On the other hand, capitalism in the form of regulated ("semi-free?") markets can be a stable, non-monopolistic system, provided the regulations are adapted to give appropriate feedback control.
I think capitalism will collapse but I don't want to get into that now... I will, however, say that regulated free markets are unstable. I think the world will shift towards (pure) capitalism. Therefore, government intervention is unstable as long as capitalists control the world. For example, nearly all economists, who are all capitalists incidentally, are against government intervention in the markets.
Furthermore, corporations and private businesses already heavily influence the government. Therefore, regulation is nothing more than a cover to keep the masses brainwashed. Do you honestly think that the government acts in the interest of the citizens when entities like the RIAA have greater power than all the music consumers combined? All of this is just for show. Governments don't initiate any attacks against corporations unless the corporate sector supports it. Why has no action been taken against Arthur Anderson (the accoutning firm that facilitated the Enron scandal)? Could it just be because the accounting industry is against it and hence the government follows its desires?
First of all, I think I should have been more precise with my wording. I meant to say that capitalism creates monopolies or oligopolies. I did not mean to imply that everythin would be a monopoly within a short period of time. In any case...
AMD is not as dominant as Intel. Check out the last few years and you'll find that AMD didn't make much money (I think it even lost many times). If you really want to see how dominant Intel is, read some of the documents that were publicized during the Microsoft trial years ago. Intel is very ruthless. There is a reason why techies used to call it the Wintel monopoly.
As far as Wal-mart not existing in Europe, my point was not that corporations rule earth right now--they will but not yet. My main thesis is related to certain industries. I think a few corporations will dominate each industry within some segment (this may or may not be geographically limited). When I say 10 companies control 90% of US media, for example, I think it is an important point, even though these companies probably control less than 10% of the media in Asia, or Africa, or whatever.
ExonMobil DOES dominate its industry. I would say the oil industry is an oligopoly. There are only a few companies that control nearly all the oil in the world. These aren't a monopoly but I was also including oligopolies.
Your example doesn't prove anything. Wal-mart is a retailer so it will have more difficulty entering other countries (that's the nature of retailing). But wherever it operates (say USA and Canada) it can destroy any other store, far more easily than MS.
I'm not a capitalist so I have a lot of problems with it. Perhaps the main flaw with capitalism is that it rewards materialism. Capitalism overvalues 'money' and hence makes people tie up their life around it...you know...you can be an immoral selfish person but if you make $50,000 dollars while I make $20,000, you are somehow more important...that's the problem...materialism.
That's not correct. You didn't distribute anything. All you did was transfer your money. You gave that money in return for something (usually a product or labour). It's a transaction--there is no distribution.
However, if you gave that money away it would be distribution. Or if you gave $10 for a product that is only worth $5, then you (partially) distributed your money.
Brandybuck above has the same thoughts as me. You aren't really talking about what I am. I'm talking about monopolies while you are against proprietary formats (me too), but that applies to practically every company--not just MS. How come I can't use linux applications in windows? How come I can't use Region 2 DVDs in my DVD player (region 1; let's ignore hacks:) )?
I agree with you that standards should be open. However, I claim that businesses attempt to monopolize their industries. One way to do that is to use proprietary, closed, formats. That's one of the first things you learn in business courses (other things include patents, locking-in customers (eg. airmiles), etc)).
ahhh... I lost my long post I was typing up:(:(:( Firefox and its unstability:( Let's see if I can remember what I typed...
Grammer-Nazi huh? Let me see if I can catch some errors in your words;)
I noticed that you left Parmalat, Ford Motor Company, Barings Bank, and Corning. Both of the 2 points in your paragraph difficult to support.
Most of those comapnies were engaged in illegal activities. I don't consider fraud, cooking books, etc to be worthy examples to consider. After all, what's the point of looking at something that is not reflective of the general system?
I don't know what is your point about Ford. Ford seems ok to me. If not, it will be taken over by other auto manufacturers and will substantiate my thesis that monopolies or at worst, oligopolies, are created.
Look at the Investment Banking and Commercial Banking industry
The financial industry is controlled by a few companies. It's not quite an oligopoly or monopoly yet (although, the accounting industry is an oligopoly) but it's getting there. A few more M&A (mergers and acquisitions) and you'll have a few investment banks, fund companies, stock brokerages, etc dominating.
For this reason, the Govt (US - Treasury, SEC, and State - Spitzer)...
Most of these guys are in it for the show. These guys are in with the corporations that they try to regulate. In fact, many employees of these firms often go and work in the firms that the regulated in the past (What does that tell you? Enemy hired by a company? of course not). The whole Enron fiasco is a total joke. All of this makes for good television news but in the end, they are just to keep the masses from revolting. These are just like the 9/11 hearings, or the JFK Warren Commision--mostly a show to brainwash the clueless masses. BTW, how many people do you think will be convicted for the Enron mess? How many years in jail? How much money will they have to pay back? Also, will the accounting firm that colluded with the Enron executives (Arthur Anderson) be penalized?
