Captialism -- A Crime Against Humanity!

[Khayembii Communique]

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.

And if everyone paid me $5 I'd be a trillionaire.

 

[American]

In recent weeks, I was discovered that captialism, such as it exists in the United States of America is a crime against the American people. FDR was right when he created the second bill of rights. This bill of rights would have protected the blue collar worker from the evils of white collar greed and corruption.

Our forefathers I knew this to be true; Thomas Jefferson himself said "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." Jefferson made this comment during his term as the third President of the United States of America.

During the time FDR was President (World War II) there was on occasion where after a 44 day standoff between factory workers, employer-paid thugs, and the police; FDR deployed the national guard. The National Guard deployed around the factory and the workers therein.... and then pointed their weapons at the police and the corporate thugs sent to end the stand off.

FDR, who died before the end of World War II, also created and proposed a 2nd Bill of Rights designed specifically to provide prosperity in the United States. FDR presented the bill of rights during the State of the Union address from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944.

That bill of rights said that each American, regardless of race or creed, should have the following rights:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.


"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.


"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him

and his family a decent living.


"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.


"The right of every family to a decent home.


"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.


"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.


"The right to a good education."


During this address Roosevelt said "The test of our progress, is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Source: FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights | Progressive Action Alliance

YouTube video here: YouTube - ‪FDR Second Bill of Rights Speech Footage‬‎

Corporate America has become greedy, evil, and needs to be removed from office. Want proof?

Some companies take out insurance policies on employees where in CORPORATIONS benefit from the death of their employees whether those employees are currently on staff or not. These polices, which the insurance agency refers to as "Dead Peasant" Policies are very common among several large corporations; Bank of America, AT&T, Winn Dixie and WAL-MART... to name a few, all participate in profiting from the death of their employees.

Want to know more about dead peasant policies? ---> Dead Peasant Insurance; Corporate greed sinks to new depths - Ardee - Open Salonor
Dead Peasant Life Insurance, brought to you by capitalism | The Hive (This source has a NICE list of greedy corporations that participate in profiting from the deaths of their employees).

Captialism has gone to far and is the leading force in the the ruination of the American people. The very notion of captialism has effectively destroyed the American dream.

It's time for a change; it's time for companies like Goldman Sachs to be out of business. It's time for the business of government should be protecting Americans from the greed, corruption, and unscrupulous scumbags of big business.

If you want to live a better life; If you want to keep your house from being sold by a predatory banker who made you a loan with terms that would cause you to fail; If you want a life where corporate fat cats, senators, congressman, and lobbyists are not allowed to get wealthy off the blood of your loved ones, you must make a stand against Corporate America.

It's time for a change! It's time for Americans to take this country back!

If there ever was any doubt, it exists no more, that you are not a Centrist.

 

[Demon of Light]

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?

We are talking about a theoretical free market where there would conceivably be no such factor.

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.

I was talking about manipulation of another order. Higher prices would be a result of the monopolistic business restricting its output and any competition would be driven out by lifting such restrictions. In essence the monopolistic business floods the market driving down prices to the point where any new business would be bankrupted.

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.

I said proof that government aid is necessary, not proof that it exists.

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

Like I said, you are presenting a deliberate deception with this arguing tactic. No true free market has ever existed, at least not in recorded history, thus by demanding I prove a monopoly that has emerged in such an environment you are already dictating the outcome. Any monopoly I mention will inevitably be followed by the claim that a true free market did not exist in that case and since no true free market has ever existed your demand is impossible to satisfy. This in no way actually proves the legitimacy of your position anymore than you demanding an example of true communism that did not result in a dictatorship. As no such system has ever existed your demand is impossible.

What I can say is that in many ways restrictions on business have been eased since the time of monopolies in the U.S. yet only by government intervention have new monopolies been prevented from forming.

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.

Who said I was advocating socialism? Oh wait, this is a debate with an Austrian economics advocate so naturally anything disagreeing with your viewpoint is socialism. Sorry, I forgot. Also, I find the claims of Austrian economists strongly contrasts with your claim that it is an imperfect system.

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.

Honestly, the only way government will not interfere in the market is if it simply doesn't exist, which is also quite a silly thing as any system without government will not last long before a government is formed. By its very existence the state interferes with the market. Exactly how much privatization do you support?

 

[surrealistpenguin]

America doesn't have Capitalism. It's hasn't for a long time. We have this "mixed market" economy.
Capitalism didn't ruin America. It's keynesianism that ruined America.

The corporations play a role. That is because of lobbyists buying politicians.

That's not the free market at work.

If more politicians had integrity and didn't allow themselves to be whores of the elite the free market would work fine.

The market brings prices down.

Government intervention, overregulation, taxasion and inflation bring prices up.

