Years ago I read an study about insurance companies and diversification of assets in Brazil. By regulation, an individual insurance company need to have a diversified investment portfolio, but the insurance market as a whole not, so the diversification of every individual company, as a whole all the insurance market was exposed and the researchers found, iirc, like 3 banks that if they fail can they cause a chain reaction that would take out the entire insurance market.
Don’t know why, but your comment made me remind of that.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Properly regulated capitalism breaks up monopolies so new players can enter the market. What you’re seeing is dysfunctional capitalism - an economy of monopolies.
Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sorry no, capitalism is working exactly as intended. Concentration of wealth breaks regulation with unlimited political donations.
You call it unregulated, but that is the natural trend for when the only acceptable goal is the greater accumulation of wealth. There comes a time when that wealth is financially best spent buying politicians.
Until there are inherent mechanisms within capitalism to prevent special interest money from pushing policy and direct regulatory capture, capitalism will ALWAYS trend to deregulation.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes…obviously.
And that IS dysfunctional capitalism.
That’s exactly what I’m saying, dude.
This is NOT capitalism working as intended. This is broken capitalism. Runaway capitalism. Corrupt capitalism.
hglman@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Its like saying we just need good kings, no ids a bad system. Any capitalist system will devolve in corruption and monopoly. No regulations can survive the unavailable regulatory capture and corruption.
barsoap@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Nah unregulated is the exact right word and that isn’t the kind of neolib you’re out for. Those would use “free” instead of unregulated, deliberately confusing unregulated markets with the theoretical model of the free market which allocates resources perfectly – if everyone is perfectly rational and acts on perfect information. Which obviously is not the case in the real world because real-world.
There’s a strain of liberalism which is pretty much the cornerstone of Europe’s economical model, also, generally compatible with socdem approaches, and it says precisely that regulation should be used to bring the real-world market closer to that theoretical ideal – they’re of course not going all-out, you’d need to do stuff like outlaw trade secrets to actually do that, have all advertisement done by an equitable and accountable committee and shit. But by and large regulation does take the edge off capitalism. If you want to see actually unregulated capitalism, have a look at Mexican cartels.
Defeating capitalism is nothing else but defeating greed – as in not the acquisition of things, but getting addicted to the process of acquisition, the trouble isn’t that people want shit the problem is that they aren’t satisfied once they’ve achieved some goal. Humanity is going to take some more time to learn to not do that, culturally, (and before tankies come along nah look at how corrupt all those ML states were and are same problem different coat of paint), in the meantime regulation, rule of law, democracy, even representative democracy, checks and balances, all that stuff, is indeed a good idea.
gremllin@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If you start regulating capitalism, thats called something else. That would be saying that the markets can not regulate by themselves, and proving as a myth one of the basics of capitalism.
So I, as well, think capitalism is working as intended. and sure is based on greed.