Communism VS. Laissez-Faire Capitalism
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] for the reasons i mentioned in the quote.sSubZerOo
I see an "if..."
Complete "freedom" as it were through capitalism is a paradox.. Because in the end it turns into slavery in which the person with the biggest stick keeps the rest down for their own gains.. Government intervention on some levels such as creating workers rights, a minimum wage, etc etc prevents the elite from choking the rest of the population to death.. Its silly to suggest that real capitalism is any better then real communism.. Both are tremendously flawed..You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"] in a communist society you can take what you need. it does not mean you have to be completely equal to everyone else. a family living on a farm, living off of the land is a primitive example of communism.fidosimSort of like what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodia? That's your idea of a perfect society? Using dictatorships is not a very good way to prove how inefficent communisms are.. This isn't defending them, its just many people find communism synomous with dictatorships.. While it is indeed true the vast majority of the time they are created through it, its not the idea that people are trying to defend.
Complete "freedom" as it were through capitalism is a paradox.. Because in the end it turns into slavery in which the person with the biggest stick keeps the rest down for their own gains.. Government intervention on some levels such as creating workers rights, a minimum wage, etc etc prevents the elite from choking the rest of the population to death.. Its silly to suggest that real capitalism is any better then real communism.. Both are tremendously flawed..[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I see an "if..."
coolbeans90
You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.
Competitors can't compete if they're already knocked down. Try opening a have-all store that competes against Wal-Mart in a world where Wal-Mart is making sure you lose money all the way until you give up or you're bankrupt.
communism has never been tried on any significant scale.Major_CommieOh it's been tried plenty of times, my friend. No one has successfully created a society that matched the one Marx envisioned, but that's because the society Marx envisioned was an impossible fantasy.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"]communism has never been tried on any significant scale.fidosimOh it's been tried plenty of times, my friend. No one has successfully created a society that matched the one Marx envisioned, but that's because the society Marx envisioned was an impossible fantasy. every counrty thats been credited as communist has been totalitarian, or authoritarian. the direct opposite of what communism is
[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] in a communist society you can take what you need. it does not mean you have to be completely equal to everyone else. a family living on a farm, living off of the land is a primitive example of communism.sSubZerOoSort of like what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodia? That's your idea of a perfect society? Using dictatorships is not a very good way to prove how inefficent communisms are.. This isn't defending them, its just many people find communism synomous with dictatorships.. While it is indeed true the vast majority of the time they are created through it, its not the idea that people are trying to defend. That's how Communist societies theoretically have to be created though. The ruling party controls all the means of production and redistributes the wealth. You can defend Communism as being "good on paper", but I think it's nonsense. Any crackpot idea is "good on paper".
Complete "freedom" as it were through capitalism is a paradox.. Because in the end it turns into slavery in which the person with the biggest stick keeps the rest down for their own gains.. Government intervention on some levels such as creating workers rights, a minimum wage, etc etc prevents the elite from choking the rest of the population to death.. Its silly to suggest that real capitalism is any better then real communism.. Both are tremendously flawed..[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I see an "if..."
coolbeans90
You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.
.. You seem not to understand, sooner or later some one always has a big stick... "Competition" will sort it out is completely nieve of history.. If this were true, why didn't democracies, republics etc etc begin surfacing overall only a few centuries back by and large.. Before that were monarchies and such.. The peasents had little right.. CLearly this example alone shows you that compeittion doesn't work.. And we had the exact same problem in early 1900s and late 1800s.. If you seriously think competition solves everything with out any kind of government intervention by setting certain standrads and such, you seem to be compeltely ignorant of history.. The person who gets up first, will either A) Beat back all teh compeititon strangling them to death, B) Create a cartel with the runner ups, then committ to A.. Absolute capitalism with no government forsight in regulation would lead to a feudal system of sorts, where a very select few will hold power, and the vast majority will be forced into a powerless position.. Both systems taken to their extreme will lead to tyranny.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="fidosim"] Sort of like what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodia? That's your idea of a perfect society?fidosimUsing dictatorships is not a very good way to prove how inefficent communisms are.. This isn't defending them, its just many people find communism synomous with dictatorships.. While it is indeed true the vast majority of the time they are created through it, its not the idea that people are trying to defend. That's how Communist societies theoretically have to be created though. The ruling party controls all the means of production and redistributes the wealth. You can defend Communism as being "good on paper", but I think it's nonsense. Any crackpot idea is "good on paper". No it does not.. It just occured that way.. Marx specifically believed that Great Britains system with the house of lords and commons were good for his sytstem..