Um, the capitalism does not necessarily mean "free market". Capitalism is just (simply put) an economic system in which capital is invested to make more capital. As such even the Soviet Union could be described as capitalist, or state-capitalist. A "mixed economy" is an economy in which the state regulates capital and/or invests capital of its own (when the Soviet Union invested in industry they expected a profit!). It's still capitalism. And as an economic system it's morally neutral and it does not necessitate things like individual liberty. In fact Mussolini came to power partly because capitalism was under threat.

So try not to confuse free market capitalism with capitalism in general.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

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.

They can't send people with guns to your house if you don't do what they say.

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.

Tariffs, land give aways, and subsidies all existed back then. There were no antitrust laws, but the help to big business was still there

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.

You really need to stop taking everything so literally. Even the staunchest Minarchist will tell you that a government, if it's small enough and has a narrow enough focus, is necessary to protect the freedoms of individuals. Any American-style Libertarian will tell you that the state, if kept within these bounds, is an institution that can give us more freedom than anarchy. Nobody is talking about the "absolute free market," because absolute freedom doesn't exist. Most people take this for granted.

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.

And that's why you restrict the "voters." You build a government on an explicitly limited platform. Sure it can't last forever; no system can, but it's at least as likely as a communist state in America.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

And that's why you restrict the "voters." You build a government on an explicitly limited platform.

First, how do you restrict the voters?

Second, who is this "you" to which you refer?

 

[Vader]

If there ever was any doubt, it exists no more, that you are not a Centrist.

Says a republican!

 

[Mensch]

And if everyone paid me $5 I'd be a trillionaire.

Though we do operate under a corporatist system, it is particularly mild in comparison to the USSR. Yet, our system has capitalism that brought us this far, and who remembers the Soviets?

And yet, you act as if laissez faire capitalism is a fantasy and communism is reality.

 

[Mensch]

We are talking about a theoretical free market where there would conceivably be no such factor.



I was talking about manipulation of another order. Higher prices would be a result of the monopolistic business restricting its output and any competition would be driven out by lifting such restrictions. In essence the monopolistic business floods the market driving down prices to the point where any new business would be bankrupted.



I said proof that government aid is necessary, not proof that it exists.



Like I said, you are presenting a deliberate deception with this arguing tactic. No true free market has ever existed, at least not in recorded history, thus by demanding I prove a monopoly that has emerged in such an environment you are already dictating the outcome. Any monopoly I mention will inevitably be followed by the claim that a true free market did not exist in that case and since no true free market has ever existed your demand is impossible to satisfy. This in no way actually proves the legitimacy of your position anymore than you demanding an example of true communism that did not result in a dictatorship. As no such system has ever existed your demand is impossible.

What I can say is that in many ways restrictions on business have been eased since the time of monopolies in the U.S. yet only by government intervention have new monopolies been prevented from forming.



Who said I was advocating socialism? Oh wait, this is a debate with an Austrian economics advocate so naturally anything disagreeing with your viewpoint is socialism. Sorry, I forgot. Also, I find the claims of Austrian economists strongly contrasts with your claim that it is an imperfect system.



Honestly, the only way government will not interfere in the market is if it simply doesn't exist, which is also quite a silly thing as any system without government will not last long before a government is formed. By its very existence the state interferes with the market. Exactly how much privatization do you support?

1) I realize there will never be an absolutely free market. The government has to serve as some sort of umpire. Our market is freer than Europes, but perhaps less free than Hong Kong, and very much freer than all the states in the global south (or developing world). European social democrats are simply a mild version of marxism. They want to keep the good in capitalism and discard the bad. But their way of doing it is the wrong way in terms of morality and efficiency. And individuals in this country are desperate to turn this market into just another member of the EU, without recognizing the obvious benefits in their own home country. You can't get rid of the bad without also getting rid of some (or most) of the good.

2) Which historical examples do you have to provide for proving these fears of a monopolistic company (or group of companies) restricting output to inflate prices? The common example is OPEC's notorious Oil Embargo. And exactly what happened to Iran when they nationalized their oil? When nobody's buying your product, YOU LOSE MONEY. If your state of fear was correct, Walmart could simply give us things for free and that would drive every other retailer out of the market. When has it actually happened?

3) So far, there haven't been any proven monopolies that arose in the absence of governmental aid. Antitrust laws do more to hurt the globalizing trading position of American businesses than it does to protect the consumer.

4) I'm not asking for monopoly from a absolute free market. "True communism" is a theoritical fairyland that supporters and closet admirers claim is just a few evolutionary steps away from mankind. "We're not ready for it" is often the response you get from someone who discusses a "truly communist state." The free market, or perhaps simple capitalism is sort of what we do on a regular basis. It wasn't created by government or by some sociologist. It sort of was just REALIZED. The free market is simply the natural form of capitalism that arises when individals cluster together to divide labor and production, and who mutually benefit by a simple exchange. Government is only necessary to maintain that fraud, abuse, and coersion do not go unpunished. You don't have to show me a proven monopoly is purely free market environment. Just show me the evidence that governmental aid is not necessary to establishing a monopoly. In other words, when has a monopoly developed that was not an obvious result of governmental aid?

