100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Idea that Capitalism is Good | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Spider, While I'm suspicious of the sweeping nature of your statements, and am not entirely convinced of the truth of many of the individual claims you make... still I cannot think of a single harmful monopoly which did not get there in part by exploiting government regulations; and it seems to me that most achieve their monopoly status primarily by exploiting government regulations. It's unfortunate but true that Companies have been much maligned over the years. Some companies deserve that bad reputation, but in all cases that I am aware of, their excesses have been made possible through Government intervention. If you have any statements in particular that you would like clarified or expanded upon, I would be more than happy to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about “Taxism”: Any entity whose income is too high, gets taxed 100% on the excess.
Or “Robinhoodism”: Whenever an entity owns too much, we just walk in, take whatever we think they don’t deserve to have, and redistribute it whomever we think deserves to have it. Seriously though, I don’t think the “problem” with capitalism and/or monopolies has anything at all to do with either money or politics. It has to do with man’s inhumanity to man. Money and power (same thing really) are only a measure of how much inhumanity man can inflict on man. I’m all for helping other people out. But I’m against being either forced to do it, or being forcibly prevented from doing it. – regardless of what the reasoning is of the entity who would do the forcing. The main reason I favor Capitalism over other forms of “financial governing” is that it aligns with what I feel are basic human rights. I.e. the right of a person to determine the course of his own life without being interfebadgered by busybodies who think they have a monopoly on knowing what is best for everyone. In other words, the “problem” is not a political or financial one, it is a moral one. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Wed 11/18/09 08:25 PM
|
|
yet it is a moral problem that involves politics and finances.
The biggest international banks that represent corporations lend money to poor countries at such high interest rates that these countries can never pay it back allowing them to be raped from their resources and used for slave labor work. All so we can enjoy the goods we take for granted in this country. I am also against a government seizing a person's hard earned money, yet there has to be a way that wealth in such great magnitude shouldn't be rewarded if it creates poverty and misery. Do you get where I am going with this? So yes "Robinhoodism" sounds very appealing to me right now as I have seen too much poverty around the world first hand in the years I did work at my profession. The majority of people in the richer countries simply turn their heads and say "oh well" too bad for them, but I am enjoying my goods anyway. Not only are the corporations responsible, but also the people who buy the goods responsible in ensuring such poverty in the world. Inhumanity is practiced by huge corporations and even has a huge effect in our politics today as they use persuasive lobbyist to do their biddings. If not all of it. I do not have a solution, yet the problems will continue regardless. Here is a video that has been disturbing me for a few days now leading on to why I wrote this thread in the first place - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7932485454526581006&ei%23# |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
absurd. a monopoly that cannot survive as a monopoly was never a monopoly in the first place. it took the government to break up ma bell before their monopolizing practices could be eliminated and competion, read lower prices, could occure. if a mistake is being made as you infer at the beginning of this post then the mistake is your's. monopoly is similar to being pregnant. you is or you ain't. there never has been different flavors of monopoly, natural, harmful or otherwise. monopolies exist or they are broken by legislation or other forces. Why don't you google monopoly and do a bit of reading? Your statement is itself absurd. You post these silly gratuitous assertions as if you know what you are talking about. It's not even a theory that natural monopolies form. It's a known fact. Patents and land ownership are natural monopolies. It's also known that government intervention creates harmful monopolies called coercive monopolies. Now maybe you don't know anything about monopolies and you were just giving an "opinion". Let me assure you that opinions don't apply to this particular subject. You can debate all day and night on which school of economics is right, but you can't claim that natural monopolies don't exist. It's arguing against the facts and is properly labeled a delusion, not an opinion. Educate yourself, I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you. hahahaha. the last time you suggested that i do some reading that i'd read years before i pulled up a definition of the word you'd so absurdly mistaken in it's usage and literally handed your asss on a platter. on that issue you never even reapeard in the thread. so here i happily hand you your asss again. see of the dictionary definition does not closely reflect how i described a monopoly in my reply to your absurdity. don't fret, the plate's clean: mo⋅nop⋅o⋅ly /məˈnɒpəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA Use monopoly in a Sentence See web results for monopoly See images of monopoly –noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something. 4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service. 5. a company or group that has such control. 6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller. 7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property. obviously none of your several example companies had "1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices." your widget maker obviously could not manipulate the price of the commodoty in it's particular market if after raising prices theotherguys came in with a replacement product at a lower price. where's the price manipulation? nor does your "monopoly" have "3. the exclusive possession or control of something" and as a competetive product came on the market whether they wanted it to or not they could hardly be called "5. a company or group that has such control". and as you yourself introduced into your example no less than three competitors producing similar products it can hardly be said that it was a case of "6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller." i wouldn't waste my time with me either if i were you. got's ta be gettin embarrassing huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Wed 11/18/09 08:58 PM