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Complete "freedom" as it were through capitalism is a paradox.. Because in the end it turns into slavery in which the person with the biggest stick keeps the rest down for their own gains.. Government intervention on some levels such as creating workers rights, a minimum wage, etc etc prevents the elite from choking the rest of the population to death.. Its silly to suggest that real capitalism is any better then real communism.. Both are tremendously flawed.. unholymight
You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.
Competitors can't compete if they're already knocked down. Try opening a have-all store that competes against Wal-Mart.Firstly, you assumed that the competitors would get knocked down. (Target>Wal-Mart IMO) Just for fun I'll entertain the idea. If Wal-Mart monopolized the department store industry, and was jacking prices, and a competitor filled a void by opening a store with lower prices, Wal-Mart would have to respond the same by doing the same. Long story short, Wal-Mart would be forces to do an excellent performance with the stores, or face increased competition...
every counrty thats been credited as communist has been totalitarian, or authoritarian. the direct opposite of what communism isMajor_CommieBut as i've told Subzero, socialist tyrannies have always been justified as proper stepping-stones to true Communism. That was the official policy held by the Soviet Union, and it is still the policy held by China.
No it does not.. It just occured that way.. Marx specifically believed that Great Britains system with the house of lords and commons were good for his sytstem.. sSubZerOoThe idea was developed after Marx, by the likes of Lenin and Stalin, and became an integral part of Communist thought.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Complete "freedom" as it were through capitalism is a paradox.. Because in the end it turns into slavery in which the person with the biggest stick keeps the rest down for their own gains.. Government intervention on some levels such as creating workers rights, a minimum wage, etc etc prevents the elite from choking the rest of the population to death.. Its silly to suggest that real capitalism is any better then real communism.. Both are tremendously flawed.. sSubZerOo
You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.
Competitors can't compete if they're already knocked down. Try opening a have-all store that competes against Wal-Mart in a world where Wal-Mart is making sure you lose money all the way until you give up or you're bankrupt.
Thats even in this system.. It would be far far worse if there was no regulations in the economy what so ever.. They would either buy you out, threaten their workers never to never go to that store..[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] No it does not.. It just occured that way.. Marx specifically believed that Great Britains system with the house of lords and commons were good for his sytstem.. fidosimThe idea was developed after Marx, by the likes of Lenin and Stalin, and became an integral part of Communist thought. When we talk of socialism and the like, we are talking specifically against Marx.. Stalin and Lenin both took Marx to heart, I think it to be disingenious if you are going to use Stalin and Lenin with this argument when people arn't argueing their points what so ever. Like I said I am not defending communism.. It could only work in a perfect world.
Competitors can't compete if they're already knocked down. Try opening a have-all store that competes against Wal-Mart.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.
coolbeans90
Firstly, you assumed that the competitors would get knocked down. (Target>Wal-Mart IMO) Just for fun I'll entertain the idea. If Wal-Mart monopolized the department store industry, and was jacking prices, and a competitor filled a void by opening a store with lower prices, Wal-Mart would have to respond the same by doing the same. Long story short, Wal-Mart would be forces to do an excellent performance with the stores, or face increased competition...
Taking the extreme capitalism to heart.. For some one who defends it you seem to have little idea of economics.. Walmart would sell their products at a loss to bankrupt you, thats if they don't buy you out.. Furthermore they would blackmail their immense workers population never to buy there, and do numerous other things.. We have those regulations there for a reason. Furthermore they could presure the supplies you are using to hike the prices up for you.. You can not win with out government regulations to stop these abuses.. If you think you some how can, your being extremely dense.[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] No it does not.. It just occured that way.. Marx specifically believed that Great Britains system with the house of lords and commons were good for his sytstem.. sSubZerOoThe idea was developed after Marx, by the likes of Lenin and Stalin, and became an integral part of Communist thought. When we talk of socialism and the like, we are talking specifically against Marx.. Stalin and Lenin both took Marx to heart, I think it to be disingenious if you are going to use Stalin and Lenin with this argument when people arn't argueing their points what so ever. We're arguing Communism Vs. Laissez-Faire, aren't we? Not simply Marx vs. Capitalism. I don't think i'm being disingenuous by examining Communism as it has been understood by a variety of different people. Even in Marx's own time, and when Lenin returned to Russia to take power, it was apparent that some alteration had to be made to Marxism in order to get a society from point A to point B.