5) I believe there is outstanding evidence that antitrust laws do more harm than good and that the best way to remove monopolies is to remove tariffs and regulation. The De Beers Diamond industry is one of the only monopolies in the world to exert so much control over pricing and competition. Other than that, it is clear that no monopoly can exist in this globalized economy.

6) Which famous Austrian economist claimed that the free market is perfect? The free market is the best alternative we have to date, and nothing holds a candle to the wonders of a free market. Other than that, I don't know of any economists who believe a human system could be perfect. And I wasn't automatically claiming you were socialist, but you can't deny the influence of empowering large central authorities to nationalize our industries and distribute largesse. Whether it be fascism or communism or socialism or some form of pagan nationalism, the large body of citizens seem to have a tendency to vote for socialistic endeavors. Socialism is no longer a dirty word in this country. It's acceptable and almost admirable. The conservatives and those wacky libertarians are always painted out to be the bad guys. If you don't come from some socialistic or keynesian perspective, then what is your belief system?

7) As much privatization as possible. As I said, you should be free to live your life the way you want to live it, just please allow me the same freedom. Government does have a purpose to ensure no one is breaking legs or pick pocketing from others.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

First, how do you restrict the voters?

I'd rather have some democracy, but I see it as important that the government is ultimately based on the rule of law. The government's focus is explicitly laid out in a Constitution with clear language.

Second, who is this "you" to which you refer?

Anyone who builds a new government. I really don't see why youi give a ****.

 

[MaggieD]

If you want to live a better life; If you want to keep your house from being sold by a predatory banker who made you a loan with terms that would cause you to fail; If you want a life where corporate fat cats, senators, congressman, and lobbyists are not allowed to get wealthy off the blood of your loved ones, you must make a stand against Corporate America. It's time for a change! It's time for Americans to take this country back!

Orrrr, you could just stop whining and take responsibility for your own success or failure. You could go to the polls and cast an intelligent vote. You could write letters to the editor, call your congressmen, write them. Hold them accountable. I don't even know what "make a stand against Corporate America" means. Do you?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Anyone who builds a new government. I really don't see why youi give a ****.

Because to ElijahGalt this "you" was the voters, which you are saying it cannot be.

I'd rather have some democracy, but I see it as important that the government is ultimately based on the rule of law. The government's focus is explicitly laid out in a Constitution with clear language.

How does the constitution fit into any of this?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Because to ElijahGalt this "you" was the voters, which you are saying it cannot be.

gotcha.

How does the constitution fit into any of this?

It tells the government what to do more explicitly. If the voters want to disagree, that's fine, but they can't just overturn it. The government is based on the rule of law, not the majority.

 

[Demon of Light]

They can't send people with guns to your house if you don't do what they say.

Who says they can't? It may not be their guys, but they can certainly have such guys sent.

Tariffs, land give aways, and subsidies all existed back then. There were no antitrust laws, but the help to big business was still there

I would say there is far more support for big business now and yet there are none of the kind of monopolies that once existed.

2) Which historical examples do you have to provide for proving these fears of a monopolistic company (or group of companies) restricting output to inflate prices? The common example is OPEC's notorious Oil Embargo. And exactly what happened to Iran when they nationalized their oil? When nobody's buying your product, YOU LOSE MONEY. If your state of fear was correct, Walmart could simply give us things for free and that would drive every other retailer out of the market. When has it actually happened?

De Beers is a good example of a company that has used its monopoly over a product to continue its monopoly.

3) So far, there haven't been any proven monopolies that arose in the absence of governmental aid. Antitrust laws do more to hurt the globalizing trading position of American businesses than it does to protect the consumer.

How about you tell me of an industry or major corporation that you think has not received any government aid ever? Honestly, though, in some cases a monopoly is only natural to form. Utilities is the common example, but there are other instances where a company have a monopoly that is only natural. I live in an area that is mostly rural with a few very large towns. There are four Wal*Marts within 30 miles of where I live. Can you hazard a guess how many Targets and K-marts there are in the same vicinity? I doubt it would even be possible to support either of them in addition to the Wal*Mart in all but one of these towns. Also, while there are grocery stores in these towns, most other products sold by Wal*Mart would not be available at any other store in the area.

You don't have to show me a proven monopoly is purely free market environment. Just show me the evidence that governmental aid is not necessary to establishing a monopoly. In other words, when has a monopoly developed that was not an obvious result of governmental aid?

Well, I do not think Apple was aided by the government in establishing iTunes, which currently has some 70% of the online music market. There has also been investigation into the possibility of Apple using that position to deny Amazon some exclusivity agreements with record labels.

5) I believe there is outstanding evidence that antitrust laws do more harm than good and that the best way to remove monopolies is to remove tariffs and regulation. The De Beers Diamond industry is one of the only monopolies in the world to exert so much control over pricing and competition. Other than that, it is clear that no monopoly can exist in this globalized economy.

