Captialism -- A Crime Against Humanity!

[Demon of Light]

How is the use of government force the fault of capitalism? Because under capitalism they made the money to lobby with? No, the blame falls on those using government force against the free market. The protectionists and the government are to blame; not capitalism.

What we need is a separation of economics and state. Government protectionism/subsidy should be unconstitutional.

The notion that corporatism is the inevitable result of free markets is utter tripe, the moment government force is used you're not talking about a free market. Corporatism is the inevitable result of protectionism, under a truly free market it cannot happen.

It does not come about in a free market, it comes about through government force; The same goes for monopolies.

Getting rid of protectionism and subsidies won't do a damn thing to keep powerful business interests from exercising that power. A truly free market inevitably leads to monopolies because a business will inevitably seek to increase its market position by any means necessary. In an unrestricted free market every incentive exists to engage in anti-competitive practices. Such practices inevitably create monopolies and said monopolies inevitably influence governments.

Your idyllic free market paradise does not exist. A free market will not prevent anything, but only result in the very system you revile.

Just how are Apple a monopoly? Just how are they using the market share they earned to "lock out competitors?" Can you honestly name a single alleged natural monopoly that came about without the use of government?

I didn't say Apple was a monopoly and if you want to know what they are doing look into recent incidents over Adobe Flash.

 

[Mensch]

Getting rid of protectionism and subsidies won't do a damn thing to keep powerful business interests from exercising that power. A truly free market inevitably leads to monopolies because a business will inevitably seek to increase its market position by any means necessary. In an unrestricted free market every incentive exists to engage in anti-competitive practices. Such practices inevitably create monopolies and said monopolies inevitably influence governments.

Your idyllic free market paradise does not exist. A free market will not prevent anything, but only result in the very system you revile.



I didn't say Apple was a monopoly and if you want to know what they are doing look into recent incidents over Adobe Flash.

Retake Econ 101.

Let's say you have a company that wants to be a monopoly. They do whatever they can to become a monopoly. They become a monopoly and charge untold number of dollars for a product that costs less than a quarter of the price to make. Is that possible under a free market?

NO. It has never happened in the history of the world (but remember that few places practice free market principles). The only nonnatural monopolies arise because of governmental force and backing. Corporatism cannot exist if you put up a strict boundary between government and business. NO business is allowed subsidies. No tariff shall be passed under any circumstance. Institutions should be deregulated and/or privatized (except for the fundamental apparatus of government). The ability to force others to sacrifice for the sake of others is inhumane. Whether we are talking about large tax increases to pay for some begotten war or ridiculous subsidies intended to stir interest in a special interest product, NONE are tolerated in a free market. The lack of confidence in a free market stem from a lack of confidence in the freedom of human beings to live their lives as they permit (the only rule in the market is to let others live by the same rule and to not infringe on their freedom).

Again, answer Lachean's question. Name a single alleged natural monopoly that came about without the use of government?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Corporatism cannot exist if you put up a strict boundary between government and business.

And whose job is that?

 

[Mensch]

And whose job is that?

The little people. The voters. Do not vote for someone who will subsidize GE in order to "spur the energy market." Do not vote for someone who will raise tariffs on imports in order to "protect American workers." Do not vote for someone who promises to give you everything on a platter. A government strong enough to give you everything is also strong enough to take everything away from you. Do not vote for someone who will initiate price controls and regulatory boards to "protect consumers," or who will raise the minimum wage and legislate firing laws in order to, again, "protect the worker." That is how you separate government from business. The very way you separate religious structure from government.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Which is a fantasy.

 

[Mensch]

Which is a fantasy.

Hmmm. Living your own life your own way, relating and exchanging with other human beings on a daily basis without central planning is a fantasy? It's a fantasy to want to separate government from economics the same way you would separate government from religion? It's a fantasy to promote an objective government? The only fantasy is the socialist fantasy. One where absolute equality is the utopia. Have you ever read H.G. Wells Time Machine? Marxism would thrill to see the day when humans evolve into the Eloi.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Which is a fantasy.

Just like the voters embracing Marxism

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Getting rid of protectionism and subsidies won't do a damn thing to keep powerful business interests from exercising that power. A truly free market inevitably leads to monopolies because a business will inevitably seek to increase its market position by any means necessary. In an unrestricted free market every incentive exists to engage in anti-competitive practices. Such practices inevitably create monopolies and said monopolies inevitably influence governments.

Your idyllic free market paradise does not exist. A free market will not prevent anything, but only result in the very system you revile.

