Buyer collusion (or seller collusion) is largely orthogonal to whether it's capitalism - can happen under any economy with price discovery. You are asking about statism - whether state plays favors with pricing.
A 2021 variant would be "this happens quietly for a while", "and then a central power gets a whiff of it and shuts it down because muh inequity". Either the bank NYC HQ, or the D.C., or the media.
A power detached from the local community would stop it.
Vitruvius re-iterating the key point many missed: the banks sold *willingly* at the negotiated price, as a cost of doing business. The price was discovered, the totality of the circumstances was priced in, and it worked for both sides of the deal.
1/ When a problem reoccurs several times in short time, you have a process problem. If the organization is sizable, it needs an external consultant to channel the already-existing knowledge through decisionmakers to execution.
2/ "but the consultants are expensive"
Consultants provide service that is nigh impossible to keep & foster in-house:
they enable the middle managers to make an about-face without losing face.
Moreover, the *strength* of their influence is proportional to the budget.
3/ The consultants find & extract knowledge and ability to fix that is already present in the organization, and then re-frame it from "a hare-brained and expensive idea" to "everybody does it as the best practice".
2/ The first point - a necessary technological development:
at present *propaganda/marketing/PR* is much more cost-effective than engineering, manufacture. This makes propaganda pervasive and highly influential on the society, making people & businesses highly subject to it.
3/ A sub-point regarding propaganda/marketing/PR:
need a cultural trend that treats negative propaganda at significant scale like a social attack, and reacts accordingly. At present pushback to it is strongly disallowed.
2/ Be pseudonymous online. Establish and use a long-running identity that is worth maintaining. Exchange it every couple years. Have side identities for when necessary.
Some of those could well be *shared* with others allied with you. 4chan's "Anonymous" identity comes to mind.
2/ a point to expand upon: one's individual data is probably not that very valuable; it's much more valuable *in aggregate* and *with cross-correlation *. it would probably make much more sense for group ownership of data - think shareholders in a business venture.
3/ another point to expand upon: ability to trade our own data would *also* provide us with a degree of feedback as to how (non-)anonymous does our data make us.
imagine if, for every draft post, you could get an estimate "this de-anonymizes you by 2%" or some such.
1/ The "no politics" rule of polite conversations has proven destructive. Question the "no politics" rule. Question the origin of the "no politics" rule.
2/ "No politics" - for sake of unity - has proven to be head-in-sand. Unity is a compromise negotiated from positions of strength and understanding, not an abrogation of your position. Where there is subversion of the negotiated compromise, there there is no unity.
3/ The left subverted the "no politics" rule of polite conversation by re-defining its political demands ("X rights", "free/costless Y", "equality of Z" etc.) as "common sense", "modern", "humanitarian", and - "non-political".
perhaps that's the point: to put Twitter in position of deeming who is a journalist (corporate media?) and who "isn't" (Andy Ngo?)
Twitter and "private media" poasting ban: they codified a carve-out for "covered by mainstream media". This might be aimed at smaller journalists like Andy Ngo. Or memes.
A lot will hinge on how they will interpret they other marked point, "contains eyewitness account...".