If we are talking about a global monopoly then there are obvious impediments. OPEC is a cartel not a monopoly, but ultimately it brings together the major national monopolies in each major oil-producing country. When we are talking global you have national resistance that can result in nationalization or other actions to prevent a nation's industry from being dominated by a foreign firm.

However, it would be foolish to say no monopoly can exist in such an economy. Indeed, if there were a global free market like you would obviously prefer that would likely see such monopolies form. In some industries there has been a great deal of global consolidation.

6) Which famous Austrian economist claimed that the free market is perfect? The free market is the best alternative we have to date, and nothing holds a candle to the wonders of a free market.

The best alternative for what is a good question. Economics is inherently political and politics is inherently sociological. Sociology is inherently psychological. One critical element of the Austrian economic system is limited democracy and a self-centered society. In other words a system where the masses have little say over what happens to them and those who put individual interests ahead of the masses are the most likely to gain power over them.

Many advocates of Austrian economics seem to think business is not inherently political or that it is incapable of the corruption, nepotism, and systematic abuse seen from governments.

Socialism is no longer a dirty word in this country. It's acceptable and almost admirable. The conservatives and those wacky libertarians are always painted out to be the bad guys. If you don't come from some socialistic or keynesian perspective, then what is your belief system?

I prefer not to assign myself any specific belief system. However, I honestly do not see what has often been called socialism as anything but state capitalism. Basically, a system that continues the same abuses in a different form.

7) As much privatization as possible. As I said, you should be free to live your life the way you want to live it, just please allow me the same freedom. Government does have a purpose to ensure no one is breaking legs or pick pocketing from others.

Does this mean privatization of roads, privatization of fire departments, private police, or what?

 

[Mensch]

Who says they can't? It may not be their guys, but they can certainly have such guys sent.



I would say there is far more support for big business now and yet there are none of the kind of monopolies that once existed.



De Beers is a good example of a company that has used its monopoly over a product to continue its monopoly.



How about you tell me of an industry or major corporation that you think has not received any government aid ever? ...?

2) I already mentioned the De Beers company. It is perhaps the only company that comes closest to a monopoly, and this was recognized by American economist, Milton Friedman. He couldn't figure out why, but I just lean on the fact that diamonds are the most rarest commodity in the world (I think). Other than De Beers, what else have you got?

3)That's a hard one. It's difficult to think of a time when business wasn't getting some cutbacks in some form from some governmental source. There are just SO many ways to placate so many different interest groups using the government. We are talking about monopolies, and not just general government aid. I can't think of an actual monopoly that wasn't caused primarily by government aid. Tariffs, quotas, laws, and regulation are easy ways to get the government to manipulate the market. This is the status quo, which is why it's so difficult to think of a time when companies were not receiving help from the government. Hong Kong comes to mind, but it's just a guess. It's difficult to separate economics from state, but you still must strive to do so. If this is the status quo, and libertarians want a change from this million-year tradition, then why not? Simplification is a relatively new idea. History is fraught with elites dominating the masses through centralized means...and the most effective means is the construction of a giant paper wall. You see it in the developing world. India is a "democracy" but they regulate their markets so much and restrict entrepreneurialism as much as possible. It takes a couple days to get a permit to open a business in parts of the USA. It takes like two or three months to get one in NYC. It takes almost a year to get one in India. liberals, conservatives, and socialists alike are intent to keep with the status quo; to sacrifice bottom-up development for top-heavy technocracy.

Utility companies were first built by government, but has since been deregulated (at least, it has in my state). They are now operate as private businesses with far superior efficiency and productivity. Ridiculous price controls and existing regulations by Sacramento allowed the Enron and energy crisis to occur in CA. However, by looking at the development of AT&T and Verizon's services, you can see that those "natural monopolies" can develop as legitimate formations of private businesses in new markets. In the case of the two companies named above, it was whoever got here first. You can't have AT&T's television services if you live in certain cities and the same goes for Verizon. It was whoever got here first and was the first to build the commercial networks. That is sort of a natural monopoly, but it is one that was formed legitimately and should not manipulated by legislation.

