And yet, people like you are always harping on environmental regulations, and workers rights. Saying that these things are "hostile to business" and that they are "anti-Free market".
No, it's not. There's a huge difference betwen saying someone is Communist, and actually implementing the system. Or do you feel that Democracy has failed because of the state of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
Because Communism is the one that always gets bashed, whereas Capitalism is praised, and whenever it's faults are pointed out, the excuses of "We don't have Perfect Capitalism" come out.
No. It rewards people able to act rationally and in their long-term best interest.
Wrong again. It greatly rewards short term interest. Look at all the CEOs who can't seem to plan for anything but the short term, and jump ship as soon as their options are vested? That's Capitalism too.
An economic system that only works if every person acts ideally at all times is a recipe for mass graves.
Capitalism requires everyone to act ideally as well. If they don't, then things fall apart. Or the producers decide to cut corners with regards to pollution and worker's rights, in order to lower costs and increase profit.
And yet, you completely failed to mention how life was like for those at the bottom of society. Sure, the top lived high on the hog, but what about the laborers? The poor? Those were some of the absolute WORST times to be at the bottom.
Not to mention that the lack of regulations, both for worker safety and product safety, were nonexistent. There was no safety for meat. There was no safety for coal mining. Hell, there wasn't even overtime; you worked as long as your boss told to, and you liked it, dammit.
Why the hell should ANYBODY have the right to 'implement' a top-heavy set of rules on everyone else?
A people have the right to Self-Govern, that is, to make a set of rules for people in their society to live by. If people do not wish to live by these rules, and enjoy the benefits of society, they are free to leave and set up somewhere else.
Thus showing that barriers to entry will exist ALWAYS.
At that point, the only thing that needs to be discussed is what kind of market distortions need to be introduced to best approximate the workings of a theoretical free market.
Or realize that the "theoretical free market" is a fool's errand, and find something that works better.
So tell me how does a company keep out competition while providing low quality service at a high price in a free market?
Money. Their startup competition has bills to pay. Most of the incumbent's bills are paid off. So they can afford to drop their prices below what the startup can.
During the implementation of Standard Oil's 90% market monopoly, the price was driven down 90%, and it stayed there until it was broken up. How EXACTLY is that bad?
You didn't look closely at this, did you? They would enter an area, and cause prices to go low, this is true. But what do you think happened after their competitor went bust?
And you've already proven yourself wrong. In any non-trivial industry, there are ALWAYS barriers to entry. Usually of the "I need lots and lots of cash" kind. Take an ISP, for instance. Lets pretend that franchise agreements don't exist. You're in a town, and you've decided that Comcast sucks, so you're going to start up your own ISP. You need to buy servers, cabling, hire network techs, buy a bunch of modems. Not to mention you need to tear up the roads, which is expensive to do, and will take a long time to get all around town. All the while, you're pouring all this money into your ISP. Comcast, having paid off most of their costs a long time ago, decides to cut it's prices. So now they're priced cheaper than you can get, and they're in more places than you can be for at least another 5 years. A lot of people see that Comcast is cheaper, and that's it; they don't see anything about you being better, they just know Comcast is cheaper, and continue to go with them. A few years go by, and you've had to slow down your build out due to lack of subscribers. You're struggling. Comcast see this. So they make an offer to buy out your fledgling ISP. Since you have investors to pay off, and you're not doing as well as you had hoped, you accept.
So yes, there are always barriers to entry, and once a player has gained critical mass, a capitalist market will trend toward monopoly.
That would suck ass if you bothered to actually THINK about the implications
Unless you happen to be someone not at the top. Then it's a pretty awesome deal. Just because you can't imagine anything but those at the top running everything doesn't mean it can't be done.
There's nothing saying that more shares can't be issued. The only stipulation is that the actual EMPLOYEES are the majority shareholders. Not some investment bank or hedge fund.
How does an employee reap the benefit of his invested capital short of retiring?
Well, there are these things called "dividends" that companies often issue to shareholders.
In capitalism the greed is meant to be used as a balancing factor. Sure one man is a greedy fucker who will abuse all of his workers to death... but... there are 1000 greedy workers with less 'power' but just as much greed, and they'll do things to balance it out... like vote.
You're making the assumption that all of those workers are rational. You're also making the assumption that the greedy ass employer won't pool together with other greedy ass employers, and spread propaganda about how the 1000 greedy workers should vote AGAINST their interests. And even after doing that, the greedy ass employers won't take all those jobs to China anyway, leaving the workers with nothing.
In capitalism, there is no real balance of power. Those who have the money, have the power. Period.
Not to mention it's that "least resources" part where Capitalism really fails. The Capitalist way is to produce as much as you can, and damn the environment, and damn your employees. If you can cut costs by filling the river with shit, then you should do it. If you can cut costs by paying your workers less, or cutting their health benefits, then you should do it.