[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="fidosim"] It better suits ambitions, period.sSubZerOo
The human race is an ambitious race. Limit their ambitions (i.e. drive to greater wealth, knowledge, power), then progress would only decline and I fear that society would only enter a comatose state, similar to the middle ages. Capitalism works. It has its faults but it works. Communism would never work.
Real capitalsim does not work.. It will create the same kind of staganation..Not unless the government interferes either assisting a company (i.e. bailout) or hurting a company (i.e. forcing an automobile industry to give more to labor unions). I believe that extreme capitalism can work because while people do want profit, at the same time, they need to convince you for your money, thus they need to make a product that is good for them, otherwise, they would fail. Yes, there is an increased chance of monopolies but so what, when compared to a government monopoly? A monopoly in a capitalistic society would still have to compete to offer the best product. Governments don't have to because they also enforce the law.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]
The human race is an ambitious race. Limit their ambitions (i.e. drive to greater wealth, knowledge, power), then progress would only decline and I fear that society would only enter a comatose state, similar to the middle ages. Capitalism works. It has its faults but it works. Communism would never work.
Real capitalsim does not work.. It will create the same kind of staganation..Not unless the government interferes either assisting a company (i.e. bailout) or hurting a company (i.e. forcing an automobile industry to give more to labor unions). I believe that extreme capitalism can work because while people do want profit, at the same time, they need to convince you for your money, thus they need to make a product that is good for them, otherwise, they would fail. Yes, there is an increased chance of monopolies but so what, when compared to a government monopoly? A monopoly in a capitalistic society would still have to compete to offer the best product. Governments don't have to because they also enforce the law.
.. Wrong.. Wrong Wrong.. The elite will make their products, the neccessities you need, the only ones there.. Yeah you can decide not to spend your hard earned money.. But good luck trying to find someone that is not part of that monopoly.. The elite iwll make it a point to control everythign.. Including your work, to the point of lowerin gyour wages.. Don't like it? You can quit, but have fun with that because they will blacklist you, including all the other corporations.. So you have to deal with slave wages to survive..[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Complete "freedom" as it were through capitalism is a paradox.. Because in the end it turns into slavery in which the person with the biggest stick keeps the rest down for their own gains.. Government intervention on some levels such as creating workers rights, a minimum wage, etc etc prevents the elite from choking the rest of the population to death.. Its silly to suggest that real capitalism is any better then real communism.. Both are tremendously flawed.. sSubZerOo
You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.
.. You seem not to understand, sooner or later some one always has a big stick... "Competition" will sort it out is completely nieve of history.. If this were true, why didn't democracies, republics etc etc begin surfacing overall only a few centuries back by and large.. Before that were monarchies and such.. The peasents had little right.. CLearly this example alone shows you that compeittion doesn't work.. And we had the exact same problem in early 1900s and late 1800s.. If you seriously think competition solves everything with out any kind of government intervention by setting certain standrads and such, you seem to be compeltely ignorant of history.. The person who gets up first, will either A) Beat back all teh compeititon strangling them to death, B) Create a cartel with the runner ups, then committ to A.. Absolute capitalism with no government forsight in regulation would lead to a feudal system of sorts, where a very select few will hold power, and the vast majority will be forced into a powerless position.. Both systems taken to their extreme will lead to tyranny.