As for Walmart, those who absolutely hate the company haven't yet realized the power and scope of globalized economies. Economically, we're competiting with the whole world and not just between ourselves. And if ALL you want are little businesses and no corporations (or heavily restricted corporations) then you put U.S. firms at a disadvantage on the global stage. Simply reflect on the negative consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Weigh the positive and negative results of that particular legislation. In regards to Walmart in particular, there is nothing specifically wrong with how they operate. Again, they get a lot of help from government and I'm strongly against that. But in terms of the retail market, you have to weigh the costs and the benefits. Small business owners can fail to do something that Walmart is already entrenched on doing, but then that doesn't mean the owners of those failed businesses will forever be washouts. All of the major corporations started out as small businesses. MANY of the richest men and women in this country today started from humble beginnings. Many are not even American-born. In this competitive world of exchange, you have to be willing to try your skill at something else. If Walmart put you out of business because their electronics are better and cheaper than yours, then it looks like you have to try something else. The retail market is transforming and it's no longer what it used to be. But that doesn't mean we're all going to die from Walmart monopolies. Walmart, though most successful, is still not a monopoly. And the new retail environment has actually dramatically improved many people's lives. I'm one example. I'm 23, married, and living on my own with my wife. Our previous residence was filled with highly intense negative energy, but it was free. We now live on our own, in part, thanks to Walmart and Food4Less. We also live in a nice, quaint town where there are MANY small businesses. If we were somehow restricted from buying at Walmart and were forced to just pay the higher costs for a small business product, we would essentially be back at our previous residence.

4) Apple is not a monopoly and I predict that their own marketing techniques will be their downfall. Like politicians, we can empower the business of our choice. But unlike politicians, our particular interest in one company does not automatically put a universal stranglehold on the rest of society. Apple iTunes rule because of various factors. But ultimately, no one can corner the market permanently.

5) I've already discussed OPEC. When OPEC withholds selling to the U.S., that doesn't mean we will no longer see Arabian oil. What will definitely happen is that OPEC will sell to someone else (and they also cut themselves out of a major profit when they withhold selling oil to America), and then we will purchase the oil from the nation that bought it from OPEC. That's how it works. That is how fluid market resources can be. As for nationalization, I'm well aware of the elements that are necessary to bring out nationalization. My point is in regards to the negative consequences. Despite an era of extreme public euphoria, Mohammad Mossadeq's nationalization of Iranian oil caused the economy to collapse. Nationalization is never a good idea.

And BTW, though we do not live in a truly free market as you insist I support (which, I'm not a purist and I have never demanded a completely free market, just a more freer market), we still don't have any globalized monopolies besides the De Beer Diamond industry. Besides that, where in this globalizing world do you see one single entity dominate exclusively? Businesses might temporarily hold the largest share of a market, but history shows that nothing is permanent.

And you should really expand on the global consolidation reference.

6) Economics is not inherently political, unless the use of political is so loose, we could be talking about simple one-on-one personal exchange (as in, your work environment is political). Economics has been fused with state politics, and do you have any objections? You obviously seem to hate to see large private companies "controlling" more wealth in this country. So then, what are your ideas regarding the various means by which we aid these businesses? Are you against subsidies? Are you against regulation? Are you against tariffs, quotas, and excessive taxes and laws? People can easily identify the relationship between corporation and business, but they're usually unwilling to see how using governmental interference only adds to the problem. I would agree, however, that economics is inherently sociological (they're under the same social studies umbrella as politics). I don't know what you mean by "limited democracy." Are you referring to the strong support of a republic? That, again, refers to political matters. And Austrian school economists are more interested in economic frameworks. From my best guess, I would say that libertarians are probably very diverse in this area. Some might want a more direct democracy. Some might see a republic as the most effective form of democracy. I probably fall into the later category. A republic is far more efficient but the powers that be must be very limited. It blows me away that you consider individual liberties to be impediments to the voice of the people and will lead to authoritarian control. It makes no logical sense, whatsoever. You can't ever forget that the smallest minority is the individual, and no one can claim to be a supporter of minorities who is not first a supporter of individualism.

And you're wrong. Austrian economic advocates do not think businesses is inherently free from corruption. As I said before, laissez-faire economics is the realization that man is not perfect and that he is bound to occasionally make mistakes. The difference is that libertarians and austrian school thinkers are willing to tolerate social abnormalities in exchange for the freedom to live their own life in their own way. No one is arguing about perfecting a society except those who think absolute equality in society is a nice objective.

State capitalism is corporatism. Socialism is corporatist by nature, as is fascism. Fascism and socialism are so close on the political scale, it's amazing most people think the opposite. Both are totalitarian and corporatist by nature. Everything is nationalized by the state and everything is at the control of the top elite. The only difference between the two brands of totalitarianism is their language and chosen scapegoats. We have a mild brand of this sort of state capitalism, and it is my belief that we should have less. What is your opinion?

7) Roads have already been privatized, to an extent. Roads have already been privatized, to an extent. Would more privatization help? I would predict yes. Roads are also fairly cheap to maintain in comparison all of the other spending projects out there. I'm much more vocal about the ridiculous rail project, a money pit by any rational standard. Fire departments? I don't mind if a local community wishes to allocate a portion of their general funds to provide for a fire department. The federal government should not be involved, and I consider it a non-issue. Private police? NO. I'm not an anarchist and I'm not an objectivist. The government does serve to protect our liberty over the obstruction by third parties.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Who says they can't? It may not be their guys, but they can certainly have such guys sent.

And how often does this happen? How much do they force you to do things.