So capitalism (regulated free mkt) does not lead to monopolies & oligopolies.
True... but capitalism is based on free markets and very little government intervention. Regulating the market is anti-capitalists and is vehemently opposed by capitalists. As the world moves towards (pure) capitalism (which it is), goverment intervention will become weaker and weaker. If you don't believe this will happen, come back to me in 20 years and we'll see if there are more monopolies and oligopolies then as now.
if you are right and it does lead to Monopolies and oligopolies, then what would you suggest as an alternative??? Socialism? Govt run corps? These are not alternatives... but rather pass the monopolies from a private corp to the govt.. which creates a "mega-corp-govt".
There is a difference between government monopolies and private monopolies. Governments, in theory under democracy-like systems, is supposed to represent the people. This essentially means that the benefits of a government monopoly accrues to the people. In contrast, a private monopoly's benefits accrue to a select few, namely the shareholders of those corporations.
For example, Canadian healthcare is a goverment monopoly. So all the benefits accures to the people. In contrast, USA, which as a privatized system, has its profits accruing to the private healthcare companies. I think this is a huge difference (although capitalists obviously prefer privatized entities to publicly owned ones).
I'm a socialist but all I'm asking for is for people to consider alternatives. Why is it that economists never consider alternatives? Why is it that economists don't study some of the things I pointed out (monopolization under capitalism)? How come economists don't consider environmental costs (for example)?
I'm not sure what your argument is. If you are pointing out how monopolies and oligopolies are created differently, I agree. However, if you are arguing that some industries cannot be monopolized, I disagree. I think you CAN create monopolies in ANY industry. What you are saying is true: product differentiation DOES impact the monopolization of an industry. However, I claim that you can overcome that.
All that needs to happen is for all the companies to merge together. What's to stop all the ice cream places from merging together into one (or a few) large corporations? Nothing. It is in the interest of the ice cream companies to do so (monopolies generate the highest profits for a business!!!) In fact, I expect it to happen one day. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet but it wouldn't surprise me if only a few ice cream companies provide the products that a few thousands provide now.
Also, there is nothing to stop all the oil companies, for example, from merging together into one large one. It hasn't happened for a lot of reasons (including politics and national interest) but it can conceivably happen.
Counter-examples to your argument include the media industry (11 companies control 90% of US media) and the car industry (less companies now than ever).
Here is where you are flawed IMHO: The key to having a good free market is that the product must be different enough to support competition, but not bind the consumer to the product - the consumer must be able to choose a different producer easily.
Yes, but what makes you think that such as scenario is in the interest of the business? If anything, businesses would attempt to eliminate competition and bind the consumer (i.e. lock them in) to their product.
You are right but I generally look at medium term within one industry. US railroads may have little power and wealth these days but they WERE oligopolies at one time. In addition, the industries that replaced those, airlines and trucking, is largely dominated by a few companies as well (although it will take a few decades before they become oligopolies).
I think industries WILL become monopolies or at worst, oligopolies. I reason I believe this, in addition to the free market aspect, is due to the following. It is in the interest of a business (regardless of size) to monopolize its market. EVERY business out there is trying to monopolize its market. Even small companies run by 2 people are doing it. Monopolies result in the greatest profits for the suppplier/business!!! Therefore, everyone will attempt to do it. If YOU ran a busines, you would do it too! In fact, every university out there teaches such techniques in their business courses. They don't call it monopolization per se, but the point is the same. They use words like 'erecting barriers to entry', 'locking-in customers', 'dominating markets', and so forth.
Eventually, all the corporations within a particular market will merge together and form monopolies or at worst, oligopolies. This will happen, not because I say so, but because it is in the interest of corporations to do so.
I generally reply to everone who replies to me (unless there isn't much for me to say). This thread generated the most replies I ever have. So I don't know if I'm going to reply to all of them. This basically means I'm glad you quoted your journal because I wasn't going to go and look that up (not with so many other posts).
With respect to what you quoted...
I disagree that human nature is all about competition. If competition was the primary trait, humans wouldn't have evolved to the point that we have--we would have killed each other off. I think cooperation is a more primary trait for humans than competition. I'm not saying that we don't have any competitive spirit, but just that cooperation is more evident than competition. One just needs to look around. A lot of our institutions and ideologies are based on cooperation. Right from libraries, to schools, to courts, to government itself, it's all based on cooperation. Let's also not forget that religion and municipalities (i.e. towns/cities) were the result of early cooperation (say 4000 to 2000 years ago).
I really believe that cooperation is what is within us. Competition, in contrast, generally manifests itself when people are desperate, are being exploited, or are involved in some form of entertainment. Little kids and babies are far more cooperative and friendly than are competitive. What does that say about humanity?