It's a lot easier to maintain power with force, than without it. Wal-Mart cannot use the same means a King could to remain in power. So your analogy does not prove competition does not work. I am not ignorant of history, and am unsure as to why you think me so. I am quite aware that the standard of living wasn't all that lovely during the latter 19th, and early 20th century. However one would have to be delusional to think it was all lovely before then, or to believe business made it worse. Remember, the world was extremely poor by modern standards at this point in time. Thing is, the person on top would have to constantly strangle competitors to death if a market void was left open. It would lose money forcing competitors out, and could not do so indefinitely. The cartel argument is a more worrisome scenario. Problem is, cartels tend to not last long, as groups are constantly trying to outperform the businesses it is colluding with. Eventually, one breaks from the system, then the rest are forced to follow suit. I find it extremely assumptious to say that a few men would end up with all the power, and haven't seen an argument that is convincing enough to show that all power would be in point of fact centralized.
Real capitalsim does not work.. It will create the same kind of staganation..[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]
The human race is an ambitious race. Limit their ambitions (i.e. drive to greater wealth, knowledge, power), then progress would only decline and I fear that society would only enter a comatose state, similar to the middle ages. Capitalism works. It has its faults but it works. Communism would never work.
leviathan91
Not unless the government interferes either assisting a company (i.e. bailout) or hurting a company (i.e. forcing an automobile industry to give more to labor unions). I believe that extreme capitalism can work because while people do want profit, at the same time, they need to convince you for your money, thus they need to make a product that is good for them, otherwise, they would fail. Yes, there is an increased chance of monopolies but so what, when compared to a government monopoly? A monopoly in a capitalistic society would still have to compete to offer the best product. Governments don't have to because they also enforce the law.
I'm kinda confused by this statement, please explain more please.
[QUOTE="leviathan91"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Real capitalsim does not work.. It will create the same kind of staganation.. Ace_WondersX
Not unless the government interferes either assisting a company (i.e. bailout) or hurting a company (i.e. forcing an automobile industry to give more to labor unions). I believe that extreme capitalism can work because while people do want profit, at the same time, they need to convince you for your money, thus they need to make a product that is good for them, otherwise, they would fail. Yes, there is an increased chance of monopolies but so what, when compared to a government monopoly? A monopoly in a capitalistic society would still have to compete to offer the best product. Governments don't have to because they also enforce the law.
I'm kinda confused by this statement, please explain more please.
Because if they hike their prices, there is a possible chance that a competitor would come in and offer the better deal. Naturally, people will always find different ways to obtain what they desire.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.
.. You seem not to understand, sooner or later some one always has a big stick... "Competition" will sort it out is completely nieve of history.. If this were true, why didn't democracies, republics etc etc begin surfacing overall only a few centuries back by and large.. Before that were monarchies and such.. The peasents had little right.. CLearly this example alone shows you that compeittion doesn't work.. And we had the exact same problem in early 1900s and late 1800s.. If you seriously think competition solves everything with out any kind of government intervention by setting certain standrads and such, you seem to be compeltely ignorant of history.. The person who gets up first, will either A) Beat back all teh compeititon strangling them to death, B) Create a cartel with the runner ups, then committ to A.. Absolute capitalism with no government forsight in regulation would lead to a feudal system of sorts, where a very select few will hold power, and the vast majority will be forced into a powerless position.. Both systems taken to their extreme will lead to tyranny.
It's a lot easier to maintain power with force, than without it. Wal-Mart cannot use the same means a King could to remain in power. So your analogy does not prove competition does not work. I am not ignorant of history, and am unsure as to why you think me so. I am quite aware that the standard of living wasn't all that lovely during the latter 19th, and early 20th century. However one would have to be delusional to think it was all lovely before then, or to believe business made it worse. Remember, the world was extremely poor by modern standards at this point in time. Thing is, the person on top would have to constantly strangle competitors to death if a market void was left open. It would lose money forcing competitors out, and could not do so indefinitely. The cartel argument is a more worrisome scenario. Problem is, cartels tend to not last long, as groups are constantly trying to outperform the businesses it is colluding with. Eventually, one breaks from the system, then the rest are forced to follow suit. I find it extremely assumptious to say that a few men would end up with all the power, and haven't seen an argument that is convincing enough to show that all power would be in point of fact centralized.