You're forgetting that others are trying to get on top as well. Natural monopolies are extremely difficult to create, and more difficult to maintain.

I didn't say Apple was a monopoly and if you want to know what they are doing look into recent incidents over Adobe Flash.

Of course Flash isn't the only video player, so who cares?

 

[Renae]

You're forgetting that others are trying to get on top as well. Natural monopolies are extremely difficult to create, and more difficult to maintain.



Of course Flash isn't the only video player, so who cares?

The issue with Apple is the Hipster cool kids can't believe they are denied access to certain content on their expensive toys because GASP Apple has business interest in promoting it's products. The real silliness of this is that they merely need by a product that uses Flash. Apple has a Monopoly on Apple Products and Software Compatibility! It's madness!!!

It'd be like these people complaining that they have to use Gasoline in their cars, why can't they use diesel???

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Hmmm. Living your own life your own way, relating and exchanging with other human beings on a daily basis without central planning is a fantasy? It's a fantasy to want to separate government from economics the same way you would separate government from religion? It's a fantasy to promote an objective government? The only fantasy is the socialist fantasy. One where absolute equality is the utopia. Have you ever read H.G. Wells Time Machine? Marxism would thrill to see the day when humans evolve into the Eloi.

It's a fantasy because it has no historical basis in reality. It's a fantasy the same way the vegetarian movement against meat consumption is a fantasy. It won't happen because it has no historical, concrete basis.

Moreover, you're completely denying the fact that capitalism is naturally bound up in the state; in fact, it requires it. And it is not possible to "separate" capital and state from one another by means of "voters" because of the very way in which the system works. The entire basis of society can't be changed simply by voting.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

It's a fantasy because it has no historical basis in reality. It's a fantasy the same way the vegetarian movement against meat consumption is a fantasy. It won't happen because it has no historical, concrete basis.

19th century Britain came fairly close.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

19th century Britain came fairly close.

In what way? That seems a strange thing to say considering the fact that that is when the majority of its empire was built.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

In what way?

It had a pretty laissez-faire economy. It wasn't a complete divorce between economy and government, but few people who talk about that are actual Anarchists. It's not a very good phrase, but I it gets the goal across.

 

[Mensch]

It's a fantasy because it has no historical basis in reality. It's a fantasy the same way the vegetarian movement against meat consumption is a fantasy. It won't happen because it has no historical, concrete basis.

Moreover, you're completely denying the fact that capitalism is naturally bound up in the state; in fact, it requires it. And it is not possible to "separate" capital and state from one another by means of "voters" because of the very way in which the system works. The entire basis of society can't be changed simply by voting.

An entire basis cannot be changed by voting? Are you forgetting that the Nazis were voted into power in 1933? Of course you cannot completely seperate capital from the state, but you can sure do the best you can. There have been instances in society where this has taken place. The Meiji Restoration in Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore now, and the U.S. in the late 1800s.

 

[Demon of Light]

Let's say you have a company that wants to be a monopoly. They do whatever they can to become a monopoly. They become a monopoly and charge untold number of dollars for a product that costs less than a quarter of the price to make. Is that possible under a free market?

This is assuming a monopoly would charge more than it needed. In fact, a monopoly has plenty of incentive to make prices low. Low prices keep competition from being able to emerge. For instance, if you have a company with a monopoly on a natural resource all they have to do is create a scarcity to drive up prices, thus creating profit. If they need to thin the herd of competition they create abundance and force the others out of business.

NO. It has never happened in the history of the world (but remember that few places practice free market principles). The only nonnatural monopolies arise because of governmental force and backing. Corporatism cannot exist if you put up a strict boundary between government and business. NO business is allowed subsidies. No tariff shall be passed under any circumstance. Institutions should be deregulated and/or privatized (except for the fundamental apparatus of government). The ability to force others to sacrifice for the sake of others is inhumane. Whether we are talking about large tax increases to pay for some begotten war or ridiculous subsidies intended to stir interest in a special interest product, NONE are tolerated in a free market. The lack of confidence in a free market stem from a lack of confidence in the freedom of human beings to live their lives as they permit (the only rule in the market is to let others live by the same rule and to not infringe on their freedom).

It's obvious you are repeating the tired old Austrian economics propaganda. Rather convenient propaganda too. You say I can't prove a monopoly emerges in a free market and at the same time say there has never been a truly market. It's almost like you've already eliminated any chance of discussion that questions your position. So any example I give will inevitably be responded to with, "That wasn't a true free market." Do you realize that's a fallacious argument?

You're forgetting that others are trying to get on top as well. Natural monopolies are extremely difficult to create, and more difficult to maintain.