I would say there is far more support for big business now and yet there are none of the kind of monopolies that once existed.

Tarrifs are lower, anti-trust laws are in place, and our economy has become far more diverse since 1900.

 

[Vader]

Orrrr, you could just stop whining and take responsibility for your own success or failure. You could go to the polls and cast an intelligent vote. You could write letters to the editor, call your congressmen, write them. Hold them accountable. I don't even know what "make a stand against Corporate America" means. Do you?

I do ALL of those things. A stand against corporate America means demanding laws that provide quick, harsh, and bankrupting penalities to big business officers (CEOS, CFOS, ect) and politicans who are caught exchanging funds. Business must be forcefully seperated from politics. Corporately sponsored lobbyists need to be banned.

As Americans we must stand up to corporate tyranny and say NO MORE. We must work together as a group to eliminate all of the sellouts from politics. Then we must make strong laws that protect workers from the corporate ********ers who have been raping them for the last 150 years.

 

[Vader]

The government is based on the rule of law, not the majority.

We can change the law. We must have this power or the government will be come a tyranical dictatorship. This is why each American is allowed to cast a vote; to gather signatures and start an initiative, and it's the reason we're allowed to start recall proceedings against dishonest politicians.

I think this country needs system by which the people can remove ANY elected official from office by means of a vote.

 

[Demon of Light]

2) I already mentioned the De Beers company. It is perhaps the only company that comes closest to a monopoly, and this was recognized by American economist, Milton Friedman. He couldn't figure out why, but I just lean on the fact that diamonds are the most rarest commodity in the world (I think). Other than De Beers, what else have you got?

Actually, I would say the primary reason is a lack of incentive to crack down on such a monopoly. These are not vital strategic materials that governments would fear being controlled by one small group of people.

It's difficult to separate economics from state, but you still must strive to do so. If this is the status quo, and libertarians want a change from this million-year tradition, then why not?

The reason it is difficult to separate is because they are inevitably inseparable. With wealth comes power and those with wealth inevitably seek to use their power to maintain and grow their power and wealth. Before corporations became the main sources of economic power it was the merchants and nobles. Many merchants acquired enough wealth that they themselves became nobles. It has simply always been the case that those who acquire wealth use it to attain political power.

Look how many people in government later go into business and how many in business go into government. Even on the local level you can see this effect where the local businessmen use their influence to manipulate local officials.

That is sort of a natural monopoly, but it is one that was formed legitimately and should not manipulated by legislation.

My issue is not with the existence of a monopoly, but the nature of it. A monopoly that is not subject to accountability or restrictions will naturally abuse its position.

As for Walmart, those who absolutely hate the company haven't yet realized the power and scope of globalized economies. Economically, we're competiting with the whole world and not just between ourselves. And if ALL you want are little businesses and no corporations (or heavily restricted corporations) then you put U.S. firms at a disadvantage on the global stage.

So now it's not that monopolies can't exist, but that they must exist for us to compete against the monopolies of other nations. A national monopoly is still a monopoly, my friend.

4) Apple is not a monopoly and I predict that their own marketing techniques will be their downfall.

I was speaking specifically of the online music sales. There they definitely do have a monopoly.

Like politicians, we can empower the business of our choice. But unlike politicians, our particular interest in one company does not automatically put a universal stranglehold on the rest of society.

Also like politicians businesses can work with supposed opponents to establish a common line that prevents the masses from having too much influence. We can talk about a monopoly or we can take about an oligopoly or cartel. Mass media is a good example of oligopoly.

As for nationalization, I'm well aware of the elements that are necessary to bring out nationalization. My point is in regards to the negative consequences. Despite an era of extreme public euphoria, Mohammad Mossadeq's nationalization of Iranian oil caused the economy to collapse. Nationalization is never a good idea.

You can't ignore the political factor in such a matter. We had him deposed for that action so obviously it was bad for business.

Businesses might temporarily hold the largest share of a market, but history shows that nothing is permanent.

True nothing is permanent, but that doesn't mean we will naturally head towards a better situation. We have gone from one superpower to another with each more all-encompassing than the last. Yet the abuses by all of them have not changed. One monopoly losing out to another only means a shift in power, nothing more.

And you should really expand on the global consolidation reference.

I am having a hard time finding the exact figures but in a lot of the metallurgical industry you have a handful of corporations with a large market share.

6) Economics is not inherently political, unless the use of political is so loose, we could be talking about simple one-on-one personal exchange (as in, your work environment is political).

You have clearly been talking about policy matters and politics in general this whole time. Saying economics is not inherently political is like saying war is not inherently political.

You obviously seem to hate to see large private companies "controlling" more wealth in this country.

What I hate is said companies collaborating with government and otherwise using their wealth to control regions or countries.

People can easily identify the relationship between corporation and business, but they're usually unwilling to see how using governmental interference only adds to the problem.