That is incorrect.. Walmart can lower the prices to where they are taking a loss to bankrupt you.. They can blackmail their large worker population that they will fire and black list any one who shops at your place.. And finally they can pressure their suppliers to increase the prices for you, while making their prices cheaper.. And no.. Cartels do last, that is why every country out there with a capitalist framework has ways of stopping that.. Furthermore a monopoly will have vertical intergration, elts say you are small compeititing company agianst Walmart.. Gl because they will nto sell to you, they control the entire supply line.. You still don't get it do you? There would be no possible way for you to create a competition.. IN the end youw ill either be bought out, or forced into bankrupcy.. In the highly unlikely chance you do come on top, you will become the tyrannical corporation in trying to stay on top, and stomping every one on top..[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="unholymight"] Competitors can't compete if they're already knocked down. Try opening a have-all store that competes against Wal-Mart.sSubZerOo
Firstly, you assumed that the competitors would get knocked down. (Target>Wal-Mart IMO) Just for fun I'll entertain the idea. If Wal-Mart monopolized the department store industry, and was jacking prices, and a competitor filled a void by opening a store with lower prices, Wal-Mart would have to respond the same by doing the same. Long story short, Wal-Mart would be forces to do an excellent performance with the stores, or face increased competition...
Taking the extreme capitalism to heart.. For some one who defends it you seem to have little idea of economics.. Walmart would sell their products at a loss to bankrupt you, thats if they don't buy you out.. Furthermore they would blackmail their immense workers population never to buy there, and do numerous other things.. We have those regulations there for a reason. Furthermore they could presure the supplies you are using to hike the prices up for you.. You can not win with out government regulations to stop these abuses.. If you think you some how can, your being extremely dense.I actually have a fairly thorough understanding of economics. You seem to like assumptions. Sure, Wal-Mart may try to sell products at a loss, but cannot do so indefinitely. Either Wal-Mart sells goods at what the market deems a fair price, or competitors come in. Wal-Mart would constantly be faced with the possibility of an entering competitor, and would act accordingly. As I told another fellow, if it became profitable to create Department Store chains, just to have Wal-Mart buy them out, it would become a sort of business venture.
The regulations are certainly there for a reason. In fact, they may indeed be beneficial, especially in the Anti-Trust area for high entry cost industries. I just think Laissez-faire capitalism is just a far superior choice to communism.
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]
[QUOTE="leviathan91"]
Not unless the government interferes either assisting a company (i.e. bailout) or hurting a company (i.e. forcing an automobile industry to give more to labor unions). I believe that extreme capitalism can work because while people do want profit, at the same time, they need to convince you for your money, thus they need to make a product that is good for them, otherwise, they would fail. Yes, there is an increased chance of monopolies but so what, when compared to a government monopoly? A monopoly in a capitalistic society would still have to compete to offer the best product. Governments don't have to because they also enforce the law.
leviathan91
I'm kinda confused by this statement, please explain more please.
Because if they hike their prices, there is a possible chance that a competitor would come in and offer the better deal. Naturally, people will always find different ways to obtain what they desire.
I got in a debate over this with coolbeans yesterday. What you're saying is probably true for industries with low barriers to entry, but for something as big a major department store or chain, it would be pretty easy to eliminate competition preemptively. Of course their would maybe be smaller local competition, but there wouldn't be a high probability of a another large chain forming as competition.Total laissez-faire capitalism is much worse. This implies no government intervention or regulation or laws, and thus all power rests with money.unholymightNot necessarily. Laissez-Faire economics is too often confused with simple anarchy. Laissez-Faire suggests that governments allow the economy to work as autonomously as possible. It does not suggest that the government cannot uphold basic laws and civil rights.
Taking the extreme capitalism to heart.. For some one who defends it you seem to have little idea of economics.. Walmart would sell their products at a loss to bankrupt you, thats if they don't buy you out.. Furthermore they would blackmail their immense workers population never to buy there, and do numerous other things.. We have those regulations there for a reason. Furthermore they could presure the supplies you are using to hike the prices up for you.. You can not win with out government regulations to stop these abuses.. If you think you some how can, your being extremely dense.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Firstly, you assumed that the competitors would get knocked down. (Target>Wal-Mart IMO) Just for fun I'll entertain the idea. If Wal-Mart monopolized the department store industry, and was jacking prices, and a competitor filled a void by opening a store with lower prices, Wal-Mart would have to respond the same by doing the same. Long story short, Wal-Mart would be forces to do an excellent performance with the stores, or face increased competition...
coolbeans90
I actually have a fairly thorough understanding of economics. You seem to like assumptions. Sure, Wal-Mart may try to sell products at a loss, but cannot do so indefinitely. Either Wal-Mart sells goods at what the market deems a fair price, or competitors come in. Wal-Mart would constantly be faced with the possibility of an entering competitor, and would act accordingly. As I told another fellow, if it became profitable to create Department Store chains, just to have Wal-Mart buy them out, it would become a sort of business venture.
