Capitalism isn't the problem, but the pure capitalism my readers desire requires accurate and complete information

And therein lies the rub

Let’s start looking at common definitions, and then I will spin out regarding perfect and imperfect markets.

IMF: “Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.

The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit. As Adam Smith, the 18th century philosopher and father of modern economics, said: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”’

Brittanica: an “economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.”

Merriam Webster: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”

I hope I have established that ideal Capitalism depends on the operation of ideal markets. Free markets.

For many things, we can let the market determine winners and losers. And then capitalism can work well for buyers, sellers, investors, etc.

But for a market to work well, we need accurate information. If I am buying food produced locally, I can view it and taste it and discuss the honesty of the farmer with my neighbor; that works well.

But when I am buying most products, it is impossible to obtain accurate information. Someone recently pointed out that aluminum was added to McD’s french fries. How would I know that otherwise?

How would I know that many curcumin supplements were found to contain lead? How do I know what is in a pill that I buy, or in a vaccine? I am forced to rely on regulators for that information. Perhaps I could chip in with a million other people to have my foods and drugs tested—but where would I find those million people? How would the process be organized? How would the manufacturer of the product be stopped from changing out the ingredients after testing? How can I choose a commercial flight that won’t fly me on a Boeing aircraft? I can’t.

We have learned through COVID, if not before, that the regulators, the food and the drug companies are not interested in providing accurate information to the public. In fact, are any large corporations worried enough about their reputation to give us accurate information voluntarily?

We understand that the government has chosen the winners and losers. Government regulation, as currently practiced, is a total disaster. We see that the process of corporations and their trade organizations bribing government through lobbying (not to mention the fact that our judges, our elected officials and everyone else are under constant surveillance which can be used for blackmail) has driven down our incomes and our health over the past 5 decades. The DOJ learned that it could take in huge $ settlements as long as CEOs weren’t sent to jail.

I think that in the drug industry, it was that precise fear of jail that kept many CEOs honest.

Regulation only really got going for drugs after major disasters.

• The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was created because of mass poisonings by pharma companies and hundreds of deaths.

• Congress only gave FDA vaccines to regulate starting in 1972, after thousands of kids came down with polio from polio vaccines (which were known to contain live polio viruses before they were rolled out to the public).

My bottom line: if accurate info is available you can have perfect markets and the markets can regulate products and sales.

Except I don’t think that ever happens.

So I think you need regulators, BUT you need very strict oversight of the regulators and the regulations. Regulators need to fear the costs of exposure.

In China after 2 vaccine disasters where many babies died, CEOs got the death penalty. Might that work to improve the quality of information and markets? I think it’s a good start.

Your thoughts?