Communism VS. Laissez-Faire Capitalism

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.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="fidosim"][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. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="fidosim"] No, no. The emphasis is "as little government intervention as possible" not "no government intervention ever."coolbeans90

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="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] 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.Ace_WondersX

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.

Well, it's been a good discussion. It's very unlikely that we'll see either of the two systems in our lives, meaning I'll never get the satisfaction of knowing what would happen if either system was put in place. :( So, I'm just going to grab popcorn and watch people argue about American "capitalism" vs. Russian "communism."

[QUOTE="fidosim"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] 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"] Actually true Laissez-faire mean no government intervention what so ever.Ace_WondersX

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.

Wow, I have a habit of misreading your posts :P

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="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.

coolbeans90

Well, it's been a good discussion. It's very unlikely that we'll see either of the two systems in our lives, meaning I'll never get the satisfaction of knowing what would happen if either system was put in place. :( So, I'm just going to grab popcorn and watch people argue about American "capitalism" vs. Russian "communism."

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="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

fidosim

He had to write a book about it because as I demonstrated real laissez-faire capitalism could never work, so he had to find ways to change it or make it sound more convincing.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="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

fidosim

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

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.

coolbeans90

Wow, I have a habit of misreading your posts :P

The thing is, Adam Smith never actually used the term laissez-faire throughout his whole book. But people still often use it as a guide to laissez-faire capitalism.

Ace_WondersX

The thing is, Adam Smith never actually used the term laissez-faire throughout his whole book. But people still often use it as a guide to laissez-faire capitalism.Ace_WondersX

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

The thing is, Adam Smith never actually used the term laissez-faire throughout his whole book. But people still often use it as a guide to laissez-faire capitalism.

Hewkii

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] I wasn't the one arguing anarcho-capitalism would happen. That was unholymight, but that's what I meant. The government cannot intervene in economic/business matters at all.unholymight

Wow, I have a habit of misreading your posts :P

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Wow, I have a habit of misreading your posts :P

Ace_WondersX

No, if you're preventing me from selling bloodthirsty mercenaries, you're interfering with the market and the economy. Simple as that.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] I wasn't the one arguing anarcho-capitalism would happen. That was unholymight, but that's what I meant. The government cannot intervene in economic/business matters at all.unholymight

Wow, I have a habit of misreading your posts :P

I don't know what you described. I haven't read your post, but will do so in a minute. Just because Laissez-faire may lead to an anarcho-capitalist system (with this I disagree...), doesn't mean that it is one dude... My point is, they are inherently different.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fidosim"] The Spanish Revolution, as in the Civil War? I wouldn't peg that as a classic Marxist kind of revolution.fidosim

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] The thing is, Adam Smith never actually used the term laissez-faire throughout his whole book. But people still often use it as a guide to laissez-faire capitalism.fidosim

Yes, but Lenin, Stalin, and Mao's changes do not represent Marxism, due to the fact that they are different from the original theory. Adam Smith version is that exactly, his version, but it does not give an overview of the whole theory.

I think folks simply get irked when people talk about progressive income taxation as if it's something we don't already have.fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] The thing is, Adam Smith never actually used the term laissez-faire throughout his whole book. But people still often use it as a guide to laissez-faire capitalism.Ace_WondersX

[QUOTE="fidosim"]I think folks simply get irked when people talk about progressive income taxation as if it's something we don't already have.Hewkii

They are their respective creators' versions of communism, none of them is a real overview of communism.Ace_WondersX

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]They are their respective creators' versions of communism, none of them is a real overview of communism.fidosim

"they" do not all want the system revoked, although some certainly do. Just as all Communists have not been the same, not everyone who believes in the Free Market shares the same views on every issue.fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]"they" do not all want the system revoked, although some certainly do. Just as all Communists have not been the same, not everyone who believes in the Free Market shares the same views on every issue.Hewkii

You know how Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, but he has supported Republicans on a lot of things? Likewise, Republicans can disagree on certain things as well. I can assure you that not all Republicans think that suddenly eliminating graduated income tax.fidosim

Okay, let me try again. You know how the Blue Dog Democrats feuded with other Democrats this summer over Health Care reform? Now do you understand? fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Okay, let me try again. You know how the Blue Dog Democrats feuded with other Democrats this summer over Health Care reform? Now do you understand? Hewkii

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

lol I agree. Matriarchy FTW!:o

well since I'm ALREADY an advocate of Laissez-Faire Capitalism...

That's the thing. The Republican and Democratic parties are just parties. Their goal is to win 50.1% of the vote on election day. 50.1% of the population is not going to share the same stance on every issue. Both parties are way too big to be that homogenous.fidosim

[QUOTE="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.