The regulations are certainly there for a reason. In fact, they may indeed be beneficial, especially in the Anti-Trust area for high entry cost industries. I just think Laissez-faire capitalism is just a far superior choice to communism.
But it would take months, probably even years to establish a department store chain that can compete with Wal-mart. It's not like everytime Walmart destroys one competitor another will immediately pop up. Another competitor might pop-up a couple years later.[QUOTE="unholymight"]Total laissez-faire capitalism is much worse. This implies no government intervention or regulation or laws, and thus all power rests with money.fidosimNot necessarily. Laissez-Faire economics is too often confused with simple anarchy. Laissez-Faire suggests that governments allow the economy to work as autonomously as possible. It does not suggest that the government cannot uphold basic laws and civil rights. Then that's not the extreme capitalism we're speaking of here. Pure capitalism means nothing interferes with how money is exchanged. If the government is preventing me from selling mercenary-for-hire services, it's intervening in my market and it's intervening in the economy. Simple as that.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
.. You seem not to understand, sooner or later some one always has a big stick... "Competition" will sort it out is completely nieve of history.. If this were true, why didn't democracies, republics etc etc begin surfacing overall only a few centuries back by and large.. Before that were monarchies and such.. The peasents had little right.. CLearly this example alone shows you that compeittion doesn't work.. And we had the exact same problem in early 1900s and late 1800s.. If you seriously think competition solves everything with out any kind of government intervention by setting certain standrads and such, you seem to be compeltely ignorant of history.. The person who gets up first, will either A) Beat back all teh compeititon strangling them to death, B) Create a cartel with the runner ups, then committ to A.. Absolute capitalism with no government forsight in regulation would lead to a feudal system of sorts, where a very select few will hold power, and the vast majority will be forced into a powerless position.. Both systems taken to their extreme will lead to tyranny.
sSubZerOo
It's a lot easier to maintain power with force, than without it. Wal-Mart cannot use the same means a King could to remain in power. So your analogy does not prove competition does not work. I am not ignorant of history, and am unsure as to why you think me so. I am quite aware that the standard of living wasn't all that lovely during the latter 19th, and early 20th century. However one would have to be delusional to think it was all lovely before then, or to believe business made it worse. Remember, the world was extremely poor by modern standards at this point in time. Thing is, the person on top would have to constantly strangle competitors to death if a market void was left open. It would lose money forcing competitors out, and could not do so indefinitely. The cartel argument is a more worrisome scenario. Problem is, cartels tend to not last long, as groups are constantly trying to outperform the businesses it is colluding with. Eventually, one breaks from the system, then the rest are forced to follow suit. I find it extremely assumptious to say that a few men would end up with all the power, and haven't seen an argument that is convincing enough to show that all power would be in point of fact centralized.
That is incorrect.. Walmart can lower the prices to where they are taking a loss to bankrupt you.. They can blackmail their large worker population that they will fire and black list any one who shops at your place.. And finally they can pressure their suppliers to increase the prices for you, while making their prices cheaper.. And no.. Cartels do last, that is why every country out there with a capitalist framework has ways of stopping that.. Furthermore a monopoly will have vertical intergration, elts say you are small compeititing company agianst Walmart.. Gl because they will nto sell to you, they control the entire supply line.. You still don't get it do you? There would be no possible way for you to create a competition.. IN the end youw ill either be bought out, or forced into bankrupcy.. In the highly unlikely chance you do come on top, you will become the tyrannical corporation in trying to stay on top, and stomping every one on top..A large number of those sound like business practices which would put Wal-Mart out of business. Just give it terrible PR. Also, it's not like Wal-Mart's pockets are infinitly large. Also, as a preventative measure to attempt to prevent an entry level competitor from coming in and harming their business, they would keep prices low enough to where it isn't tempting to start such a chain. According to my Keynesian leaning textbook, cartels tend to not last. Game theory stuff. Just because there are regulations to prevent it, doesn't mean they are necessary. (they may be beneficial though...) The idea of Wal-Mart buying out a new competitor is just... silly. It would just encourage more such in the future. You seem to be obsessed with this idea that one corporation will gravitate towards the top. Long story short, if a business were to build a monopoly (this isn't exactly easy, or likely... it's not a baseball game with a set winner...) it would be forced to yield to market demands to a large extent to prevent the loss of market share. I do agree that Anti-trust regulation is beneficial to some extent... especially those with costly barriers to entry.