Well, then it's a good thing the people on top have the high ground and can make sure they keep falling back to the bottom of the hill.

19th century Britain came fairly close.

One other thing I notice about advocates of Austrian economics is they always come up with examples that are not even remotely close.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Well, then it's a good thing the people on top have the high ground and can make sure they keep falling back to the bottom of the hill.

Consumer demands change very quickly. Even the mighty can fall if allowed to.

One other thing I notice about advocates of Austrian economics is they always come up with examples that are not even remotely close.

And other than some food tariffs how is 19th century Britain not even close?

 

[Mensch]

This is assuming a monopoly would charge more than it needed. In fact, a monopoly has plenty of incentive to make prices low. Low prices keep competition from being able to emerge. For instance, if you have a company with a monopoly on a natural resource all they have to do is create a scarcity to drive up prices, thus creating profit. If they need to thin the herd of competition they create abundance and force the others out of business.



It's obvious you are repeating the tired old Austrian economics propaganda. Rather convenient propaganda too. You say I can't prove a monopoly emerges in a free market and at the same time say there has never been a truly market. It's almost like you've already eliminated any chance of discussion that questions your position. So any example I give will inevitably be responded to with, "That wasn't a true free market." Do you realize that's a fallacious argument?



Well, then it's a good thing the people on top have the high ground and can make sure they keep falling back to the bottom of the hill.

rul

One other thing I notice about advocates of Austrian economics is they always come up with examples that are not even remotely close.

When are low prices ever a bad thing (so long as they are not made artificially low)? If an evil corporation existed to monopolize a market in order to charge us pennies for something that costs hundreds to make, why not submit? Of course, THIS IS FANTASY. This doesn't exist. A single business, no matter how ingenious their ideas or how ambitious their pursuits, will ever corner a market without governmental aid. I never said there has never been a truly free market (there hasn't) or that a truly free market is required in order to sustain a purely monopoly-free environment. Natural monopolies occur, though not in the theoritical sense imposed by politicians. And now you're conjuring up fantasies that envision a world of devastating monopolies making everything affordable!

 

[Demon of Light]

When are low prices ever a bad thing (so long as they are not made artificially low)? If an evil corporation existed to monopolize a market in order to charge us pennies for something that costs hundreds to make, why not submit? Of course, THIS IS FANTASY. This doesn't exist. A single business, no matter how ingenious their ideas or how ambitious their pursuits, will ever corner a market without governmental aid. I never said there has never been a truly free market (there hasn't) or that a truly free market is required in order to sustain a purely monopoly-free environment. Natural monopolies occur, though not in the theoritical sense imposed by politicians. And now you're conjuring up fantasies that envision a world of devastating monopolies making everything affordable!

I love how you ignore that critical second part of generating profits by inflating prices. You are conjuring up the biggest fantasy of all. The notion of some capitalist paradise where everything goes well because everyone is driven be greed, an emotion that is inherently not going to create positive conditions in society.

What proof do you have that a corporation needs government aid to corner a market?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I love how you ignore that critical second part of generating profits by inflating prices. You are conjuring up the biggest fantasy of all. The notion of some capitalist paradise where everything goes well because everyone is driven be greed, an emotion that is inherently not going to create positive conditions in society.

And I love how you ignore how they can't make you do crap if you don't want to, and act like a distant government can always solve the problem (See what I did there?).

What proof do you have that a corporation needs government aid to corner a market?

Well, subsidies, loophole filled tax codes, and high taxes and regulation that big business is much better at absorbing or going around. Natural monopolies can still form, but it's very difficult to corner a market without significant help.

 

[GayLibertarian]

LOL.

"Capitalism a Crime" ? You must be kidding me.

I saw hundreds of posters carried by left-wing, Marxist protestors in Seattle back in '03 calling "capitalism a crime", yet each one of these young, white, urban professionals went back to their $75k-a-year job after the protest ended.

Get a job lib, stop loafing off the gummint.

Hypocritas, senior.

 

[Demon of Light]

And I love how you ignore how they can't make you do crap if you don't want to, and act like a distant government can always solve the problem (See what I did there?).

Business can make people do all sorts of things and I wasn't suggesting government can solve everything. I am only countering the equally absurd notion that the free market can solve everything.

Well, subsidies, loophole filled tax codes, and high taxes and regulation that big business is much better at absorbing or going around. Natural monopolies can still form, but it's very difficult to corner a market without significant help.

