last resort's picture

The system is more then just economics. It's about economics, survival, love & war. Evolutions cocktail.

reader2010's picture

There are only two classes throughout human civilization. They are the rich and the poor. That's it. Free for whom?

debtor of last resort's picture

Competition is battle. And battle is for apes.

Noktirnal's picture

So... competition = battle, battle is for apes.

Humans = apes, battle = competition, therefore competition is for humans.

Did I follow that correctly? Or is something missing from my equation?

All organisms compete for resources. Obviously, all organisms are not apes, nor are they all humans.

I don't get anything from what you said except for the obvious, which I agree is true.

Do you think organisms should not compete for resources? Do you think they should?


MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Genuinely free markets do not evolve into monster governments which can be corrupted. We're looking at market-evolution from nation-states which weren't free and from royal families / oligarchs that didn't allow freedom. This is going to be difficult. Nascent free markets exist but are small because they're called black markets, flea markets, bartering.

Precious's picture

Fake MDB - You left out the part where all this goodness happened because you attended SXSW.

michael.suede's picture

This article assumes that capitalism can't work because it will corrupt the state.  Obviously that is ass-backwards.  The state cannot work because it is inherently corrupt.  How can anyone expect an organization that is predicated on theft and the initiation of force to somehow maintain law and order?   Do people honestly expect an institution that steals for a living to protect property rights and ensure fair justice is done?  Only an idiot would believe the state is capable of achieving such goals.

Major_Freedom's picture

You have it correct.  Those downvoting you are almost certainly mistaken in their views, if downvoting means disagreement.

liszt's picture

He is ugly. They should have take a nice girl instead of this cretin.

The issue with capitalism is NOT what you believe, a lack of real free market or less Keynesian manipulation, less corruption, in other words, a lack of perfection, and a weakness of mankind. This IS DEFINITIVELY NOT THE POINT !

Keynesians are right when they address the problem by pointing the lack of demand, that is the issue and you won't solve it, and no one will !

So Galbraith, and Krugman, and Obama, are right with their monetary policy about demand, but in the long term we are not dead as said Keynes, the long term with the debt issue is now.

Marley's picture

Corporations are not people and as such don't have integrity.

Major_Freedom's picture

It's not capitalism that is doomed to fail, it's states that are doomed to turn totalitarian, no matter how small they start out to be.


States are coercive monopolies in security and protection.  As with all monopolies, quality tends to decline and costs tend to increase.


It is the presence of states that corrupts capitalism and eventually overthrows it.  It just took so long in the US because the state started out so relatively small.


Since capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production, the only true form of capitalism is a world where ALL means of production are privately owned, which leaves no room for states at all.  Even security and protection would be privately offered.


In this "anarcho"-capitalism, there is no state to bribe, infiltrate, or grow at the expense of liberty.  Every security provider would be limited by every other security provider (as well as every provider of every good and service at all whose offerers compete for revenues).

AnAnonymous's picture

Made me laugh.

World started at 1776, July, 4th.

Quite funny when you think of the number of times US citizens like to repeat their mantra: " a republic if you can keep it"

Because in the done depiction, it means that there is no room for a republic.

Because the state can be privately owned, as shown by history prior the US of A.

But hey, the new US citizen scam is anarcho capitalism when by definition anarchy and capitalism are not compatible.

Once a liar... US citizens have been lying their way up since inception, why change now?

forexskin's picture

you so much bettah! what make you so much bettah?


AnAnonymous's picture

Ah, no. The innate sense of superiority, that is 'American' stuff.

'Americans' are human beings. The others are sub human beings or non human beings.

Keep on the page.

'Americans', 'Americanism', the best things ever to happen to the world.

akak's picture


'Americans', 'Americanism', the best things ever to happen to the world.

We all know that you are the father, the wellspring, the very inspiration for your self-styled "US Citizenism", but really, being so openly proud of your creation, and such bragging, is simply unseemly.

AnAnonymous's picture

'Americans' and their impotency to separate fantasy, propaganda and reality.

Dont worry though: they are all in to address the TRUE, REAL problems...

forexskin's picture

and you so good at seeing the truth. so you know the real problem!

got it, uscitizinism! now what that mean, and what give it meaning?

why it because ananonymous is top all seeing genius!

come on, share you version of truth!

what, no truth, just bullshit?


ananonymous know bullshit truth = uscitizinism

there, proof!

you good judge, must be so much bettah!


akak's picture


Noktirnal's picture

I agree, as well as disagree. Who provides justice when a crime has occurred? Who settles disputes? What rules are followed in doing so? No individual can protect himself from every threat. What happens when "private security" groups want to force you to use their services? You can't, on your own, meet the threat and win. If they kill you, hurt you, or infringe on your human rights how is justice served to the guilty? It works as long as everyone respects evryone else, but that isn't reality. There has to be some deterrent. But that deterrent needs to be chained and only loosed when necessary. The states that exist today want to imprison or kill you for believing in the same freedom they purport to protect.

The solution seems to be freedom for all humans. One human's freedom has to end where another's begins. How do the weak enjoy freedom with bad actors afoot, that wish to take it? I can protect myself against 1 person or a small group under the right circumstances, but in any conflict there is a chance for anyone to lose life, property, or liberty. One person has no chance against large groups. The rights of all have to be protected on some level or we end up right back where we are.

Surely there has to be a way for individuals or groups of individuals to live in freedom AND in peace, but I can't think of one. It is a good topic for debate. Maybe someone can find a way.