Not necessarily. Laissez-Faire economics is too often confused with simple anarchy. Laissez-Faire suggests that governments allow the economy to work as autonomously as possible. It does not suggest that the government cannot uphold basic laws and civil rights. fidosimwell yeah, except for the folks who view those 'basic laws' as interfering with the free market. for example, opponents of the ADA may say that it costs businesses too much, and who are you to disagree with them? after all, the people who benefit from this law are too few to make up for the immense cost in reserving space for them.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Taking the extreme capitalism to heart.. For some one who defends it you seem to have little idea of economics.. Walmart would sell their products at a loss to bankrupt you, thats if they don't buy you out.. Furthermore they would blackmail their immense workers population never to buy there, and do numerous other things.. We have those regulations there for a reason. Furthermore they could presure the supplies you are using to hike the prices up for you.. You can not win with out government regulations to stop these abuses.. If you think you some how can, your being extremely dense.
Ace_WondersX
I actually have a fairly thorough understanding of economics. You seem to like assumptions. Sure, Wal-Mart may try to sell products at a loss, but cannot do so indefinitely. Either Wal-Mart sells goods at what the market deems a fair price, or competitors come in. Wal-Mart would constantly be faced with the possibility of an entering competitor, and would act accordingly. As I told another fellow, if it became profitable to create Department Store chains, just to have Wal-Mart buy them out, it would become a sort of business venture.
The regulations are certainly there for a reason. In fact, they may indeed be beneficial, especially in the Anti-Trust area for high entry cost industries. I just think Laissez-faire capitalism is just a far superior choice to communism.
But it would take months, probably even years to establish a department store chain that can compete with Wal-mart. It's not like everytime Walmart destroys one competitor another will immediately pop up. Another competitor might pop-up a couple years later.True. However, there are other reasons why Wal-Mart doesn't have many competitors. Low prices. There would be a larger incentive to pop up such a store if there were serious pricing issues.
[QUOTE="fidosim"]Not necessarily. Laissez-Faire economics is too often confused with simple anarchy. Laissez-Faire suggests that governments allow the economy to work as autonomously as possible. It does not suggest that the government cannot uphold basic laws and civil rights. Hewkiiwell yeah, except for the folks who view those 'basic laws' as interfering with the free market. for example, opponents of the ADA may say that it costs businesses too much, and who are you to disagree with them? after all, the people who benefit from this law are too few to make up for the immense cost in reserving space for them. Exactly. If you prevent me from selling nukes, you're interfering with the exchange of money, and therefore the economy.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"]communism has never been tried on any significant scale.fidosimOh it's been tried plenty of times, my friend. No one has successfully created a society that matched the one Marx envisioned, but that's because the society Marx envisioned was an impossible fantasy. I wouldn't go so far to say that. The Israeli kibbutzim used to operate more or less how Marx envisioned a communist society would operate, although the kibbbutzim were never strictly Marxist societies - I think describing as libertarian socialistic societies is more appropriate. There are also other examples like the Spanish Revolution, which was unfortunately abandoned and betrayed by organizations associated with the USSR and Stalin.
But it would take months, probably even years to establish a department store chain that can compete with Wal-mart. It's not like everytime Walmart destroys one competitor another will immediately pop up. Another competitor might pop-up a couple years later.[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I actually have a fairly thorough understanding of economics. You seem to like assumptions. Sure, Wal-Mart may try to sell products at a loss, but cannot do so indefinitely. Either Wal-Mart sells goods at what the market deems a fair price, or competitors come in. Wal-Mart would constantly be faced with the possibility of an entering competitor, and would act accordingly. As I told another fellow, if it became profitable to create Department Store chains, just to have Wal-Mart buy them out, it would become a sort of business venture.
