Of course this would be a different story if private actors had to play by the same rules, but if you amass enough capital, you are „too big to fail“ for capitalism and your losses are paid by the public.
Too big to fail should nowadays be called „too big to exist“.
Isn't market intervention more like corporate socialism though? I mean that's literally not capitalism.
"Too big to fail" is crony capitalism.
I mean I'd argue the "too big to fail bailots" are a particularly ineffective bit of market intervention in the long term, but generally speaking "market intervention to save the health of the economy" is bog-standard neoliberal, capitalist ideology. The only whiff of socialism comes from recognizing that without guardrails the fully freed economy will destabilize, possibly from angry with pitchforks, angry they can't afford food, shelter, and the basics. So—it is still serving the ultimate needs of the capitalists who run society by not ousting them when they do destabilizing things.
Plus, if this weren't capitalism, no society in history would have been capitalist making it a bit of a useless word for sticking to extant political movements.
This is not about a question of ideology. It's about the wealthy being protected and fostered, by any narrative necessary. On sunny days, it's liberalism, on rainy days it's socialism.
> Mr Sudarskis argues that the most vulnerable parties are not the investors, who recieve a share of the fees and willingly sign a contract with their fund managers, _but portfolio companies._
In terms of effected people, i would not call investors the "most vulnerable". Have-nots can't spread risk to the degree a fund manager can and are bound much more to local monopolies.
> One issue the regulatory agency raised was conflict of interest [… between managers and stakeholders]
combined with
> Mr Sudarskis argues that the most vulnerable parties are not the investors, who recieve a share of the fees and willingly sign a contract with their fund managers, _but portfolio companies._
This conflict of interest goes far beyond the monetary aristocracy!
Am i the only one who sees it between the interest of individuals vs society?! Is this question so darn complex or am i the crazy one here??
This article dares to speak about "extraction" but does not reflect one key metric: reinvestment/saving rate (down to the individual/per income). A household with small margins is much more impacted by greedflation and much more unlikely to not spend and hand down absurd wealth.
So i humbly cannot contain another dull question: Extracting from and to whom in general?
The reason why it bothers me so much is, you can see this elefant everywhere ... and the guys standing around, arguing what snake its tail might be.
And btw, this kind of super efficient in-house contracting is the exact reason why ppl distrust government spending with their slow and inefficient in-party/amigo contracting.