Hewkii

in an unfettered market, profit always tends towards zero, and so the Capitalist is a deadweight on the system. The only reason companies make a profit is because of changes in the marketplace.

the reason that Wal-mart and other large corporations "control" the market is BECAUSE they keep prices low. This is why Wal-mart has so much control; They sell an enourmous amount of goods while maintaining an incredibly low profit-margin on each good sold. If they made a high profit-margin, then they would be driven out of the market place by competition.danwallacefan

well since I'm ALREADY an advocate of Laissez-Faire Capitalism...

danwallacefan

no, the Republican party actually is that homogeneous. it comes from having a user base comprised mainly of people who are too scared or ignorant to actually question why x is bad, with the remaining intelligent folks either being the people who benefit from having x as a taboo (rich people), or people who shortly leave as they realize that changing the party is impossible without the first group of smart people.Hewkii

Now you're just trying to be obtuse. Think of all of the different personalities who have led the Republican party. There are "Rockefeller" Republicans, who want to promote industry, "Goldwater" Republicans who want limited federal power and expanded state power, Nixonians who like a power-based foreign policy and Reaganites who want an ideology-based foreign policy. And that's not even scratching the surface. fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Now you're just trying to be obtuse. Think of all of the different personalities who have led the Republican party. There are "Rockefeller" Republicans, who want to promote industry, "Goldwater" Republicans who want limited federal power and expanded state power, Nixonians who like a power-based foreign policy and Reaganites who want an ideology-based foreign policy. And that's not even scratching the surface. Hewkii

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]the reason that Wal-mart and other large corporations "control" the market is BECAUSE they keep prices low. This is why Wal-mart has so much control; They sell an enourmous amount of goods while maintaining an incredibly low profit-margin on each good sold. If they made a high profit-margin, then they would be driven out of the market place by competition.Hewkii

@danwallacefan, thanks for backing me up.

If the benefits of the convenience of shopping very locally were offset by lower prices elsewhere, then people would shop there. It's why I do not go grocery shopping at the Wawa right up the street from me. A store actually does face competition from stores twenty miles away. Sure they might be able to raise the price a wee bit. But not to the level which monopolies are said to make everything unaffordable. Also, you make a large, and in my opinion, incorrect assumption that a store would be able to drive out all competition.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="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.

danwallacefan

in an unfettered market, profit always tends towards zero, and so the Capitalist is a deadweight on the system. The only reason companies make a profit is because of changes in the marketplace.

Assuming no barriers to entry, yes... but most markets will have some barriers to entry...

I think the best way to end this argument is a barrage of Milton Friedman quotes:

"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

"The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of system."

"The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government."

"The most single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."

Don't just go by the few words i've said about each faction. Go read up on them yourself to give yourself a better idea. Goldwater wasn't simply about states' rights. I mentioned him because he was the focus of a huge political battle that took place within the Republican party back in the day.fidosim

that's just it. 'back in the day' has no relation to the actual mindset of the party today. I took Goldwater to merely mean state's rights people, I don't really know or care what his actual positions were. the actual fact of the matter is that the party has in general been homogeneous in its beliefs since Reagan. there is literally no simpler way to say this.

If the benefits of the convenience of shopping very locally were offset by lower prices elsewhere, then people would shop there. It's why I do not go grocery shopping at the Wawa right up the street from me. A store actually does face competition from stores twenty miles away. Sure they might be able to raise the price a wee bit. But not to the level which monopolies are said to make everything unaffordable. Also, you make a large, and in my opinion, incorrect assumption that a store would be able to drive out all competition.

coolbeans90

do you really want to drive for twenty miles for basic necessities when gas is $4/gallon? no, and most people wouldn't either.

and if you really doubt Wal-Mart's destructive influence, read this.

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Don't just go by the few words i've said about each faction. Go read up on them yourself to give yourself a better idea. Goldwater wasn't simply about states' rights. I mentioned him because he was the focus of a huge political battle that took place within the Republican party back in the day.Hewkii

that's just it. 'back in the day' has no relation to the actual mindset of the party today. I took Goldwater to merely mean state's rights people, I don't really know or care what his actual positions were. the actual fact of the matter is that the party has in general been homogeneous in its beliefs since Reagan. there is literally no simpler way to say this.

If the benefits of the convenience of shopping very locally were offset by lower prices elsewhere, then people would shop there. It's why I do not go grocery shopping at the Wawa right up the street from me. A store actually does face competition from stores twenty miles away. Sure they might be able to raise the price a wee bit. But not to the level which monopolies are said to make everything unaffordable. Also, you make a large, and in my opinion, incorrect assumption that a store would be able to drive out all competition.

coolbeans90

do you really want to drive for twenty miles for basic necessities when gas is $4/gallon? no, and most people wouldn't either.

and if you really doubt Wal-Mart's destructive influence, read this.

"Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche "

This made me lul a bit, but I still agree with the article and your point. I think the date the article was published only serves to further the point, people have been talking about the damage Wal-Mart's been doing for years and yet it's still thriving now because of the bottom line. You know the ironic thing? When the economy took a turn for the worse Wal-Mart's profits went up because of that bottom-line mentality, so in essence they can drive down wages and send manufacturing overseas and in return we give them a better profit for the year. That's the very essence of lassiez-faire mentality and exactly why it's such a problem, in the end profiteering is all that matters.