Communism VS. Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Communism for sure; I feel sorry for those who wish to live in a Laissez-Faire Capitalist society.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] Coporate buyouts through the investors.Ace_WondersX

What is to say that the other side wouldn't do the same? Also, there are plenty of other manufacturers which could gain significant market share if Pepsi/Coca Cola merged and tried to jack prices. Long story short, market supply and demand forces would likely prevent major abuse.

Thing is, unless Pepsi/Coca Cola was doing a really good job with distribution and prices, there would be small manufacturers popping up all the time. Sure, Coca Cola could buy them out, but if it became a profitable venture to make cheap soda brands, just to have Coca cola buy them out to prevent competetition, then Coca Cola would be screwed. Of course if the monopoly didn't have to worry about competition, it would likely jack the prices... somewhat. (people would live without soda of it got too expensive) Thing is, either the monopoly satisfies the market to the point where no new producers would enter, or it faces competition. In essence, the company would always have to be worried about competition.

Communism for sure; I feel sorry for those who wish to live in a Laissez-Faire Capitalist society.

Communist_Soul

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

What is to say that the other side wouldn't do the same? Also, there are plenty of other manufacturers which could gain significant market share if Pepsi/Coca Cola merged and tried to jack prices. Long story short, market supply and demand forces would likely prevent major abuse.

coolbeans90

Thing is, unless Pepsi/Coca Cola was doing a really good job with distribution and prices, there would be small manufacturers popping up all the time. Sure, Coca Cola could buy them out, but if it became a profitable venture to make cheap soda brands, just to have Coca cola buy them out to prevent competetition, then Coca Cola would be screwed. Of course if the monopoly didn't have to worry about competition, it would likely jack the prices... somewhat. (people would live without soda of it got too expensive) Thing is, either the monopoly satisfies the market to the point where no new producers would enter, or it faces competition. In essence, the company would always have to be worried about competition.

But major soft drink production and distribution isn't exactly an industry with a low barrier to entry. Maybe what you're saying would work with in the clothing industry, where the barrier to entry is much lower. But industries with high start-up cost and other barriers would be pretty easy to monopolize. But I have rethought my previous statement that every industry would end up monopolized, that is too broad of a statement to make.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] The other manufacturer, Pepsi doesn't have the financial backing to buyout Coca-Cola which already has an estimated 80% of the global market share. But even if Pepsi could buyout Coca-Cola would that make it better? And If a smaller ever did start to form into a serious competitor, the larger company would buy it out before it ever reached that point.Ace_WondersX

Thing is, unless Pepsi/Coca Cola was doing a really good job with distribution and prices, there would be small manufacturers popping up all the time. Sure, Coca Cola could buy them out, but if it became a profitable venture to make cheap soda brands, just to have Coca cola buy them out to prevent competetition, then Coca Cola would be screwed. Of course if the monopoly didn't have to worry about competition, it would likely jack the prices... somewhat. (people would live without soda of it got too expensive) Thing is, either the monopoly satisfies the market to the point where no new producers would enter, or it faces competition. In essence, the company would always have to be worried about competition.

But major soft drink production and distribution isn't exactly an industry with a low barrier to entry. Maybe what you're saying would work with in the clothing industry, where the barrier to entry is much lower. But industries with high start-up cost and other barriers would be pretty easy to monopolize. But I have rethought my previous statement that every industry would end up monopolized, that too broad of a statement to make.

It is very true that industries with a lower entry cost are more difficult to monopoloze. True, soda manufacturing startups aren't cheap. That's why you have groups of people investing in a company to cover startups. Sure it is more difficult, but if every person who had a spare dollar investing in a stock which say coca cola would then buy up at above it's value, it could destroy Coca Cola. They'd be better off with their current strategy of just being a solid manufacturer.

Now while there are parts of Laissez-faire capitalism that I do not like, I find it far more appealing than the idea of communism.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Thing is, unless Pepsi/Coca Cola was doing a really good job with distribution and prices, there would be small manufacturers popping up all the time. Sure, Coca Cola could buy them out, but if it became a profitable venture to make cheap soda brands, just to have Coca cola buy them out to prevent competetition, then Coca Cola would be screwed. Of course if the monopoly didn't have to worry about competition, it would likely jack the prices... somewhat. (people would live without soda of it got too expensive) Thing is, either the monopoly satisfies the market to the point where no new producers would enter, or it faces competition. In essence, the company would always have to be worried about competition.

coolbeans90

But major soft drink production and distribution isn't exactly an industry with a low barrier to entry. Maybe what you're saying would work with in the clothing industry, where the barrier to entry is much lower. But industries with high start-up cost and other barriers would be pretty easy to monopolize. But I have rethought my previous statement that every industry would end up monopolized, that too broad of a statement to make.

It is very true that industries with a lower entry cost are more difficult to monopoloze. True, soda manufacturing startups aren't cheap. That's why you have groups of people investing in a company to cover startups. Sure it is more difficult, but if every person who had a spare dollar investing in a stock which say coca cola would then buy up at above it's value, it could destroy Coca Cola. They'd be better off with their current strategy of just being a solid manufacturer.

But you would have to find enough investors, then convince them that they would get their return. Also you would have to assume that Coca-Cola would go the buyout route. Rather than just undercut the competition in a price war.