With respect to capitalism, what you are saying isn't really capitalism. Capitalism calls for free markets with no government intervention. If the government starts messing with the markets, it isn't really (pure) capitalism. If anything, government will be tiny under pure capitalism and this is also happening. Modern governments are weaker than ever, relative to corporations. About a hundread years ago, corporations would beg/bribe/etc governments to do something in their favour. Nowadays, it's the other way around: goverments have to beg the corporations to support them. This weakening in power may not be too evident in a powerful country like USA, but is common in many poor, developing, and semi-developed countries.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that governments are controlled (or at worse, heavily influenced) by corporations and private businesses. If this is indeed true (I believe it to be), then how can you honestly call for governments to intervene in the markets? The governments will simply align themselves with the corporations. I think this is already happening. For instance, governments generally pass laws in favour of industry lobby groups than the citizens (recent conflicts with RIAA and DMCA come to mind).
We aren't, after all, corporations.
No, you aren't a corporation... but corporations became humans around a hundread years ago. Corporations are just as powerful and respected as a human. Your life is probably worth less than a piece of a corporation. The fact that USA gave corporations rights that only existed for humans (around 150 years ago) solidified this.
It is my theory that capitalism, or more precisely free markets, lead to monopolies and oligopolies. As long as you keep introducing good products, have good marketing, have a lot of capital, keep trying hard, and/or have good employees, you will aways dominate. Companies like Microsoft, IBM, ExxonMobil, BP, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and others, will always dominate.
A lot of people in the tech industry, and in particular on Slashdot, are very anti-Microsoft. But the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has not done anything that other companies don't do on a regular basis. If anything, Microsoft is one of the better companies relative to its size (companies like Intel and IBM are far worse). If you think Microsoft is bad, you know nothing about Wal-Mart, ExonMobil, and others. A company like Walmart, for example, has far more power and is more monopolistic than Microsoft ever was. What you refer to as Microsoft's monopolistic behaviour is a total joke compared to the clout Wal-mart has over suppliers and consumers.
Most Americans, and consequently USA, is conservative. Therefore, the Republican Party, even if led by Christian fundamentalists like Ashcroft and Bush are not seen as extremist in USA. In places like Canada, Britain or Europe, Bush and his friends will be run out of town;)
As far as Bush being re-elected, you should reconsider your vow. If not, I have a feeling I'll be seeing you here next year;) Kerry is not that popular (he has consistently polled around 50%-60% and that's very narrow--and is nowhere near Clinton's popularity) and it is questionable if he will be strong during the election. All Bush needs is a terrorist attack somewhere and people will rally behind him. At the rate that Al-Qaida is claiming that something big is being prepared for USA, who knows what will happen?... Having said that, the Iraqi war could de-rail Bush. Things are not going well over there, with recent opposition to US occupation by popular majority. It remains to be seen what transpires though... At worst, Bush can always invoke religion and get the masses to support him. For instance, he can bring up homosexuality, which the majority of Americans seem to be against, and it will pretty much kill any Democrat (although Kerry flip-flops all the time and I'm not even sure what his position is).
If the Republican Party under Bush is too extremist, how come the general American public does not seem to think so? Hardly anyone, other than leftists, accuse the Republicans of being extremist. When the Bush administration passes laws protecting the "fetus" there is hardly an outcry.
I'm not saying that some of Bush's policies aren't extremist. All I'm saying is that the image of the Bush administration, and consequently the Republican Party in power presently, is not that of an extremist one.
I'm not an American (I'm Canadian) so my votes won't really be in the American political system. I don't blindly follow anyone's party line (I'm a radical and radicals don't follow anyone blindly). However, if I was American and was to vote, I guess I would vote for the Green Party.
Bush is going to be re-elected... and that will prove once in for all that Americans don't consider him and his policies extremist.
I'm not deriding moderates, although I'm not one. All I'm doing is pointing out that they hold the power at all times (except during revolutions, and the like). The moderates are the ones that control the vote (not counting corporations which have even more control), and moderates ultimately are the ones that support the status quo and the present state of affairs. I think it is only reasonable to blame the moderates for many of the present problems.
I don't think it's fair to compare those parties. However, I will say that the Nazi Party, for example, was considered to be a moderate party by the Germans. Most Germans accepted the Nazi Party's policies and did not think of it as an extremist party.
In any case, so are you saying that the Republican Party is not a "moderate" party? Or are you just pointing out how my reasoning is not foolproof?
Moderates are the ones that control USA right now. If it were further from the center (ie. far-left or far-right, or whatever), USA would be very different.
All the problems that you blame on extremists is actually caused by the moderates. John Ashcroft has greater support from the Republican Party, which is actually a moderate party (after all, it is one of the top 2 parties) than by say the Libertarian Party, or the Communist Party, or the Green Party, or Socialist Party, or Anarchist Party.