You see the problem with this is in modern times it is much harder to form a monopoly than before when many of the things you mention did not exist.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I think the notion of a "free market" existing itself is a joke. The state has a very specific role to play, which has developed historically and which is inextricably bound up with capitalism. Capitalism simply cannot exist without a state, or states, coming into existence and mediating (i.e. "blunting") the antagonisms created by the struggle between classes.

Moreover, the idea of the "voters" somehow "controlling" the state is a joke because of the very fact that neither the state nor the voters exist in isolation. "Voters" in fact is such an abstract concept that it doesn't really mean anything in this context; voters are workers, voters are capitalists, voters are government employees, voters are members of the army - voters have their own factional/class interests in mind when they vote. And with regards to the state, as it is inextricably bound up in capitalism as a system it is also affected by that system; money is power and those who are the big movers are going to be those that have the most sway with the government. So one cannot treat either the "voters" as a distinct entity nor the "state" as an isolated entity.

Libertarians love saying that the state assistance of capital is what creates all these problems in society, yet what they don't ever say is why. It is precisely because the general interests of capital permeate the state.

 

[Mensch]

I love how you ignore that critical second part of generating profits by inflating prices. You are conjuring up the biggest fantasy of all. The notion of some capitalist paradise where everything goes well because everyone is driven be greed, an emotion that is inherently not going to create positive conditions in society.

What proof do you have that a corporation needs government aid to corner a market?

Given that the government prints money and borrows money without ever accounting for interest or future liability payments, how much control does the business have in inflating prices? Are you talking about price gauging? Price gauging, when done properly, is actually a good thing. No business will sell its products at normal rates in areas where devastation has occurred. Take Hurricane Katrina as an example. Right after the hurricane hit, a man from Mississippi who witnessed the tragedy on television decided to do something about it. He was an average man with not a very high level of income. He took out a loan, hired some friends, rented some trucks, stocked the trucks with generators which he bought a local retail store, drove to Lousiana, and sold the generators for three times the amount at which he paid for them. People in the area who were affected by the tragedy thanked God for this man who sold them generators. Generators were scarce and many were more than willing to pay 10 x the amount he paid for them. Price gouging sends a signal to other entrepreneurs to set up shop in the area, and eventually prices come down when competition floods the market. Without the price gouging, the residents simply go without. Unfotunately, the man I'm talking about was sent to prison for this act of price gouging.

My proof regarding government aid to corporations in cornering a market are plentiful. Simply look at ANY nationalized industry, service, or product in history. Look at the numerous laws, regulations, quotas, tariffs, restrictions, oversight, licensing, taxes, etc. that hinder competition at the benefit of larger business, and always disguised as a policy to help the little people. Minimum wage laws, and the above listed governmenal actions are all I need.

The harder proof to come up with is the instance of a business cornering a market WITHOUT the help of government. Please provide examples.

 

[Mensch]

Business can make people do all sorts of things and I wasn't suggesting government can solve everything. I am only countering the equally absurd notion that the free market can solve everything.



You see the problem with this is in modern times it is much harder to form a monopoly than before when many of the things you mention did not exist.

No one is arguing that the free market can solve everything. This is the difference between you and I. Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, socialism is the equal distribution of misery. I'm willing to live in an imperfect world filled with imperfect people who have the freedom to plan their own life according to their own standards, with the only exception that they allow me the same freedom. The free market is NOT perfect; it is the realization of an imperfect world based on mutual exchange.

 

[Mensch]

I think the notion of a "free market" existing itself is a joke. The state has a very specific role to play, which has developed historically and which is inextricably bound up with capitalism. Capitalism simply cannot exist without a state, or states, coming into existence and mediating (i.e. "blunting") the antagonisms created by the struggle between classes.

Moreover, the idea of the "voters" somehow "controlling" the state is a joke because of the very fact that neither the state nor the voters exist in isolation. "Voters" in fact is such an abstract concept that it doesn't really mean anything in this context; voters are workers, voters are capitalists, voters are government employees, voters are members of the army - voters have their own factional/class interests in mind when they vote. And with regards to the state, as it is inextricably bound up in capitalism as a system it is also affected by that system; money is power and those who are the big movers are going to be those that have the most sway with the government. So one cannot treat either the "voters" as a distinct entity nor the "state" as an isolated entity.

Libertarians love saying that the state assistance of capital is what creates all these problems in society, yet what they don't ever say is why. It is precisely because the general interests of capital permeate the state.

The state only has such functions because certain ideologies demand it. If we didn't have socialists with their ridiculous ideas of utopia and absolute equality and we didn't have other special interest groups who convince others to submit to the dependency of the state as wards of the state, then our values would change and so would the function of government.