Communism if run by men doesn't work

Capitalism when run by men doesn't work

Time for Women to run our societies me thinks :D

pecanin

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

But major soft drink production and distribution isn't exactly an industry with a low barrier to entry. Maybe what you're saying would work with in the clothing industry, where the barrier to entry is much lower. But industries with high start-up cost and other barriers would be pretty easy to monopolize. But I have rethought my previous statement that every industry would end up monopolized, that too broad of a statement to make.

Ace_WondersX

It is very true that industries with a lower entry cost are more difficult to monopoloze. True, soda manufacturing startups aren't cheap. That's why you have groups of people investing in a company to cover startups. Sure it is more difficult, but if every person who had a spare dollar investing in a stock which say coca cola would then buy up at above it's value, it could destroy Coca Cola. They'd be better off with their current strategy of just being a solid manufacturer.

But you would have to find enough investors, then convince them that they would get their return. Also you would have to assume that Coca-Cola would go the buyout route. Rather than just undercut the competition in a price war.

Well, it's a very risk vs. reward system. If there was a strong demand for cheaper soda, investors would try to fill the vacuum. A price war would be the optimal outcome for the consumer. It's pretty much what is in place now.

[QUOTE="pecanin"]

Communism if run by men doesn't work

Capitalism when run by men doesn't work

Time for Women to run our societies me thinks :D

snowyfleury

Communism, as in government has complete control over the market, entrepreneurship is not allowed, everybody has the same standards if living.

Ace_WondersX

Dude, that's not what communism is. :|

I would like to live in a Laissez-Faire capitalist state. The ability to move up in life is a good thing.

I would like to live in a Laissez-Faire capitalist state. The ability to move up in life is a good thing.

hoola

Not that simple I'm afraid. Those already in power would likely hinder class movements.

Why do we need these "systems."

Why do we need these "systems."KittenNipples

Communism if run by men doesn't work

Capitalism when run by men doesn't work

Time for Women to run our societies me thinks :D

pecanin

Both of them will probably be corrupt to the boot anyways, but in a captialistic society you at least earn what you deserve

Communism; Laissez-Faire capitalism can't support life. The lack of emission standards and pollution regulations alone would pretty much kill everybody.

Both of them will probably be corrupt to the boot anyways, but in a captialistic society you at least earn what you deserve

DoomZaW

Unless somebody else who's higher up prevents you. Behold the Monopoly.

Are you talking about "ideal" forms of these systems, or how they really have worked? If you are talking about reality, I'd have to go with capitalism as it seems to have worked better.

I would like to live in a Laissez-Faire capitalist state. The ability to move up in life is a good thing.

hoola

Communism; Laissez-Faire capitalism can't support life. The lack of emission standards and pollution regulations alone would pretty much kill everybody.

Theokhoth

I hear the Soviet Union was a beastly polluter.

Regulated-Capitalism

Pure communism :)

...is too close to anarchy for meCRS98

[QUOTE="CRS98"]...is too close to anarchy for mesmc91352

I choose Socialism.

[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="CRS98"]...is too close to anarchy for meCRS98

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Ace_WondersX

[QUOTE="CRS98"][QUOTE="smc91352"]how is anarchy a bad thing? :?smc91352

Easy, if your talking about Communism, then id be in communism. Just be sure its not socialism...

[QUOTE="CRS98"][QUOTE="smc91352"]how is anarchy a bad thing? :?smc91352

There's no such thing as "100% freedom" that can be sustained indefinitely or in a good way, least of all with anarchy. Just look at history's endless power struggles that often come with anarchy.

[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="CRS98"]I just don't believe in it, if you must know.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="smc91352"]what's wrong thing 100% freedom? :| But I'll just stop here. (no need to derail this thread; I'm sorry TC)smc91352

Only if it need be. The problem with anarchy is that it leaves a power vacuum that will be most definitely filled before long. And with it, there's often no shortage of fighting, carnage, and economic loss between different power factions. And then you eventually have someone take power, and consolidate it by forming a government they are in charge of. And there you go: you are back where you started and then the process just begins again.

And, if that's the chase, either way. I'd choose to put the gun in the hands of government compared to gangs of people running across the country side. EMOEVOLUTION

Neither... Nations like the United States the government takes a active role in the economy in numerous ways, they just don't control it to the extent of communism.. Both choices are extremely flawed.. True capitalism breeds a nobility class that hold onto the majority of the wealth and stomp out any kind of threat to that.. It would be almost like another form of fuedal system.

[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]I don't see how it's freedom.. people with the guns will be telling everybody what to do. Or you die.EMOEVOLUTION

And there's a reason why the so-called "failed states" of the world are some of the worst to live in. Because they fail miserably in providing people with the basic services a government should provide, and they are instead often engulfed in power struggles and fighting in the very places they are supposed to govern. Somalia for instance is split 4 ways between Islamic insurgents in the south, an extremely weak "Transitional" government in the center, local power brokers and warlords, and separatists in the northwest. It's not a pretty situation, and it's allowed things like conventional pirating to flourish, which affects the rest of the region.

capitalism. i prefer to be able to criticize the government without being executed thank you.

capitalism. i prefer to be able to criticize the government without being executed thank you.

dissonantblack

Capitalism over Communism any day. Even in theory, communism would never work as man will always want more than the other.

leviathan91

capitalism. i prefer to be able to criticize the government without being executed thank you.dissonantblack

capitalism. i prefer to be able to criticize the government without being executed thank you.

dissonantblack

There's a difference between a communist economic model and a single party communist state. Although they tend to exist together.

[QUOTE="dissonantblack"]capitalism. i prefer to be able to criticize the government without being executed thank you.smc91352

then howcome so many communist governments have done it in the past?