|
|
Bell was a government sanctioned monopoly. It started as a natural monopoly, but the government stepped in to help them solidify their monopoly. The government worked against itself. While the Justice Department tried to take down the monopoly, the legislators helped to prop it up. It's all out there to read. The president of Bell believed in using government intervention to hold market share and he was able to buy enough legislators to make that possible. hmmmmm. i used the term "ma bell" as we customers used to refer to a coroporation who's actual name is "american telephone and teligraph" or what we now know as at&t. it's president had no more to say in the market strategy of the corporation than he does today. you see, it's the ceo and board chairman hold that power in a publically held corporation, not the president unless the president holds concurrent positions. i know this because as a stockholder i've received the anual report of the company for decades and in the report it is quite clear who holds and has held the strategic reigns of the company throughout it's history. but regardless of what his legal title was, what was the name of the person that you say believed in using government intervention to hold market share and which legislators did he buy. and when did all this happen? as a long time shareholder of att stock i've followed the company for literally decades. always enjoy being further enlightened about my retirement investments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hahahaha. the last time you suggested that i do some reading that i'd read years before i pulled up a definition of the word you'd so absurdly mistaken in it's usage and literally handed your asss on a platter. on that issue you never even reapeard in the thread. so here i happily hand you your asss again. see of the dictionary definition does not closely reflect how i described a monopoly in my reply to your absurdity. don't fret, the plate's clean: I have no idea what you are talking about. In case you haven't noticed, I left the forums for a couple weeks while I was busy with other things. I would gladly continue our discussion, if you will point me to the thread. mo⋅nop⋅o⋅ly /məˈnɒpəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA Use monopoly in a Sentence See web results for monopoly See images of monopoly –noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something. 4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service. 5. a company or group that has such control. 6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller. 7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property. obviously none of your several example companies had "1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices." your widget maker obviously could not manipulate the price of the commodoty in it's particular market if after raising prices theotherguys came in with a replacement product at a lower price. where's the price manipulation? nor does your "monopoly" have "3. the exclusive possession or control of something" and as a competetive product came on the market whether they wanted it to or not they could hardly be called "5. a company or group that has such control". and as you yourself introduced into your example no less than three competitors producing similar products it can hardly be said that it was a case of "6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller." i wouldn't waste my time with me either if i were you. got's ta be gettin embarrassing huh? http://wapedia.mobi/en/Coercive_monopoly Exclusive control of electricity supply due to government imposed "utility" status is a coercive monopoly, because users have no choice but to pay the price that the monopolist demands. Consumers would not have an alternative to purchase electricity from a cheaper competitor, because the wires running into their homes belong to the monopolist. Exclusive control of Coca-Cola would not be a coercive monopoly because consumers have a choice to drink another brand of soda, and the Coca-Cola company is subject to competitive forces. There is an upper limit to which the company can raise its prices before profits begin to erode because of the presence of viable substitute goods. Contrastingly, for a non-coercive monopoly to be maintained, the monopolist must make pricing and production decisions knowing that if prices are too high or quality is too low competition may arise from another firm that can better serve the market. If it is successful, it is called an efficiency monopoly, because it has been able to keep production and supply costs lower than any other possible competitor so that it can charge a lower price than others and still be profitable. Since potential competitors are not able to be so efficient at producing, they are not able to charge a lower, or comparable, price and still be profitable. Hence, competing is possible but doing so is not profitable; whereas, for a coercive monopoly, competition is neither profitable nor possible. You really don't understand this topic. I'm not being condescending or trying to insult you. You are just out of your depth and need to educate yourself. Once you are more familiar with the subject, I think you will find that you agree with me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bell was a government sanctioned monopoly. It started as a natural monopoly, but the government stepped in to help them solidify their monopoly. The government worked against itself. While the Justice Department tried to take down the monopoly, the legislators helped to prop it up. It's all out there to read. The president of Bell believed in using government intervention to hold market share and he was able to buy enough