Free Market Capitalism Inevitably Leads to Corruption

I will first address the premise that corporatism is the inevitable result and than go on to explain a fundamental understanding of the balance of power between Public and private sectors and why that balance should favor the private sector in terms of regulations and so forth. Corporatism is really the same effectively as fascism but the process of reaching that system is reversed. In a typical model of Fascism, the Government nationalizes and takes over industrial sectors until it controls the industrial world "To a T". Corporatism is the process in reverse, Corporations are taking over the role of government to the point where Big Industry and Big government are indistinguishable from one another. But for a fundamental understanding of this process you have to understand that a corporation is not a business. A corporation is a set of Legal protections, it is literally a legal entity designed to redirect liabilities. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... So, in a free market... one that did not have special legal protections to favor one business over another and limited abilities to redirect liability, a corporation could not become too big to fail... If there was no public sector corporate welfare, the mortgage bubble would have gotten to half its size before it exploded and collapsed around have the major financial banks. Leading to a great recession but one that would have corrected it self significantly faster as the remaining bigs recovered and the financial that didn't leverage them selves to the hilt would gradually pick up the slack of the fallen ones. The down side... grandma's retirement is gone... Sorry grandma it REALLY IS your job to pay attention to who invests your money and where. On the bright side, a good deal of those banks fucked people over in blatant violations of agreements or snuk in agreement changes... most of which would not have held up in a court system that had its head on straight. A good deal of the losses would be recovered and the ones who lost the most at the end of the day would be the business owners,managers and stock holders. What actually happened, is the business owners got golden parachutes and the stock holders got bailed out at the direct expense of Grandma and her investment money... but hey, ^%$# grandma if she can't afford her own congressman. This is the stark contrast between "&$#@ you grandma" and a free market. In "%$#! you grandma" regulations are huge in number... none of which have much relevance in the business of huge corporations, they convoluted,hard to understand and full of loop holes just encase one of them happens to cross the path of a huge corporation. In a free market... or should I say Free* market (* some conditions apply) Regulations are few but clear and concise. Think of it for a moment form the enforcement perspective. The more regulations you have...especially ones that are a 1000+ pages... The more resources are required to enforce the regulation ( or law) and the more absurd is the law, the more absurd will be the enforcement. The result is that when regulations are huge and vague the enforcement agencies tend to find soft target violators ( the little guys who don't have legal teams to fight back) as well they tend to focus on regulations about the way a shoe has to be tied ( only a slight exaggeration) rather than regulations that stop Mr.WallStreet from $#@!ing over grandma. ... Not even using lube. That said lets look at some fundamental understandings of the Public sector and the private sector and some attributes of each. For example, The public sector is. Pros: Stable Effective ( at certain things) Consistent Powerful Slower to corrupt Cons: Slow moving Inhabiting of internal innovation Costly & Inefficient Must be externally reformed from time to time. The private sector is: Pros: Fast moving Fast to evolve Self correcting Efficient ( sometimes too much so) Effective ( at certain things) Cons: Easily corrupted Not inherently stable ========================= The Public sector being stable and slow moving is good at BIG THINGS.... think the Apollo project, the Eisenhower highways. ( I like Ike) It is good at using the hammer to solve problems.... and that's important. The public sector is BAD at dealing with day to day needs and issues... The Public sector always has to be Huge to be effective because it is inherently Inefficient. Bureaucracy is the reason for this. Bureaucracy is the DNA of the Public sector and even though it can be and often is upgraded from time to time it is SLOW to do so and the Public sector does not have mechanism s for self correction. It takes massive movements of voters and huge amounts of resources to reform an agency that has become corrupt and ineffective. So though it's true that corrupting the public sector is a massive project that it self requires alot of time and effort, once it is corrupted that corruption becomes entrenched and extremely hard to remove. By contrast, the Private sector is harder to organize. So many people doing things with different motivations and different end-games... It suffers from its inherently fast moving nature. In A free market, products are born and die at a furious pace though the good ones tend to stay around for a while. As a system it is inherently unstable but it does allow for stable instance to arise. It is exceptional at meeting day to day needs and wants but it is fundamentally bad at big projects... No, big sky scrapers don't really count. While the private sector could competently provide infrastructure needs, the Public sector is better suited for that. this is an example of a balance of power that needs to exist a fundamental understanding of this is important.