would you support ending all monopolies?

[SMOGZINN]

The goal of a capitalist society is not to form monopolies. The goal of a company is to make money in any system. A company will try and form a monopoly in any system, because they can make more money. No system stops that desire. The difference between Socialism and Capitalism, is Socialism forms government monopolies to tell companies what to do. Capitalism says that agents can act in their own interests, so long as they dont infringe on others rights. In Socialism, the state can infringe on rights.

I dont understand why people believe the goal of capitalism is the powerful to control the weak, but it sure seems popular.

It is because competition is central to capitalism, and competition means that there must be a win state. Since what most companies are competing for is market share, the win state for that competition is monopoly.

 

[BoberFett]

I dont understand why people believe the goal of capitalism is the powerful to control the weak, but it sure seems popular.

Jealousy?

 

[Jhhnn]

I dont understand why people believe the goal of capitalism is the powerful to control the weak, but it sure seems popular.

Once lifestyle saturation occurs, there is no other point to power & empire be it economic or political. And it's not so much an issue of control as it is exploitation & influence.

Anybody who thinks that billionaires are in it for the money isn't thinking. They don't need money in the sense that middle class people need money at all.

 

[NoStateofMind]

It is because competition is central to capitalism, and competition means that there must be a win state. Since what most companies are competing for is market share, the win state for that competition is monopoly.

I'll agree that competition is at the heart of capitalism but your 'win state' theory only comes about by government decree. Without government protection there's not a market that wouldn't see a rival.

 

[realibrad]

It is because competition is central to capitalism, and competition means that there must be a win state. Since what most companies are competing for is market share, the win state for that competition is monopoly.

No, competition does not mean there is a win state. That is stupid and shows you dont know what you are talking about. Economics is not a zero sum game like baseball.

When the US was the global manufacturing giant it was in the past, the whole world benefited. Why would another country being able to produce things be bad, but good when the US did it?

You really should brush up on economics.

 

[tweaker2]

I'll agree that competition is at the heart of capitalism but your 'win state' theory only comes about by government decree. Without government protection there's not a market that wouldn't see a rival.

But you see, government decree is merely a decree by those outside of the government who have corrupted the government into serving their vested interests.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, competition does not mean there is a win state.

If you are to compete then there must be something to compete over. If there is something to compete over then there is a limited amount of it to go around. If there is a limited amount of it to go around then someone can get all of it. That is literally what competition means.

That is stupid and shows you dont know what you are talking about. Economics is not a zero sum game like baseball.

It tell me you have not thought about it enough. It is absolutely limits. There is a finite amount of everything on this planet. And at the level that global corporations compete on those limits are important.

 

[BoberFett]

But you see, government decree is merely a decree by those outside of the government who have corrupted the government into serving their vested interests.

So if we are to assume that as an organization (public or private) grows in scope that it's subject to increasing corruption: Is the answer to monopolies more government or less government?

 

[Jhhnn]

So if we are to assume that as an organization (public or private) grows in scope that it's subject to increasing corruption: Is the answer to monopolies more government or less government?

Please. the whole point of right wing raving about smalller govt is to create a power vacuum that can be filled by non-democratic entities.

 

[NoStateofMind]

But you see, government decree is merely a decree by those outside of the government who have corrupted the government into serving their vested interests.

Doesn't matter the means. The fact that there's a monopoly at all is the real issue. If it were simply not allowed by constitutional amendment (if you believe in that sort of thing), the one's wanting a monopoly couldn't have one. Well that's if you believe governments stick to their stated purpose.

 

[realibrad]

If you are to compete then there must be something to compete over. If there is something to compete over then there is a limited amount of it to go around. If there is a limited amount of it to go around then someone can get all of it. That is literally what competition means.



It tell me you have not thought about it enough. It is absolutely limits. There is a finite amount of everything on this planet. And at the level that global corporations compete on those limits are important.

Well that explains it, you don't understand what competition in capitalism is.

Competition does not mean there is a winner or loser like a sport. I will use an example.

Country A and Country B both want access to a resource. Both countries want to use said resource to build cars. Country A has infrastructure in place and can use the resource more efficiently than country B. The expected revenue per car is going to be the same as market forces have set the price per car already. Country A is likely to get the resource to make cars, because it can offer a higher price for the resource than country B because its cost of production is lower because of efficiency. If country A can meet all of the markets demand, then country A is likely to get all of the resource. You would then say that country B has "lost" and gets nothing. Except, we dont live in that kind of world.

What you are thinking of is mercantilism. Free trade means everyone is allowed to build something, and everyone is allowed to buy something. So, now country A has made lots of cars. The market for those cars is not just for country A, but country B as well. This means that the increase in productivity is used by both countries. As country B gets access to cars from country A, they increase their ability to produce goods. As country A benefits by selling, country benefits by buying and increasing their productivity.

Not all goods do the same thing. If I buy a movie ticket, I don't increase my utility in the same way as if I buy a car. Toyota benefits buy selling me a car, but I benefit by buying the car too. With a car, I can now travel greater distances to a place of employment that would otherwise be out of my reach.

When China makes a good, they have to sell it at a price that is competitive. China makes money by selling, but we benefit by buying. We get goods, while china gets money. Its not like china can repo our goods either.

 

[BoberFett]

Please. the whole point of right wing raving about smalller govt is to create a power vacuum that can be filled by non-democratic entities.

Are you this stupid in real life, or do you just play an idiot on the internet?

 

[nickqt]

Are you this stupid in real life, or do you just play an idiot on the internet?

Do you only use personal insults when you have no way to refute something, or when you want to obfuscate away from someone describing your actual political beliefs?

If you want government gone, then non-governmental forces like FreeMarket™ will step in. FreeMarket™ is not a democratic institution.

LOL LIBERTARIANS, and other assorted personal insults that make me seem like a raging prick with nothing to say.

 

[SMOGZINN]

China makes money by selling, but we benefit by buying. We get goods, while china gets money. Its not like china can repo our goods either.

Your economic concepts are too simple. That might work if I am giving you candlesticks for your bread loafs, but I am not. I'm giving you a promise of value for your bread loafs, and that promise is highly abstracted. It is not worth one loaf of bread, it is only worth whatever we can agree it is worth. That is where monopoly comes into play. If I want to know how many monies a loaf of bread is worth I have to look at what other people are willing to sell me a loaf of bread for. If you can arrange it so that you are the only one selling loafs of bread, then you are the only one that gets to decide what that loafs of bread are worth. Now you can get many more utils of my candlesticks than I can get of your loafs of bread.

 

[norseamd]

Once lifestyle saturation occurs, there is no other point to power & empire be it economic or political. And it's not so much an issue of control as it is exploitation & influence.

Anybody who thinks that billionaires are in it for the money isn't thinking. They don't need money in the sense that middle class people need money at all.

This. They say money does not bring happiness because it is true. What the rich want is social warfare and oppression not more money and resources. It has nothing to do with money but only individual and sociological psychology.

 

[norseamd]

So if you guys were to compare and contrast the words capitalism and liberalism or libertarianism what are you guys thinking?

 

[norseamd]

Are you this stupid in real life, or do you just play an idiot on the internet?

Whether or not the hoi polloists are ignorant of that fact that is in fact the overall goal of the vitriolic campaign against government.