I'm not an expert in the area, but I'm pretty sure back in the early 1900's we did have a more free market and we just ended up with at least this example that I know of for sure: complete vertical and horizontal consolidation of the steel industry resulting in an all powerful monopoly.
A stable truly free market assumes that there is no barrier for entry in any industry, and that competition isn't stifled by anti-competitive actions (big business friendly legislation anyone? RIAA?). In real world conditions, the barrier to entry into industries would mean start-ups would have an almost impossible time breaking into an established market (The R&D and manufacturing costs in the biomed industry are pretty prohibitive.)
Because of the barrier to entry, eventually in an unregulated environment, the creative destruction destroys every company but the last completely consolidated Everything Inc. At this point, Everything Inc. can just buy out any startup competition, so there isn't a capitalist economy anymore.
It seems to me "pure" socio-economic models (capitalism, socialism, communism) all require that people aren't greedy and selfish to be stable. But if people weren't greedy and selfish, any societal model would work. That's why we offset with mixed systems. You need to give an incentive to be productive, but also enforce fair practices, and some sharing. That's how you raise the standard of living for *everyone*.
You really should have finished reading the post you're criticizing. You pretty much just proved his point by being the brain-washed lemming he was trying to educate.
You're right that communism isn't purely an economic system, but only in the sense that the original concept was that it is a societal system with *no* governement and *no* economy, and people would be so considerate, understanding, and self-motivated to be productive without the incentive of wealth and power. (As far as I'm aware, communism was an attempt to accelerate the Marxist ideal into the present by forcing it through givernment.)
China calls its government communist in an attempt to maintain the illusion of this utopian ideal, in the same way the US calls itself a democracy when in fact the the electoral college and lobby groups make the system something other than a pure "democracy" (not saying better or worse here).
Really, replying to an argument without reading the whole thing pretty much says you're closed minded and just like to run your mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
They might listen to data, but they say what it takes to get funding. I mean, what's a scientist without research funding?
I'm not an expert in the area, but I'm pretty sure back in the early 1900's we did have a more free market and we just ended up with at least this example that I know of for sure: complete vertical and horizontal consolidation of the steel industry resulting in an all powerful monopoly.
A stable truly free market assumes that there is no barrier for entry in any industry, and that competition isn't stifled by anti-competitive actions (big business friendly legislation anyone? RIAA?). In real world conditions, the barrier to entry into industries would mean start-ups would have an almost impossible time breaking into an established market (The R&D and manufacturing costs in the biomed industry are pretty prohibitive.)
Because of the barrier to entry, eventually in an unregulated environment, the creative destruction destroys every company but the last completely consolidated Everything Inc. At this point, Everything Inc. can just buy out any startup competition, so there isn't a capitalist economy anymore.
It seems to me "pure" socio-economic models (capitalism, socialism, communism) all require that people aren't greedy and selfish to be stable. But if people weren't greedy and selfish, any societal model would work. That's why we offset with mixed systems. You need to give an incentive to be productive, but also enforce fair practices, and some sharing. That's how you raise the standard of living for *everyone*.
You really should have finished reading the post you're criticizing. You pretty much just proved his point by being the brain-washed lemming he was trying to educate.
You're right that communism isn't purely an economic system, but only in the sense that the original concept was that it is a societal system with *no* governement and *no* economy, and people would be so considerate, understanding, and self-motivated to be productive without the incentive of wealth and power. (As far as I'm aware, communism was an attempt to accelerate the Marxist ideal into the present by forcing it through givernment.)
China calls its government communist in an attempt to maintain the illusion of this utopian ideal, in the same way the US calls itself a democracy when in fact the the electoral college and lobby groups make the system something other than a pure "democracy" (not saying better or worse here).
Really, replying to an argument without reading the whole thing pretty much says you're closed minded and just like to run your mouth.