legislators to make that possible. hmmmmm. i used the term "ma bell" as we customers used to refer to a coroporation who's actual name is "american telephone and teligraph" or what we now know as at&t. it's president had no more to say in the market strategy of the corporation than he does today. you see, it's the ceo and board chairman that hold that power in a publically held corporation, not the president unless the president holds concurrent positions. regardless of what his legal title was, what was the name of the person that you say believed in using government intervention to hold market share and which legislators did he buy. and when did all this happen? as a long time shareholder of att stock i've followed the company for literally decades. alway enjoy being further enlightened about my retirement investments. http://www.pbs.org/transistor/album1/addlbios/vail.html Theodore Vail was one of AT&T's most far-sighted presidents. He oversaw the building of the first American coast to coast telephone system ,and it was his dedication to basic science that initiated a new research arm for AT&T: Bell Labs. Vail was born on July 16, 1845 in Ohio. His first career was in the railway postal service, but in 1878 he was lured away to run Bell Telephone as its general manager. During his tenure, he helped set up the Western Electric Company, a division of the company which built telephone equipment. He also oversaw the first long distance system, from Boston, Massachusetts to Providence, Rhode Island, in 1881. Vail retired in 1889 -- only to come back again in 1907. In between, he spent time in Argentina making money in mining, waterpower plants and railway systems. In 1907, Vail returned to what was essentially his previous job, though now the company was known as the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, or AT&T. AT&T was in some trouble because its phone patents had expired and other small companies were getting into the business. Suddenly, AT&T had competition. Vail solved this problem in three ways. First, he decided AT&T must have the very best phone system available: he committed the company to building a long-distance system that would cross the entire US. To do this he knew he would have to invest in scientific research, and he encouraged the development of AT&Ts own laboratory, Bell Labs. Second, he cooperated with the competitors, leasing them the use of AT&T's phone lines. Third, he managed to convince the public and the government that the best possible phone system was one that could provide "universal service" around the country -- in essence, the best phone system would come from a monopoly like AT&T. In 1914, the first transcontinental line across the US became operational. Vail sat in New York and made the first phone call all the way to San Francisco. A year later phone service was available to Europe as well. It is the height of laziness and arrogance to refute someones post with your opinion, when you can choose to use google to find that he or she was right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Coercive_monopoly Exclusive control of electricity supply due to government imposed "utility" status is a coercive monopoly, because users have no choice but to pay the price that the monopolist demands. you use wiki as your source? hahahaha. that explains alot. yet the source you quote here specifically describes this as a monopoly, "because the usesers have no choice but to pay the price that the monopoly demands". did the users of your widget have no choice to pay the price of your example "monopoly"? of course they had a choice. you yourself said that two competitors came in and gave them two similar products at two lower prices. You really don't understand this topic. I'm not being condescending or trying to insult you. You are just out of your depth and need to educate yourself. Once you are more familiar with the subject, I think you will find that you agree with me.
highly implausible that i'd agree with you. we never came to an agreement on what an agnostic was either did we? you left the field after reading the dictionary definition for words that you suggested i look up. "gnostic" and "agnostic" as i recall were the words. where did you go after that? will you leave this topic on capatilism as well because i won't agree with your position on the issue? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 11/18/09 09:11 PM
|
|
yet it is a moral problem that involves politics and finances. Yes, it "involves" politics and finances. But politics and finances do not cause anything. They are the effect of causes. The cause is individual immorality.
The biggest international banks that represent corporations lend money to poor countries at such high interest rates that these countries can never pay it back allowing them to be raped from their resources and used for slave labor work. Well the only other options are to not lend them the money at all, or "Robinhoodism" in the form of forcibly limiting the interest rate the banks can charge and thus reducing the individual wealth of the banks owners.
I am also against a government seizing a person's hard earned money, yet there has to be a way that wealth in such great magnitude shouldn't be rewarded if it creates poverty and misery. Do you get where I am going with this? Yes, I get where you're going. I just personally think it's a direction that will create more problems than it solves.
So yes "Robinhoodism" sounds very appealing to me right now as I have seen too much poverty around the world first hand in the years I did work at my profession. The majority of people in the richer countries simply turn their heads and say "oh well" too bad for them, but I am enjoying my goods anyway. Not only are the corporations responsible, but also the people who buy the goods responsible in ensuring such poverty in the world.
I do not have a solution either, but I don't think the is problem is caused by "corporations". A corporation is essentially nothing but a legally binding agreement. But without people to enter into an agreement, and carry out the terms of the agreement, corporations cannot exist. I just think that targeting "corporations" is shooting at the wrong target. It is the people who run the corporations that is the true source of the problem.
