I think many replies understood my comment as "every incumbent-friendly policy is laissez-faire", and argued that. What I really meant was the opposite implication, "laissez-faire policies are incumbent-friendly". (The "another name" quip came from how it's sold to the public.)
Re fitness - if you define it in terms of survival, you get a circular argument. Is a brainworm that controls the host (e.g. to get some subsidies) the fittest? Based on your example, you think it's not. So how do you define fitness?
What I am saying is different - incumbent has an advantage, it already adapted at least once to it's environment. That gives it an edge over something that is adapting for the first time. Of course that doesn't mean incumbent cannot fail at readaptation or the new thing cannot win. The favor from gods has limits.
(Incumbent also has a way to mobilize resources in a way that can be difficult for a newcomer. As was also pointed out, applying biological theories to businesses can be tricky, so this is perhaps more relevant.)
You might want to revise your original post's wording, which quite directly implies that the incumbent-friendly policies that emerged in the last few decades, specifically, are laissez-faire.
Your original post is responding to a post critiquing incumbent-friendly policies that only emerged in the last few decades.
Your point that market economics alone can favor incumbents isn't wrong, but that's a non-sequitir response to the post you are responding to.
Market economics aren't the incumbent-friendly policies that only emerged in the last few decades. The artificial mechanisms instituted through purchased political influence are.
I don't think my post is a non-sequitur. Politicians and thinktanks (and rich incumbents) are still selling laissez-faire (free market) policies as the remedy for the direct incumbent-friendly policies.
My point is, they are not the remedy. One example is the "abundance" framing from Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.
I like your comment, but I'm not sure about this part:
> Is a brainworm that controls the host (e.g. to get some subsidies) the fittest? Based on your example, you think it's not. So how do you define fitness?
The parent comment says (with my emphasis):
>> a Tesla taking in $38B of government subsidy or a google/apple getting special lenient legal treatment is not laissez-faire.
As you note, there is something of an assumption here that the claim being responded to is that all incumbent-friendly policies are laissez-faire.
But there does not appear to be a claim that successfully seeking large subsidies isn't a type of corporate fitness.
Re fitness - if you define it in terms of survival, you get a circular argument. Is a brainworm that controls the host (e.g. to get some subsidies) the fittest? Based on your example, you think it's not. So how do you define fitness?
What I am saying is different - incumbent has an advantage, it already adapted at least once to it's environment. That gives it an edge over something that is adapting for the first time. Of course that doesn't mean incumbent cannot fail at readaptation or the new thing cannot win. The favor from gods has limits.
(Incumbent also has a way to mobilize resources in a way that can be difficult for a newcomer. As was also pointed out, applying biological theories to businesses can be tricky, so this is perhaps more relevant.)