Large scale production can be carried on by big firms owned by a lot of small shareholders. As a matter of fact, that’s closer to a free market than big firms owned by a few people . Concentrated ownership is more a feature of fascism/mixed economies - not so much a feature of real capitalism.
Concentration of ownership has no bearing on the extent of capitalism. Capital-ism is about how capital-intensive production is, which is how extended is the chain of production, which determines how high is the ratio of capital goods to consumer goods.
So does that mean the Friedman did not accept the calculation problem of socialism? If there is no rational way to allocate capital in the absense of private property, then what sense does it make to attribute the term Capitalism to a state controlled economy?
Same thing if you’re an Objectivist.
Different if you are not.
IMO, Commerce does not equals capitalism (despite commerce being an important mechanism in economic systems), capitalism does not equal “freedom” (despite the most relatively free populations apparently opting for capitalism over other alternatives, even under statism), but free-markets allows people to engage in commerce, & capitalism can & very well be a favorable economic system while there is a lack of a better realistic alternative, which I probably point to stateless-society as being a better alternative since it does not force an economic system upon a majority vis a State.
I’m tempted to call ‘stateless commerce’ as marketeerism or “marketism”, but those terms don’t seem very accurate, imo.
The State would co-opt commerce regardless if it’s capitalism or not, simply for the fact that the state needs to co-opt commerce in order to survive, vis-a-vis parasitism.
If I recall right, Friedman explained the failure of socialism on the lack of incentives.
A shareholder-owned corporation is no less concentrated than a privately-owned firm. At any given time only one use of the indivisible capital of the corporation can prevail, and so shareholders must agree on what this use is.
In fact the rise of the public corporation allowed even greater concentrations of capital at even larger scales by making it possible for large, dispersed groups of investors to pool their savings into one capital good of ever larger scale. It wouldn’t be possible, for example, for the oil industry to exist at its present scale without public incorporation.
classic
Which is why I think “Free To Choose” is overrated. I do think Friedman was a very intelligent man, who compromised his arguments and positions just so he won’t have to credit Mises for anything.