Inhumanity is practiced by huge corporations and even has a huge effect in our politics today as they use persuasive lobbyist to do their biddings. If not all of it. I do not have a solution, yet the problems will continue regardless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 11/18/09 09:40 PM
|
|
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Coercive_monopoly Exclusive control of electricity supply due to government imposed "utility" status is a coercive monopoly, because users have no choice but to pay the price that the monopolist demands. you use wiki as your source? hahahaha. that explains alot. yet the source you quote here specifically describes this as a monopoly, "because the usesers have no choice but to pay the price that the monopoly demands". did the users of your widget have no choice to pay the price of your example "monopoly"? of course they had a choice. you yourself said that two competitors came in and gave them two similar products at two lower prices. You are confusing a natural monopoly (from my example) with a coercive monopoly (from the quote you posted). Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html You really don't understand this topic. I'm not being condescending or trying to insult you. You are just out of your depth and need to educate yourself. Once you are more familiar with the subject, I think you will find that you agree with me.
highly implausible that i'd agree with you. we never came to an agreement on what an agnostic was either did we? you left the field after reading the dictionary definition for words that you suggested i look up. "gnostic" and "agnostic" as i recall were the words. where did you go after that? will you leave this topic on capatilism as well because i won't agree with your position on the issue? Would you point me to the thread? I honestly have no recollection of what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet it is a moral problem that involves politics and finances. Yes, it "involves" politics and finances. But politics and finances do not cause anything. They are the effect of causes. The cause is individual immorality.
The biggest international banks that represent corporations lend money to poor countries at such high interest rates that these countries can never pay it back allowing them to be raped from their resources and used for slave labor work. Well the only other options are to not lend them the money at all, or "Robinhoodism" in the form of forcibly limiting the interest rate the banks can charge and thus reducing the individual wealth of the banks owners.
I am also against a government seizing a person's hard earned money, yet there has to be a way that wealth in such great magnitude shouldn't be rewarded if it creates poverty and misery. Do you get where I am going with this? Yes, I get where you're going. I just personally think it's a direction that will create more problems than it solves.
So yes "Robinhoodism" sounds very appealing to me right now as I have seen too much poverty around the world first hand in the years I did work at my profession. The majority of people in the richer countries simply turn their heads and say "oh well" too bad for them, but I am enjoying my goods anyway. Not only are the corporations responsible, but also the people who buy the goods responsible in ensuring such poverty in the world.
I do not have a solution either, but I don't think the is problem is caused by "corporations". A corporation is essentially nothing but a legally binding agreement. But without people to enter into an agreement, and carry out the terms of the agreement, corporations cannot exist. I just think that targeting "corporations" is shooting at the wrong target. It is the people who run the corporations that is the true source of the problem.
Inhumanity is practiced by huge corporations and even has a huge effect in our politics today as they use persuasive lobbyist to do their biddings. If not all of it. I do not have a solution, yet the problems will continue regardless. Well we agree we don't have a solution 
I am no economist nor a politician so I probably don't have the bigger scope of the whole situation, yet it would have been nice if we would have had a way to create a system (give it any name, I don't care) that would really provide a universal business welfare that everyone can profit from leaving out poverty or at least declining on it as it goes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
highly implausible that i'd agree with you. we never came to an agreement on what an agnostic was either did we? you left the field after reading the dictionary definition for words that you suggested i look up. "gnostic" and "agnostic" as i recall were the words. where did you go after that? will you leave this topic on capatilism as well because i won't agree with your position on the issue? Would you point me to the thread? I honestly have no recollection of what you are talking about. I found it. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/253185?page=6 You were talking to metalwing, not me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my appologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are confusing a natural monopoly (from my example) with a coercive monopoly (from the quote you posted). perhaps we have a problem with terms. can you point me to a reference that explains "natural monopoly" and "coercive monopoly"? have never heard the terms before you brought them up. Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html i wouldn't use britannica as a reference either. as to wiki, i can go to any topic and edit it as i see fit just by clicking on the edit button. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Monopoly