So all you moderates are responsible for the state of society. You guys have more power than anyone else; you guys are the ones that elect these people; you guys are the ones that fund these people; you guys are the ones that tacitly support all their policies (ranging for Patriot Act, to RIAA crackdowns, to Guantanomo Bay, to the "war" on drugs, to "war" on terrorism, to what now seems like a new "war" on pornography).
The Bush administration (which includes Ashcroft, Cheney, Powell, etc) are not extremist by American standards--at least that's my impression. If they were, they would never even be in power. To see what I mean, watch Bush be re-elected (if Bush were an extremist he would probably get less than 10% of the vote).
Voting is quite pointless... No matter what they parties tell us during elections.. once they are in power they just do what ever they want... even going against thier platform they ran on.
Voting is only pointless because the electorate makes it so. The electorate is too dumb (or perhaps on purpose) and elects liars to power. So what do you expect of liars? The next time they run, they will lie as always.
If voters kicked out people who lie, the system would be 100x better... No more false promises...
Alberta is only prosperous for one reason: oil. THat is what seperates you. If oil prices drop, or if oil is replaced with something else, you won't be so rich.
Your idea seems flawed because it's so simple! (But then again, some of the best ideas are simple.) I don't know. I'm guessing that you need a huge quantity of energy (sunlight) because water takes a lot of heat to vaporize. Or perhaps the solar reflectors and consensor will be very expensive. Or maybe one can't get enough sunlight (except in a desert like envrionemnt). Who knows?
If what you are saying were true, then people would use it everywhere. I mean, there are so many fresh water shortages all over the world that thousands of people have developed conspiracy theories, hypothetical scenarios, and so on to get fresh water (examples include using the polar ice caps and stuff like that). I don't know... it just seems like that there is a big market for your idea but yet no one has done it.
For example, how come a country like Isreal doesn't use your system? They are literally fighting a war with Lebanon over Golan Heights and it is primarily because of water.
hmm... if someone can develop what you are saying, there is immense potential IMO. There are many countries where fresh water is not available, or the population density is so high that a river/lake isn't enough.
USA, as well as Europe, are more capitalist now than ever. The markets are more free, taxes are lower, more industries are privatized, less government intervention, stronger protection of private property, less centralized government, and so forth.
I don't know why you say that there is less capitalism now...
It's because it's true. Quite of few of Marx's predictions have come true. He has been wrong too but he has been right as well. Even some capitalists admit that Marx's critique of capitalism, Das Kapital, is a monumental work (obviously the capitalists disagree but they admit its importance).
For example, more than 100 years ago, Marx predicted the increasing discrepancy in wealth and the increasing gap as societies become more capitalistic. This has been borne true everywhere you look, including USA.
Marx was also right about the cyclical nature of capitalism. Namely he predicted how capitalism will go through "booms" and "busts" (eg. recessions). If you look at the last 30 or 40 years in USA, this is true (it's true for longer period too but I don't have a good grasp of the past, and things like war alters the cycle). In my opinion, the cycle has a period between 8 to 12 years: late 70's was a boom; early 80's had a recession (stock market crash in 82); late 80's was a boom; early 90's had a massive recession; late 90's was a boom; early 2000's has a recession*; and so on. If my theory (influenced by Marx) is correct, we will have a boom in late 2000's.
(* When I say a recession, I am speaking more from a worker point of view than an economic one. For instance, I would consider the past few years to be a recession even though economists don't count it as a recession. It isn't a recession because, by definition, recession is when growth is negative for I believe 2 quarters in a row--this didn't happen in USA. However, US workers have lost a lot of jobs and USA is in a state called "jobless recovery". I consider such states equivalent to a recession FROM A WORKER POINT OF VIEW).
You capitalists love repeating the 'socialism=all equally poor' mantra but capitalism will lead to a similar state. The only difference is that there will be rich as well as poor, therefore the capitalists can always maintain that people arne't poor...
Protectionism isn't necessarily racist. Most protectionist theory originates in the left wing and hence it is not generally racist (after all, the left wing strives to be egalitarian). Having said that, a lot of angry people CAN be racist. There are already quite a few on Slashdot.
I am personally against many aspects of what the mainstream media calls 'outsourcing'. I'm a leftist so my argument is generally understood (it's basically an anti-capitalist argument that has little to do with outsourcing per se, and more to do with capitalism). If you are curious, I'm against 'outsourcing' because it weakens worker movements everywhere. Yet I am not racist--at least I don't think so.
But I agree with your sentiment though. There are many racists around here... and it will likely get worse as the world shifts even more towards pure capitalism...
Actually it IS capitalism! I think it's you who doesn't grasp what capitalism is.
You complain about CEO making money but it is the shareholders who hire and pay the CEO. If the shareholders don't approve of the CEO, he/she would be gone overnight. Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Well, it's because things are working as they have been predicted by capitalism. One just needs to look at the capitalists and their press, not to mention economists, to see that they agree with what's happening.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, capitalism in the form of regulated ("semi-free?") markets can be a stable, non-monopolistic system, provided the regulations are adapted to give appropriate feedback control.
