The problem is that anytime anyone tries to outlaw something, no matter how obvious and for the health of the market it may be, "capitalists" will crawl out for the woodwork to exclaim "this is the death of the free market!"
People do it here, constantly. Look at the FTC - they're charged with maintaining and enforcing a competitive free market. But when they make rules or prevent monopolistic mergers or anti-competitive contracts, conservatives and libertarians lose their minds.
There is no single state of capitalism. We should think of markets as a fluid mass filling the vessel that government provides. In some places these practices are allowed, and other places these practices are restricted - markets form elsewhere in those economies.
It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed.
I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having competitors across the street) from various harms, such as emissions, noise, overcrowding or things like that. In other words, not about what goes on at some property, but what happens to the outside because of it. But as the uncontrolled abuse grew unchecked, it became something else entirely.
This stuff, together with non-competes and exclusivity agreements is something different. I don't know what it is, but it's neither capitalism nor socialism "as they were well-meant", but rather a weird amalgamation of perverted concepts from both, leading to both erosion of healthy markets (so, harming capitalism) and degradation of life quality (so, harming socialism).
Noncompetes are capitalistic. Property use restrictions aren't inherently capitalist but how they're used in most cases, particularly within the US, they almost always are.
Single family home zoning is the factor in bloated infrastructure and housing prices going up. This protects capital investment of a necessity which ensures exploitation of the working class.
capitalism is about competition and non-competes are literally named a "not gonna compete" agreement.
I don't see how's that capitalism at all. If Coca-cola and Pepsi signed a agreement not to compete that was made public, the FTC would go after them. If Microsoft made secret backroom deals that gave them an unfair advantage, the FTC would and did go after them. If you don't like competition, having the government come in and say you're the only one that can do that just isn't how American is supposed to work.
Non-competes are anti-capitalism and anti-American. That they're used against bartenders and restaurant servers is just gross.
Don't confuse free market and capitalism. They are operated at same time, but capitalism certainly does not have free market as end goal, it would much prefer to have total monopoly.
It is capitalism, and I think this is inherent in all stages of capitalism. The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. In earlier forms, monopolists and oligarchs may have used different levers of power, but it’s all ultimately the same thing. Use whatever means are available to make profit.
The whole idea of "late stage capitalism" is leftist end times nonsense.
> where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked
By this reasoning, the Gilded Age was already "late stage capitalism", and yet somehow regulations were implemented and capitalism continued on, in a less shitty form.
It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competitors from coming in and creating competition. The propaganda doesn't have to be good when nobody understands what is and isn't capitalism anyways.
That’s correct: Albertsons is responsible for upholding the deed restrictions, and can use any legal means to do so. The regulators could have said that a monopoly has grown too big to enjoy good standing in court, but instead of that they chose a small fee.
You are incorrect. This has nothing to do with regulations.
It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops.
This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.
When the incumbent owns the vacant lot, it's capitalism. Free formation of contracts (saying you promise not to open a grocery store there, in exchange for getting the land at all) is also a big part of capitalism.
I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean. Are you saying "capitalism did it therefore this is good" and suggesting that people disagreeing are victims of "propaganda"?