The problem isn't that government is involved, but how government is involved. For the a long time now government has primarily been involved in fighting the market and manipulating market forces to achieve some political end. On some level those policies are a direct result of government being reluctant to intervene in the economy. At least in China they notice when the market is distorted and seek to correct the distortion, even if this means slowing their economy down.

I don't know what you mean by "limited democracy." Are you referring to the strong support of a republic?

Limited democracy meaning limited influence on authority. Corporations are not accountable to the people and weakening government essentially makes them completely unaccountable.

It blows me away that you consider individual liberties to be impediments to the voice of the people and will lead to authoritarian control.

That is not what I said at all. Corporations are not individuals or a manifestation of any individual will. It is a bureaucratic structure lead by a wealthy elite for their benefit where status is as much if not more important in advancement as ability. So we are talking about an oligarchy largely free of accountability and capable of exerting a great deal of power over the masses including not only the workers but the general public.

As I said before, laissez-faire economics is the realization that man is not perfect and that he is bound to occasionally make mistakes.

It's not just occasionally and calling them "mistakes" is putting it gently.

State capitalism is corporatism. Socialism is corporatist by nature, as is fascism. Fascism and socialism are so close on the political scale, it's amazing most people think the opposite. Both are totalitarian and corporatist by nature. Everything is nationalized by the state and everything is at the control of the top elite. The only difference between the two brands of totalitarianism is their language and chosen scapegoats. We have a mild brand of this sort of state capitalism, and it is my belief that we should have less. What is your opinion?

Actually, my point was that what is typically called socialism is not socialism at all.

Roads have already been privatized, to an extent. Would more privatization help? I would predict yes. Roads are also fairly cheap to maintain in comparison all of the other spending projects out there. I'm much more vocal about the ridiculous rail project, a money pit by any rational standard. Fire departments? I don't mind if a local community wishes to allocate a portion of their general funds to provide for a fire department. The federal government should not be involved, and I consider it a non-issue. Private police? NO. I'm not an anarchist and I'm not an objectivist. The government does serve to protect our liberty over the obstruction by third parties.

Well, I can give you an idea of what such a level of privatization would create, but perhaps you should just play Bioshock. As far as roads, I think this shows where most Austrian economics advocates lose sight of the consequences. If all roads in the country were privately-owned and required a toll to use there are some people who would simply never be able to use them. Inherent in the idea of private property rights is that you can prevent people from having access to your property. So if all the land were owned by private hands and none of them had interest in accommodating the homeless, regardless of how they came to be homeless, what would become of them? Do kids have to get money to use the roads for going to school? What if they don't have money and neither do the parents?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

It tells the government what to do more explicitly. If the voters want to disagree, that's fine, but they can't just overturn it. The government is based on the rule of law, not the majority.

Great, but how does the constitution fit into this discussion? It has nothing to do with monopolization.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

We can change the law. We must have this power or the government will be come a tyranical dictatorship. This is why each American is allowed to cast a vote; to gather signatures and start an initiative, and it's the reason we're allowed to start recall proceedings against dishonest politicians.

I think this country needs system by which the people can remove ANY elected official from office by means of a vote.

The voters do have power, but they can't do things like take away free speech.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Great, but how does the constitution fit into this discussion? It has nothing to do with monopolization.

It keeps the government small, and prevents it from stretching its tentacles to far into the economy.

 

[Vader]

The voters do have power, but they can't do things like take away free speech.

I agree. Free speech and the right to bear arms are sacred and must be set beyond any tampering.

 

[Vader]

The voters do have power, but they can't do things like take away free speech.

I agree. Free speech and the right to bear arms are sacred and must be set beyond any tampering.

 

[Mensch]

Actually, I would say the primary reason is a lack of incentive to crack down on such a monopoly. These are not vital strategic materials that governments would fear being controlled by one small group of people... /

1) But then, why is the De Beers the only monopoly? And if Diamonds are the most precious and most valuable resource, why wouldn't government consider them vital strategic materials?

2) I think we both agree that this arrangement between business and politics should not be so interrelated. But I'm a student of regulatory capture and I don't understand how expanding regulations and antitrust laws do anything to improve economic conditions for the working class or for the country in general. These actions do little, if anything, to limit the power of wealthy organizations or wealthy individuals. They only hinder the possibility of smaller businesses to enter the market. Unions are also another example of government backing the special interests of certain workers at the cost of the majority of the workforce. And by the way, merchants were never seen in a positive light. Merchants and money-lenders were always the targets of persecution. America, perhaps, was the first nation to recognize the importance of the entrepreneur.

3) Monopolies essentially do not exist. Again, it is impossible for one entity to gain control over an entire industry for an extended period of time (and again, De Beers seems to be the only exception). What system of accountability are you looking to implement? What restrictions do you favor? What are the positive and negative results of those restrictions?