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/natural_monopoly Coercive Monopoly http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.html http://talkobjectivism.com/monopoly-vs-coercive-monopoly/ http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/monopoly_outline.htm http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/15349/monopoly.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my appologies. No problem, mistakes happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good job on the monopoly definitions. i agree with all of it. so back to your widget maker. how does it fall into any definition of a monopoly that you yourself posted? where is the monopolized market, coerced or otherwise, when all a potential competitor has to do is open the doors of his new factory, produce a similar widget, and sell it at a lower price to an needy consumer base? that has been the crux of this exchange between you and me. where is the monopoly in YOUR example? where is the power to manipulate prices in YOUR example? which company effectively takes control of that manipulation in YOUR example?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good job on the monopoly definitions. i agree with all of it. so back to your widget maker. how does it fall into any definition of a monopoly that you yourself posted? where is the monopolized market, coerced or otherwise, when all a potential competitor has to do is open the doors of his new factory, produce a similar widget, and sell it at a lower price to an needy consumer base? that has been the crux of this exchange between you and me. where is the monopoly in YOUR example? where is the power to manipulate prices in YOUR example? which company effectively takes control of that manipulation in YOUR example? In the link for the Natural monopoly, there are listed five objections to government regulations of Natural Monopolies. #2 is this "Where natural monopoly situations do exist, they tend to be of comparatively short duration, since advances in technology quite regularly seem to create opportunities for new competitors to undercut established giants of the industry." Natural monopolies are short lived. While there were no competing products, the widget was the only game in town. But because there was a significant amount of money to be made, competitors arose who offered alternatives to the widget. That destroyed the natural monopoly which had belonged to Widgets inc. Your definition doesn't include a time period. In Keynesian School economics, such a period is believed to be infinite without government intervention. In the real world, natural monopolies form and are destroyed frequently. It's rare for a natural monopoly to exist for a long time. Utility companies are the best example of a natural monopoly that exists for an extended period of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 11/19/09 09:16 AM
|
|
Smiless wrote:
Do you favor capitalism? If you don’t what other alternative could you suggest? If you do favor capitalism explain your reasons. Well, as with everything, there is no cut-and-dried answer. The middle path is best. So it doesn't come down to a simple yes or no. Yes, I believe that capitalism is great! To a point! And within reason. And No, I'm not for unrestrained monopolies. I think capitalism totally sucks when it becomes nothing more than a machine for greed. This is a mistake that is made by most when discussing Capitalism. There are two kinds of monopolies: Natural and harmful. Capitalism can only produce the natural monopoly. A natural monopoly is always in danger of being destroyed by another natural monopoly, so it's prices are regulated by self interest. This price regulation limits the interest in a second party creating a new natural monopoly to compete with the first natural monopoly. Example: Soandso invents a widget. Everyone needs a widget, so sales are good. Soandso's business does very well. Soandso decides to double the price for the widget to make more money. That influx of money to the widget market prompts new inventors to seek for an alternative to the widget. Then along comes Thatotherguy and Whatshisname to create the wonkit and thingamabob respectively. Now Soandso has lost his monopoly and maybe his whole business for being greedy. Harmful Monopolies have nothing to do with Capitalism. They are actually the product of Government regulation. Capitalism is self regulating to achieve the lowest possible prices for the customers along a range of qualities. But government regulations make it possible for a single company to grow into a harmful monopoly. The harmful monopoly is the product of fascism, not democracy or capitalism. Examples: A harmful monopoly might be the government dictating which companies can make which products. Or it might be a highly regulated industry like Casinos. This regulation prevents small casinos from opening, because the licensing fee for a casino is 100 million dollars or more. (around 300 million is the standard in the US). With a government created and protected monopolies, the company has no incentive to charge lower prices, because there is no possible competition. Price gouging results. Of course, the fix is always more regulation. Which feeds the egos of the politicians who can now claim to have fixed a problem...never mind that they are the ones who created the problem. There is a perfectly legal form of monopoly that is protected by laws around the world: Patents. The owner of the patent is the only entity allowed to produce the product. Such an entity can then sell the product through only one business, thus creating a monopoly. Excellent post Spider!! There are two states (I think) in the south who were the only states that were allowed to grow peanuts. One of them was Alabama I don't remember the other one. About ten years ago, not sure exactly when, that law was changed. Anyone who wants to grow peanuts can now do so. The people in Alabama were really worried about this law being changed thinking that everyone was going to jump in and steal their markets. The reason this law was passed in the first place was to give these states a monopoly on peanuts so as to improve their ability to have some sort of industry there. I have not heard if any other state has jumped into farming peanuts or not. The only reason I knew about this was because my Dad was a farmer and he loved peanuts and when he tried to plant some, he found out it was against the law. He was really annoyed. He did not understand that. As for the subject of this thread, Yes, capitalism is good. Business is business. Everything is about business. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competition is great.
When an electronic product first comes out, you will see that it is very expensive. A short time later, someone will take that product, improve on it and reduce the price considerably. It will get better and cheaper as competition works it out. Sometimes cheaper will mean inferior, but not always. |
|
|
|
|