I think capitalism will collapse but I don't want to get into that now... I will, however, say that regulated free markets are unstable. I think the world will shift towards (pure) capitalism. Therefore, government intervention is unstable as long as capitalists control the world. For example, nearly all economists, who are all capitalists incidentally, are against government intervention in the markets.
Furthermore, corporations and private businesses already heavily influence the government. Therefore, regulation is nothing more than a cover to keep the masses brainwashed. Do you honestly think that the government acts in the interest of the citizens when entities like the RIAA have greater power than all the music consumers combined? All of this is just for show. Governments don't initiate any attacks against corporations unless the corporate sector supports it. Why has no action been taken against Arthur Anderson (the accoutning firm that facilitated the Enron scandal)? Could it just be because the accounting industry is against it and hence the government follows its desires?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First of all, I think I should have been more precise with my wording. I meant to say that capitalism creates monopolies or oligopolies. I did not mean to imply that everythin would be a monopoly within a short period of time. In any case...
AMD is not as dominant as Intel. Check out the last few years and you'll find that AMD didn't make much money (I think it even lost many times). If you really want to see how dominant Intel is, read some of the documents that were publicized during the Microsoft trial years ago. Intel is very ruthless. There is a reason why techies used to call it the Wintel monopoly.
As far as Wal-mart not existing in Europe, my point was not that corporations rule earth right now--they will but not yet. My main thesis is related to certain industries. I think a few corporations will dominate each industry within some segment (this may or may not be geographically limited). When I say 10 companies control 90% of US media, for example, I think it is an important point, even though these companies probably control less than 10% of the media in Asia, or Africa, or whatever.
ExonMobil DOES dominate its industry. I would say the oil industry is an oligopoly. There are only a few companies that control nearly all the oil in the world. These aren't a monopoly but I was also including oligopolies.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your example doesn't prove anything. Wal-mart is a retailer so it will have more difficulty entering other countries (that's the nature of retailing). But wherever it operates (say USA and Canada) it can destroy any other store, far more easily than MS.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not a capitalist so I have a lot of problems with it. Perhaps the main flaw with capitalism is that it rewards materialism. Capitalism overvalues 'money' and hence makes people tie up their life around it...you know...you can be an immoral selfish person but if you make $50,000 dollars while I make $20,000, you are somehow more important...that's the problem...materialism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's not correct. You didn't distribute anything. All you did was transfer your money. You gave that money in return for something (usually a product or labour). It's a transaction--there is no distribution.
However, if you gave that money away it would be distribution. Or if you gave $10 for a product that is only worth $5, then you (partially) distributed your money.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Brandybuck above has the same thoughts as me. You aren't really talking about what I am. I'm talking about monopolies while you are against proprietary formats (me too), but that applies to practically every company--not just MS. How come I can't use linux applications in windows? How come I can't use Region 2 DVDs in my DVD player (region 1; let's ignore hacks :) )?
I agree with you that standards should be open. However, I claim that businesses attempt to monopolize their industries. One way to do that is to use proprietary, closed, formats. That's one of the first things you learn in business courses (other things include patents, locking-in customers (eg. airmiles), etc)).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
ahhh... I lost my long post I was typing up :(:(:( Firefox and its unstability :( Let's see if I can remember what I typed...
;)
...
Grammer-Nazi huh? Let me see if I can catch some errors in your words
I noticed that you left Parmalat, Ford Motor Company, Barings Bank, and Corning. Both of the 2 points in your paragraph difficult to support.
Most of those comapnies were engaged in illegal activities. I don't consider fraud, cooking books, etc to be worthy examples to consider. After all, what's the point of looking at something that is not reflective of the general system?
I don't know what is your point about Ford. Ford seems ok to me. If not, it will be taken over by other auto manufacturers and will substantiate my thesis that monopolies or at worst, oligopolies, are created.
Look at the Investment Banking and Commercial Banking industry
The financial industry is controlled by a few companies. It's not quite an oligopoly or monopoly yet (although, the accounting industry is an oligopoly) but it's getting there. A few more M&A (mergers and acquisitions) and you'll have a few investment banks, fund companies, stock brokerages, etc dominating.
For this reason, the Govt (US - Treasury, SEC, and State - Spitzer)
Most of these guys are in it for the show. These guys are in with the corporations that they try to regulate. In fact, many employees of these firms often go and work in the firms that the regulated in the past (What does that tell you? Enemy hired by a company? of course not). The whole Enron fiasco is a total joke. All of this makes for good television news but in the end, they are just to keep the masses from revolting. These are just like the 9/11 hearings, or the JFK Warren Commision--mostly a show to brainwash the clueless masses. BTW, how many people do you think will be convicted for the Enron mess? How many years in jail? How much money will they have to pay back? Also, will the accounting firm that colluded with the Enron executives (Arthur Anderson) be penalized?