Scalaris's picture

Free-Market Capitalism in its intended form is an unfeasible concept, due to the shared goal of wealth acquisition by the acting participants, subjected to the dissimilarity of means used, is directly influenced by the actors' human nature.

In a crude description, if free-market capitalism is the closest comparison to a Darwinian socioeconomic system, unequal physical, mental and ethical capabilities are chasing the same objective, resulting in a respective distribution of socioeconomic layers and compensational hierarchy.

The amount of individual interacting egos within this system in need of verificational remuneration is usually achieved via financial and material gratification, which supersedes the theoretical balance of the intended system.

As a result, the unevenness of the competitive pool results in the proliferation of cronyism or nepotistic practises, used in order to achieve the desired "evenness" of the plain.


AnAnonymous's picture

But, but, but where is the government?

Pants McPants's picture

I agree with your conclusion, but only insofar as a government exists to facilitate/reward such behavior.

Interacting egos is a good thing; I'd argue it is at the heart of progress.  Competing interests do not necessarily result in zero sum outcomes.  Actually, the opposite is true in a free market...where all transactions are mutually beneficial.

I know you said it was a crude description, but IMO a free market is not closely related to darwinism.  Chaos theory better models free market behavior (again IMO)

(Completely possible I misread your post & I apologize if that's the case)

AnAnonymous's picture

Competing interests do not necessarily result in zero sum outcomes. Actually, the opposite is true in a free market...where all transactions are mutually beneficial.

Very fit 'Americans'. Best.

Competiting interests do not necessarily result in zero sum outcomes, as in a free market, all transactions are mutually beneficial.

Woooo. And that is the US citizen middle class, the backbone of a US citizen nation.

What a triumph, what an achievement.

forexskin's picture

yea, you fit to judge. what your standard, idiot?

AnAnonymous's picture

Logics of lowest level. Even understood by negroes, so to tell how lowest level it is...

forexskin's picture

oh i see, now you make proof from lowest idiot logic.

no wonder you bettah!


TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Hypocritizenism, thy name is AnAnonymous.

Noktirnal's picture

There is no US, no US citizenism or whatever you call it. There is only resources, and organisms that utilize them. Everything else is a fiction. No middle class, no lower class, no upper class. These are artificial constructs. We are all humans. The patches of land that we live on do not make us any more or less human.

You write as if every human being that lives within the imaginary border called the USA has wronged you, for merely existing.

If this is true, how have I wronged you? How has my very existance taken away from yours? Did you get to choose your place of birth, and the government that existed at that time? Did you have any say in the laws inacted before you were born into that place? How about after your birth? During your life, did you get to write the laws you live by? Is there a real or fictional authority that can take your rights away, justly or not?

Again, what do you propose we who live within this border do?

We are all born naked, and we all will pass away eventually. Something else will eventually take our place.

Scalaris's picture

The comparison to Darwinian survivalism was done by equating the goal of surviving the predatory sequence, to the capitalistic endgame that is capital acquirement of the largest volume pre-decease, if one assumes that all things are equal.

The reason of this being an overly crude comparison, is the lack of historical context, which if taken into consideration will show that prior to the inception of capitalism on a chronological line, the act of capital acquirement had already been taking place within a period spanning throughout hundreds of centuries, by the practice of primitive tribal warlodism dominance, evolved into the various dynastic nobility and monarchic houses deriving their wealth through serfdom.

To cut it short, large amounts of wealth has always been concentrated into small social groups, and its deployment has been adapted accordingly, in tandem with the evolution of socio-political systems (e.g. dukes, barons, lords etc. have had their serfs turned into middle management and cheap labour accordingly, for the respective enterprises funded by the accumulation of their capital, which in turn created the industries that function within a democratic system). 

As a result, former subjects have been promoted to legitimate workers within an evolved, humane and philosophically dexterous system, which gives them not only human rights and a wage, but also security of physical integrity.

Again, and to return from the derailment of my central point, large pools of capital controlled by small group of people, has been commanding influence way before the origins of modern monetary and trade systems. Along with the evolution of the systems, there was the necessary adjustment to the evolution of capital investment, which through history has been providing capital for navies, charter companies, nation building, war financing, heavy industrial development and of course, unlimited political influence.

So, the main source of disequilibration and prevention of a free market capitalism, is the disproportional accumulation of capital, prior to the decision of econo-political carte-blanche, which lays foundational preconditions, and dictating selective advantage for certain social groups, despite their comparative Darwinian skill to the wide social pool.

proLiberty's picture

"In a genuinely free market, rich corporations people have both the resources and incentive to corrupt the government in order to make the market less free."

This is only one THIRD of the story. For every willing corporate crony, there must not only be a willing government crony, but also willing third party cronies like the press or even self-appointed crony watchdog NGOs like environmentalist groups.

AnAnonymous's picture

Our systems are perfect. Damned human nature!

Signed: an American.

akak's picture

Our systems of authoritarian one-party dictatorial rule and economic central planning are perfect.

Damned freedom and human rights!

Damned pro-democracy protestors and Tibetans!

Damned Taiwanese, daring to be independent!

Signed: A Chinese Citizenism citizen.

AnAnonymous's picture

This fictional proponent of the fantasy called chinese citizenism sounds like an 'American'

Loathes freedom and human rights? Checked.

Has selective perception on dictature as long as it serves best interests? Checked.

Has taste for colonization, protectorate, nation building? Checked.

'Americanism' is even spreading in the fantasical land of Chinese citizenism.

Oh, wait, that is because it is all written by a US citizen and US citizens can not but repeat the schemes brought by US citizenism...