4) Again, extended monopolies do not exist. Walmart is not a monopoly. However, I was specifically referring to legislation that is intended to prevent Enron-like scandals from reoccurring. The result was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which put our American firms at a severe disadvantage on the global market. You cannot get rid of the bad side effects of capitalism without also sacrificing some very important elements of the risk market.

5) How does Applle maintain a monopoly? There is a major difference between controlling the industry and consolidating the majority of shares in an industry. Sure, Apple is the dominant supplier of portable music, but how long will that last? The only monopoly one would have to worry about would be a permanent one that forever forbid other companies from competiting. Apple does no such thing. They pioneered the market, and it's still a fairly new market, so the fact they're still dominating the majority of shares is not at all that surprising. But I highly doubt Apple can ever gain the power to permanently block entry of new competition (or force existing competition out permanently). And with large, extremely wealthy corporations, you always have to wonder what people are really worried about. Apple and Walmart are not monopolies, yet they serve a very useful purpose in society. Walmart charges us bottom-rate prices for things that normally cost a lot more. I'm just having a hard time grasping the evils of low prices.

6) When you're a business, you can't really prevent the influence of the masses. Businesses do not have the power to coerce individuals. And notorious cartels of history are, again, created as appendages of government control. Fiscal policy and taxation are the means by which politicians attempt to control the masses. This is not a chicken-or-the-egg argument. This is cut and dry. Politicians use business to control people; it is not the other way around. Walmart is not attempting to control us. Producers are at the mercy of the consumer's decision. They can collaborate with government to try and influence consumer spending, but they do not attempt to directly control the masses like government has been historically known to do. Tobacco industries might be opponents of legalizing marijuana, because it will unleash major competition, and they can spend billions on advertisements to sway the public vote, but the masses still have the vote. And come Fall of this year, rest assured, marijuana will be legalized in the state of CA. Take one of the most notorious despots in histroy, Adolf Hitler. Hitler had a political ideology that he wanted to impose on the whole world. It wasn't the band of private corporate monopolies that created Hitler in order to elevate their status and power. Hitler utilized the corporations because he understood that those who control the economic system of a society end up controlling people.


7) The political factor was more about Cold War hysteria than it was about one group of private businessmen trying to corner the market or control the government. Again, to reenforce my point, Mossadeq nationalized the oil business in order to ensure the government had absolute control over the resource. It wasn't the oil traders attempting to take over goverment in order to corner the market.

8) Again, you have it backwards. It is not the corporations that control people, it is government. Only government has the power to legally coerise and kill you for a variety of reasons. Why fear businesses that are at the whim of consumer demands instead of politicians who literally live to control your life?

9) And how you would have the government intervene?

10) "Limiting influence on authority?" Again, that is simply not true. Austrian economists are largely minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and libertarians. That means that they stand directly opposing totalitarianism or authoritarianism. Libertarians want the people to be allowed the greatest freedom and the greatest influence, but "the people" is often understood differently by libertarians. "The people," rightly understood, is the collection of individuals who are all endowed with certain inalienable rights. We can not, and should not, infringe upon the rights of one minoritiy (or even the majority) in order to serve the special interests of yet another minority.

11) Your statements are nonsense. Corporations are collections of individuals, who have voluntarily organized into a sort of community. A corporation should be just as much protected against governmental restrictions as should individuals, or local communities, local religious groups, union groups, etc. Corporations are, in fact, a manifestation of individual will. Otherwise, they wouldn't exist. Someone had to have the will to work for the company and network for their interests. Neighborhoods are manifestations of individual will, as strangers clustered together to divide property and resources. A company is very much the same- a collection of strangers that clustered together to divide labor, resources, and property. It applies to churches and unions as well.

12) "Mistakes" is however you want to look at it. If we're talking about people committing fraud and legal abuse, these guilty parties should be punished. If we're talking about stupidity or ignorance on part of the consumer, it is something entirely different. Would you argue that consumers considering a mortgage should automatically be granted a commission advisor and public interest lawyer? The information was already out there that these types of loans existed and they were a bad idea. And if you fail to read the provisions of a serious contract, that is a "mistake." And if it's not my mistake, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

13) And what is your definition of socialism and how did you come to that definition?

14) You argue that if all roads in the country were privately-owned and required a toll to use, poor people would be restricted from using them. This argument is too easy. First of all, I never argued that all roads should be privately-owned and require a toll. All I said was that further privatization might not be a bad idea, given that communities are doing it all across the country. You like to go way over the deep end on some issues. Second of all, let's look at the points you've just made. You're only allowed to use the public highways if you own a car. Therefore, if you're really poor then you can't afford a car and you would already be restricted from using the public roads. What then? So you take public transportation? How much does it cost to ride the bus one way? Around here, it's almost $2. How much does the average toll road cost? Most toll roads are like a quarter or two to use.

I don't know why you jumped from homeless people to poor schoolchildren. It seems you're willing to throw everything and the kitchen sink to prove your point.