So capitalism (regulated free mkt) does not lead to monopolies & oligopolies.
True... but capitalism is based on free markets and very little government intervention. Regulating the market is anti-capitalists and is vehemently opposed by capitalists. As the world moves towards (pure) capitalism (which it is), goverment intervention will become weaker and weaker. If you don't believe this will happen, come back to me in 20 years and we'll see if there are more monopolies and oligopolies then as now.
if you are right and it does lead to Monopolies and oligopolies, then what would you suggest as an alternative??? Socialism? Govt run corps? These are not alternatives... but rather pass the monopolies from a private corp to the govt.. which creates a "mega-corp-govt".
There is a difference between government monopolies and private monopolies. Governments, in theory under democracy-like systems, is supposed to represent the people. This essentially means that the benefits of a government monopoly accrues to the people. In contrast, a private monopoly's benefits accrue to a select few, namely the shareholders of those corporations.
For example, Canadian healthcare is a goverment monopoly. So all the benefits accures to the people. In contrast, USA, which as a privatized system, has its profits accruing to the private healthcare companies. I think this is a huge difference (although capitalists obviously prefer privatized entities to publicly owned ones).
I'm a socialist but all I'm asking for is for people to consider alternatives. Why is it that economists never consider alternatives? Why is it that economists don't study some of the things I pointed out (monopolization under capitalism)? How come economists don't consider environmental costs (for example)?
a
I'm not sure what your argument is. If you are pointing out how monopolies and oligopolies are created differently, I agree. However, if you are arguing that some industries cannot be monopolized, I disagree. I think you CAN create monopolies in ANY industry. What you are saying is true: product differentiation DOES impact the monopolization of an industry. However, I claim that you can overcome that.
All that needs to happen is for all the companies to merge together. What's to stop all the ice cream places from merging together into one (or a few) large corporations? Nothing. It is in the interest of the ice cream companies to do so (monopolies generate the highest profits for a business!!!) In fact, I expect it to happen one day. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet but it wouldn't surprise me if only a few ice cream companies provide the products that a few thousands provide now.
Also, there is nothing to stop all the oil companies, for example, from merging together into one large one. It hasn't happened for a lot of reasons (including politics and national interest) but it can conceivably happen.
Counter-examples to your argument include the media industry (11 companies control 90% of US media) and the car industry (less companies now than ever).
Here is where you are flawed IMHO:
The key to having a good free market is that the product must be different enough to support competition, but not bind the consumer to the product - the consumer must be able to choose a different producer easily.
Yes, but what makes you think that such as scenario is in the interest of the business? If anything, businesses would attempt to eliminate competition and bind the consumer (i.e. lock them in) to their product.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are right but I generally look at medium term within one industry. US railroads may have little power and wealth these days but they WERE oligopolies at one time. In addition, the industries that replaced those, airlines and trucking, is largely dominated by a few companies as well (although it will take a few decades before they become oligopolies).
I think industries WILL become monopolies or at worst, oligopolies. I reason I believe this, in addition to the free market aspect, is due to the following. It is in the interest of a business (regardless of size) to monopolize its market. EVERY business out there is trying to monopolize its market. Even small companies run by 2 people are doing it. Monopolies result in the greatest profits for the suppplier/business!!! Therefore, everyone will attempt to do it. If YOU ran a busines, you would do it too! In fact, every university out there teaches such techniques in their business courses. They don't call it monopolization per se, but the point is the same. They use words like 'erecting barriers to entry', 'locking-in customers', 'dominating markets', and so forth.
Eventually, all the corporations within a particular market will merge together and form monopolies or at worst, oligopolies. This will happen, not because I say so, but because it is in the interest of corporations to do so.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I generally reply to everone who replies to me (unless there isn't much for me to say). This thread generated the most replies I ever have. So I don't know if I'm going to reply to all of them. This basically means I'm glad you quoted your journal because I wasn't going to go and look that up (not with so many other posts).
With respect to what you quoted...
I disagree that human nature is all about competition. If competition was the primary trait, humans wouldn't have evolved to the point that we have--we would have killed each other off. I think cooperation is a more primary trait for humans than competition. I'm not saying that we don't have any competitive spirit, but just that cooperation is more evident than competition. One just needs to look around. A lot of our institutions and ideologies are based on cooperation. Right from libraries, to schools, to courts, to government itself, it's all based on cooperation. Let's also not forget that religion and municipalities (i.e. towns/cities) were the result of early cooperation (say 4000 to 2000 years ago).
I really believe that cooperation is what is within us. Competition, in contrast, generally manifests itself when people are desperate, are being exploited, or are involved in some form of entertainment. Little kids and babies are far more cooperative and friendly than are competitive. What does that say about humanity?
