-
Regulation can limit this to a degree yet that is considered by many capitalist as state interference.
I think it's actually pretty mainstream to acknowledge that capitalism depends on strong regulation.
Despite the noisy neocon minority, it should be obvious that capitalism depends on the state and its laws, because it depends on property rights and contracts being enforceable in court.
The fact that the broadly-sane "minimal effective regulation" position easily blurs into the questionable "minimal regulation" one and thence into the crazy "no regulation" which is mostly just a smokescreen for corruption doesn't help, admittedly.
useless-
Despite the noisy neocon minority, it should be obvious that capitalism depends on the state and its laws, because it depends on property rights and contracts being enforceable in court.
Not only that. All but the most fruitbat crazy of economists would accept the concepts of externalities and public good, and dealing with both of those is by definition outside the scope of the free market but can only be dealt with by a centralised state.
That's the problem with using such a broad umbrella term as 'capitalism', as it covers such a wide spectrum of different sociological, economic and political models. From neo-con Gordon Gecko 'greed is good' US neo-cons still wedded to the concept of a trickle-down economy, to social democratic systems such as the Scandinavian countries which, still entirely capitalist, nevertheless allow the state to play a major role in social policy.
Brommers
Sure it is though ethical businesses are the exception, not the rule.
The superordinate necessity in Capitalism is to grow, become richer, bigger, (faster).
Regulation can limit this to a degree yet that is considered by many capitalist as state interference.