First, why do I have to make the really strong argument? The default position is the status quo; if you think it should be changed, you have to make the really strong argument as to why it would be better. You have the burden of proof; the status quo does not.

But corporatism isn't the answer, on even a superficial look. Crony capitalism generates waste from those who fail because they are locked out. But corporatism is wasteful, too, of those who in an open system could have tried and succeeded, but in corporatism are locked out and know it, and therefore don't even bother to try.

How about market capitalism?

I think that answers both my issue and AstralStorm's. It's also the alleged status quo. I think I agree with AstralStorm that the current situation, if not full crony capitalism, at least has more crony capitalism in it than we generally think.

Which was more-or-less the point I was originally trying to make. Apparently really poorly, judging by the downvotes.

Well, that, and that there's really only so much practical difference between de facto intermingling of the public and private sectors and de jure intermingling of the public and private sectors. Both invite rampant corruption and abuse.