This is also why capitalism and democracy become progressively more clearly opposed the farther the status quo environment you are working in gets from feudalism or absolute monarchy, under which both seem to be changes in the same direction.
You mean linked? Capitalism is what lets the people make economic decisions, democracy is what lets people make political decisions. I think you mean communisms where people can't make economic decisions is what's oppose democracy.
No, I meant exactly what I said.
> Capitalism is what lets the people make economic decisions
No, it isn't. Capitalism is the organization of power around a narrow elite defined by the ownership of the non-financial means of production, the feature for which it was named. It was (at least initially) progress in the direction of democracy from control of the same thing being in even narrower hands than the early mercantile class defined by ownership of land under systems like feudalism, to be sure.
But, still, ultimately it conflicts with the equal distribution of power defining democracy.
They are rationalized as consistent by pretending that economic and political power are different things, rather than different applications of the same, undivided, power.
Krugman does a decent job of not letting his opinions about the political aspects color his analysis too much.
Things like
"Contrary to what many people believe, tariffs don’t necessarily lead to high unemployment. America had a high average tariff even before Smoot-Hawley — 15.8 percent in 1929 — but the unemployment rate in 1929 was under 3 percent."
He doesn't like the tariffs, he (and pretty much any serious economists) think they're bad, but he tries to be clear about why they're bad rather than just waving his hands at everything.