With respect to capitalism, what you are saying isn't really capitalism. Capitalism calls for free markets with no government intervention. If the government starts messing with the markets, it isn't really (pure) capitalism. If anything, government will be tiny under pure capitalism and this is also happening. Modern governments are weaker than ever, relative to corporations. About a hundread years ago, corporations would beg/bribe/etc governments to do something in their favour. Nowadays, it's the other way around: goverments have to beg the corporations to support them. This weakening in power may not be too evident in a powerful country like USA, but is common in many poor, developing, and semi-developed countries.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that governments are controlled (or at worse, heavily influenced) by corporations and private businesses. If this is indeed true (I believe it to be), then how can you honestly call for governments to intervene in the markets? The governments will simply align themselves with the corporations. I think this is already happening. For instance, governments generally pass laws in favour of industry lobby groups than the citizens (recent conflicts with RIAA and DMCA come to mind).
We aren't, after all, corporations.
No, you aren't a corporation... but corporations became humans around a hundread years ago. Corporations are just as powerful and respected as a human. Your life is probably worth less than a piece of a corporation. The fact that USA gave corporations rights that only existed for humans (around 150 years ago) solidified this.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It is my theory that capitalism, or more precisely free markets, lead to monopolies and oligopolies. As long as you keep introducing good products, have good marketing, have a lot of capital, keep trying hard, and/or have good employees, you will aways dominate. Companies like Microsoft, IBM, ExxonMobil, BP, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and others, will always dominate.
A lot of people in the tech industry, and in particular on Slashdot, are very anti-Microsoft. But the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has not done anything that other companies don't do on a regular basis. If anything, Microsoft is one of the better companies relative to its size (companies like Intel and IBM are far worse). If you think Microsoft is bad, you know nothing about Wal-Mart, ExonMobil, and others. A company like Walmart, for example, has far more power and is more monopolistic than Microsoft ever was. What you refer to as Microsoft's monopolistic behaviour is a total joke compared to the clout Wal-mart has over suppliers and consumers.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Most Americans, and consequently USA, is conservative. Therefore, the Republican Party, even if led by Christian fundamentalists like Ashcroft and Bush are not seen as extremist in USA. In places like Canada, Britain or Europe, Bush and his friends will be run out of town ;)
;) Kerry is not that popular (he has consistently polled around 50%-60% and that's very narrow--and is nowhere near Clinton's popularity) and it is questionable if he will be strong during the election. All Bush needs is a terrorist attack somewhere and people will rally behind him. At the rate that Al-Qaida is claiming that something big is being prepared for USA, who knows what will happen?... Having said that, the Iraqi war could de-rail Bush. Things are not going well over there, with recent opposition to US occupation by popular majority. It remains to be seen what transpires though... At worst, Bush can always invoke religion and get the masses to support him. For instance, he can bring up homosexuality, which the majority of Americans seem to be against, and it will pretty much kill any Democrat (although Kerry flip-flops all the time and I'm not even sure what his position is).
As far as Bush being re-elected, you should reconsider your vow. If not, I have a feeling I'll be seeing you here next year
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If the Republican Party under Bush is too extremist, how come the general American public does not seem to think so? Hardly anyone, other than leftists, accuse the Republicans of being extremist. When the Bush administration passes laws protecting the "fetus" there is hardly an outcry.
I'm not saying that some of Bush's policies aren't extremist. All I'm saying is that the image of the Bush administration, and consequently the Republican Party in power presently, is not that of an extremist one.
I'm not an American (I'm Canadian) so my votes won't really be in the American political system. I don't blindly follow anyone's party line (I'm a radical and radicals don't follow anyone blindly). However, if I was American and was to vote, I guess I would vote for the Green Party.
Bush is going to be re-elected... and that will prove once in for all that Americans don't consider him and his policies extremist.
I'm not deriding moderates, although I'm not one. All I'm doing is pointing out that they hold the power at all times (except during revolutions, and the like). The moderates are the ones that control the vote (not counting corporations which have even more control), and moderates ultimately are the ones that support the status quo and the present state of affairs. I think it is only reasonable to blame the moderates for many of the present problems.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think it's fair to compare those parties. However, I will say that the Nazi Party, for example, was considered to be a moderate party by the Germans. Most Germans accepted the Nazi Party's policies and did not think of it as an extremist party.
In any case, so are you saying that the Republican Party is not a "moderate" party? Or are you just pointing out how my reasoning is not foolproof?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Moderates are the ones that control USA right now. If it were further from the center (ie. far-left or far-right, or whatever), USA would be very different.
All the problems that you blame on extremists is actually caused by the moderates. John Ashcroft has greater support from the Republican Party, which is actually a moderate party (after all, it is one of the top 2 parties) than by say the Libertarian Party, or the Communist Party, or the Green Party, or Socialist Party, or Anarchist Party.
So all you moderates are responsible for the state of society. You guys have more power than anyone else; you guys are the ones that elect these people; you guys are the ones that fund these people; you guys are the ones that tacitly support all their policies (ranging for Patriot Act, to RIAA crackdowns, to Guantanomo Bay, to the "war" on drugs, to "war" on terrorism, to what now seems like a new "war" on pornography).