The regulations are certainly there for a reason. In fact, they may indeed be beneficial, especially in the Anti-Trust area for high entry cost industries. I just think Laissez-faire capitalism is just a far superior choice to communism.
coolbeans90
True. However, there are other reasons why Wal-Mart doesn't have many competitors. Low prices. There would be a larger incentive to pop up such a store if there were serious pricing issues.
Yes, but then the stores facing competition would just adjust their prices accordingly. When there is competition prices will come down, but when there is no competition they would jack the prices up. Just repeat that process pretty much.I wouldn't go so far to say that. The Israeli kibbutzim used to operate more or less how Marx envisioned a communist society would operate, although the kibbbutzim were never strictly Marxist societies - I think describing as libertarian socialistic societies is more appropriate. There are also other examples like the Spanish Revolution, which was unfortunately abandoned and betrayed by organizations associated with the USSR and Stalin. -Sun_Tzu-The Spanish Revolution, as in the Civil War? I wouldn't peg that as a classic Marxist kind of revolution.
Actually true Laissez-faire mean no government intervention what so ever.Ace_WondersX
"the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/laissez%20faire
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] But it would take months, probably even years to establish a department store chain that can compete with Wal-mart. It's not like everytime Walmart destroys one competitor another will immediately pop up. Another competitor might pop-up a couple years later.Ace_WondersX
True. However, there are other reasons why Wal-Mart doesn't have many competitors. Low prices. There would be a larger incentive to pop up such a store if there were serious pricing issues.
Yes, but then the stores facing competition would just adjust their prices accordingly. When there is competition prices will come down, but when there is no competition they would jack the prices up. Just repeat that process pretty much.Where the prices are jacked up is the potential for some greedy industrious entrepreneur to create a nightmare for a monopoly. Wal-Mart just might find it easier to keep it's prices reasonably low indefinitely, just to preserve market share. Sure, it's not the optimal situation, but I prefer it to communism.
Yes, but then the stores facing competition would just adjust their prices accordingly. When there is competition prices will come down, but when there is no competition they would jack the prices up. Just repeat that process pretty much.[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
True. However, there are other reasons why Wal-Mart doesn't have many competitors. Low prices. There would be a larger incentive to pop up such a store if there were serious pricing issues.
coolbeans90
Where the prices are jacked up is the potential for some greedy industrious entrepreneur to create a nightmare for a monopoly. Wal-Mart just might find it easier to keep it's prices reasonably low indefinitely, just to preserve market share. Sure, it's not the optimal situation, but I prefer it to communism.
I guess this is where the argument ends, because neither one of us actually knows what will happen, we can just imagine.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I wouldn't go so far to say that. The Israeli kibbutzim used to operate more or less how Marx envisioned a communist society would operate, although the kibbbutzim were never strictly Marxist societies - I think describing as libertarian socialistic societies is more appropriate. There are also other examples like the Spanish Revolution, which was unfortunately abandoned and betrayed by organizations associated with the USSR and Stalin. fidosimThe Spanish Revolution, as in the Civil War? I wouldn't peg that as a classic Marxist kind of revolution. No, no, no. The Spanish Revolution took place during the Civil War, but it was not the civil war itself. And I agree, it wasn't a Marxian revolution per se, but it was a revolution that was inching society closer to what Marx thought society would look like when the state would eventually and ultimately "wither away", and it was working out pretty well given the circumstances.
[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="unholymight"] Extreme capitalism means the government does not intervene with the market. If you prevent me from selling nukes, you're interfering with my market and you're violating the basic principle of capitalism: the free exchange of money. That's all there is to itAce_WondersXNo, no. The emphasis is "as little government intervention as possible" not "no government intervention ever." Actually true Laissez-faire mean no government intervention what so ever.
No, it just means no government interventionism on economic matters. (in other words, no government policies regarding economics, unemployment, wage rates, bailouts, etc...) You're confusing it with Anarcho-capitalism.
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] Actually true Laissez-faire mean no government intervention what so ever.fidosim
the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/laissez%20faire
That may be the modern defintion, but I prefer the actual translation when the term was coined which meant "leave it alone"Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment