@clumsysilverdad

'Manipulation of markets' is only a problem in the presence of force or fraud. Otherwise each must rise and fall on his own merits.

The only way anyone evades falling due to his own bad decisions, in his business, is through protection from competition. This protection can only be granted in one of two ways: a) through voluntary subsidization of the failing business owners e.g. bailed out by family/friends, or b) through involuntary intervention i.e. the State confiscating(through the threat of physical violence) what belongs to producers. The latter happens for a price i.e. politicians are for sale. It is labelled 'Consumer Protection' but it amounts to the opposite.

So, just to re-iterate, manipulation of markets, per se, is fine. The problem, as always, is the legalized threat of physical violence, used to stifle, if not eliminate, open competition.

Cronyism, per se, is different. It is a label for Protectionism i.e. the process of State Capture, where the State promises to play the role of Ultimate Consumer-Protector but never ceases - on being appointed by the unsuspecting consumer - to convert that role into Ultimate (Privileged-)Producer-Protector. Note how this perversion is baked into the cake where individuals are not exposed to open competition. It's why we naively keep re-appointing the next political angel to represent the consumers' best interests, running into a hard brick wall, and then doubling-, tripling- and quadrupling-down until there is nothing left of a recognizable middle-class.

Finally, 'Capitalism' is a word that is fraught with double-meaning. I prefer to be clearer and to instead explicitly specify, 'Crony Capitalism' or 'Laissez-Faire Captialism'. If you do this whenever you would have otherwise used the term 'Capitalism', the picture becomes much clearer very quickly. If you are unable to make this distinction, or - for whatever reason makes sense to you - you choose not to, you are a prime candidate for capitulating to - and perpetuating - the lie that governments are there to protect consumers. They are not. They are there to protect some producers at the expense of everyone else in the market. And the producers they end up protecting just happen to be the least competent from the more competent(or at least those who are prepared to risk becoming more competent at their own expense). you only have to look at the language... competent i.e. any government who is pro- open 'competition' needs, by definition, to continually fight to limit its own role in markets i.e. in setting standards or appointing standards bearers.

Of course, this - the State playing the role of consumer-protector - amounts to the exact opposite of consumer protection. It is categorically exposing the consumer to the greatest risk whilst making it increasingly impossible(illegal) to mitigate that exposure.