The Bush administration (which includes Ashcroft, Cheney, Powell, etc) are not extremist by American standards--at least that's my impression. If they were, they would never even be in power. To see what I mean, watch Bush be re-elected (if Bush were an extremist he would probably get less than 10% of the vote).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is bound to be a few honest people. You have to start small, by electing a few honest people, and things would spread.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Voting is quite pointless... No matter what they parties tell us during elections.. once they are in power they just do what ever they want... even going against thier platform they ran on.
Voting is only pointless because the electorate makes it so. The electorate is too dumb (or perhaps on purpose) and elects liars to power. So what do you expect of liars? The next time they run, they will lie as always.
If voters kicked out people who lie, the system would be 100x better... No more false promises...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Alberta is only prosperous for one reason: oil. THat is what seperates you. If oil prices drop, or if oil is replaced with something else, you won't be so rich.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your idea seems flawed because it's so simple! (But then again, some of the best ideas are simple.) I don't know. I'm guessing that you need a huge quantity of energy (sunlight) because water takes a lot of heat to vaporize. Or perhaps the solar reflectors and consensor will be very expensive. Or maybe one can't get enough sunlight (except in a desert like envrionemnt). Who knows?
If what you are saying were true, then people would use it everywhere. I mean, there are so many fresh water shortages all over the world that thousands of people have developed conspiracy theories, hypothetical scenarios, and so on to get fresh water (examples include using the polar ice caps and stuff like that). I don't know... it just seems like that there is a big market for your idea but yet no one has done it.
For example, how come a country like Isreal doesn't use your system? They are literally fighting a war with Lebanon over Golan Heights and it is primarily because of water.
hmm... if someone can develop what you are saying, there is immense potential IMO. There are many countries where fresh water is not available, or the population density is so high that a river/lake isn't enough.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA, as well as Europe, are more capitalist now than ever. The markets are more free, taxes are lower, more industries are privatized, less government intervention, stronger protection of private property, less centralized government, and so forth.
I don't know why you say that there is less capitalism now...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's because it's true. Quite of few of Marx's predictions have come true. He has been wrong too but he has been right as well. Even some capitalists admit that Marx's critique of capitalism, Das Kapital, is a monumental work (obviously the capitalists disagree but they admit its importance).
For example, more than 100 years ago, Marx predicted the increasing discrepancy in wealth and the increasing gap as societies become more capitalistic. This has been borne true everywhere you look, including USA.
Marx was also right about the cyclical nature of capitalism. Namely he predicted how capitalism will go through "booms" and "busts" (eg. recessions). If you look at the last 30 or 40 years in USA, this is true (it's true for longer period too but I don't have a good grasp of the past, and things like war alters the cycle). In my opinion, the cycle has a period between 8 to 12 years: late 70's was a boom; early 80's had a recession (stock market crash in 82); late 80's was a boom; early 90's had a massive recession; late 90's was a boom; early 2000's has a recession*; and so on. If my theory (influenced by Marx) is correct, we will have a boom in late 2000's.
(* When I say a recession, I am speaking more from a worker point of view than an economic one. For instance, I would consider the past few years to be a recession even though economists don't count it as a recession. It isn't a recession because, by definition, recession is when growth is negative for I believe 2 quarters in a row--this didn't happen in USA. However, US workers have lost a lot of jobs and USA is in a state called "jobless recovery". I consider such states equivalent to a recession FROM A WORKER POINT OF VIEW).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You capitalists love repeating the 'socialism=all equally poor' mantra but capitalism will lead to a similar state. The only difference is that there will be rich as well as poor, therefore the capitalists can always maintain that people arne't poor...
"Free people aren't equal"? Care to explain?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Protectionism isn't necessarily racist. Most protectionist theory originates in the left wing and hence it is not generally racist (after all, the left wing strives to be egalitarian). Having said that, a lot of angry people CAN be racist. There are already quite a few on Slashdot.
I am personally against many aspects of what the mainstream media calls 'outsourcing'. I'm a leftist so my argument is generally understood (it's basically an anti-capitalist argument that has little to do with outsourcing per se, and more to do with capitalism). If you are curious, I'm against 'outsourcing' because it weakens worker movements everywhere. Yet I am not racist--at least I don't think so.
But I agree with your sentiment though. There are many racists around here... and it will likely get worse as the world shifts even more towards pure capitalism...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Are you on a recruitment campaign for the Ku Klux Klan? ;) If not, you should apply for a job with them ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually it IS capitalism! I think it's you who doesn't grasp what capitalism is.
You complain about CEO making money but it is the shareholders who hire and pay the CEO. If the shareholders don't approve of the CEO, he/she would be gone overnight. Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Well, it's because things are working as they have been predicted by capitalism. One just needs to look at the capitalists and their press, not to mention economists, to see that they agree with what's happening.
Sivaram Velauthapillai