I do disagree that an open and transparent system of corporatism, which we used to call the economic policy of fascism, is an acceptable alternative to open and free markets. I’m not interested in a kinder and gentler fascism, as Ralph so evidently is.

Individual liberty involves private property. It cannot be extricated from property, any more than it could be separated from life.

The policy should not be to improve slightly the transparency of the corporations, including the mega-banks, including the mega-manufacturers, but to leave them entirely exposed to market forces to break up and disappear. Their assets won’t go away, the jobs in their industry won’t go away, but the competitiveness of finance and manufacturing, and the customer service innovations needed to win back market share will dramatically increase.

We are currently engaged as spectators in watching what should be our money as individuals distributed to reward for bad behavior and high risk taking among consolidated industries, while publicly purporting to seek good behavior and lower risk taking. Rewarding for A while seeking B is a classic folly.

Unfortunately, a fascist economic policy always encourages consolidation, to reduce the number of players who are giving benefits to those in power to a comprehensible few. Fascism always causes bigger businesses to become gigantic. And the policy of the United States government has been fascist since the days of private railroad companies and the “Interstate Commerce Commission.”

A study of, say, the history of James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railroad reveals that it was possible to build a profitable railroad without land subsidies or track subsidies. And it was upsetting to those who depended on government subsidies, so they set up the ICC to get the government into the rate setting business.

I believe that Ralph is determined to have government rate setting, even if it means people starve for want of food. It is clear that he supports a policy of government mandates on the design of automobiles, so my mother had to spend a small fortune to get the airbag in her car removed, because if it accidentally deployed (as they do, especially as they get older) it would likely kill a woman of her very small frame (she’s tiny).

Unfortunately, all his safety standards and emission standards have raised very high barriers to entry, even when they are stupidly applied. The bureau-rats of the EPA and the DoT are not interested in a better environment or safer autos, they are interested in jobs when they stop being bureau-rats for government – jobs in industry helping big companies navigate the byzantine regulations they used to impose. These high barriers to entry prevent new innovators, including foreign ones, from having access to the same market as GM and the other behemoths.

I don’t know what Ralph thinks about protectionism, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he liked it. And there is still a 100% tariff on imported pickup trucks, since 1968, last I checked. Again, protectionism benefits, not the consumer, not the economy, but the mis-managers of huge businesses.