No, it doesn't. Capitalism does NOT account for extreme greed, and the fact that people will game the system in order to satisfy that greed. Capitalism assumes that all actors will be rational, and that they will all behave. This is proven to be completely false.
No, it doesn't. And there's no evidence that shows it does. There's some that shows that it's better for those on top of society, but almost nothing for those on the bottom. Especially when you look at Quality of Life.
Accurate claim, unless you're on top of society. Those on the bottom are not served by capitalism in the least.
If you're going to define Communism is purist theoretical terms and claim it's a system that's never been implemented, then you have to acknowledge that that pure capitalism, as in totally free market, has never really been tried, either.
We've been a hell of a lot closer to pure Capitalism than we have to pure Communism.
No, it was the banks. They were the ones who lobbied for regulations to be removed, and they were the ones that performed every fucking action that led to the collapse. They did it with full independence and completely knowing what they were doing. To blame that on government is fucking crazy.
Of course, then I read the rest of your post and realize you're just another one of the extreme crazy right wingers who hates anything on the left, has a completely irrational hatred of government, and has a religious like belief in the "free market".
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, people like you are always harping on environmental regulations, and workers rights. Saying that these things are "hostile to business" and that they are "anti-Free market".
No, that statement is absolute bullshit.
But that's a fucking lie
No, it's not. There's a huge difference betwen saying someone is Communist, and actually implementing the system. Or do you feel that Democracy has failed because of the state of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
Because Communism is the one that always gets bashed, whereas Capitalism is praised, and whenever it's faults are pointed out, the excuses of "We don't have Perfect Capitalism" come out.
If so, this should shatter your faith in humanity regarding people acting honorably.
Which is why I don't believe Capitalism can work, either.
No. It rewards people able to act rationally and in their long-term best interest.
Wrong again. It greatly rewards short term interest. Look at all the CEOs who can't seem to plan for anything but the short term, and jump ship as soon as their options are vested? That's Capitalism too.
It is in your absolute best interest in a communist system to be the one, solitary bad actor who exploits it.
Until you get thrown out into the cold.
True, but at the same time, if you don't have any fail-safes for when that collapses, then Capitalism fails.
An economic system that only works if every person acts ideally at all times is a recipe for mass graves.
Capitalism requires everyone to act ideally as well. If they don't, then things fall apart. Or the producers decide to cut corners with regards to pollution and worker's rights, in order to lower costs and increase profit.
And yet, you completely failed to mention how life was like for those at the bottom of society. Sure, the top lived high on the hog, but what about the laborers? The poor? Those were some of the absolute WORST times to be at the bottom.
Not to mention that the lack of regulations, both for worker safety and product safety, were nonexistent. There was no safety for meat. There was no safety for coal mining. Hell, there wasn't even overtime; you worked as long as your boss told to, and you liked it, dammit.
Why the hell should ANYBODY have the right to 'implement' a top-heavy set of rules on everyone else?
A people have the right to Self-Govern, that is, to make a set of rules for people in their society to live by. If people do not wish to live by these rules, and enjoy the benefits of society, they are free to leave and set up somewhere else.
Nope. A free market has no regulation, thus nothing to stop someone from manipulating it.
Economies of scale are barriers of entry.
Thus showing that barriers to entry will exist ALWAYS.
At that point, the only thing that needs to be discussed is what kind of market distortions need to be introduced to best approximate the workings of a theoretical free market.
Or realize that the "theoretical free market" is a fool's errand, and find something that works better.
So tell me how does a company keep out competition while providing low quality service at a high price in a free market?
Money. Their startup competition has bills to pay. Most of the incumbent's bills are paid off. So they can afford to drop their prices below what the startup can.
During the implementation of Standard Oil's 90% market monopoly, the price was driven down 90%, and it stayed there until it was broken up. How EXACTLY is that bad?
You didn't look closely at this, did you? They would enter an area, and cause prices to go low, this is true. But what do you think happened after their competitor went bust?
A truly free market - no barriers to entry
And you've already proven yourself wrong. In any non-trivial industry, there are ALWAYS barriers to entry. Usually of the "I need lots and lots of cash" kind. Take an ISP, for instance. Lets pretend that franchise agreements don't exist. You're in a town, and you've decided that Comcast sucks, so you're going to start up your own ISP. You need to buy servers, cabling, hire network techs, buy a bunch of modems. Not to mention you need to tear up the roads, which is expensive to do, and will take a long time to get all around town. All the while, you're pouring all this money into your ISP. Comcast, having paid off most of their costs a long time ago, decides to cut it's prices. So now they're priced cheaper than you can get, and they're in more places than you can be for at least another 5 years. A lot of people see that Comcast is cheaper, and that's it; they don't see anything about you being better, they just know Comcast is cheaper, and continue to go with them. A few years go by, and you've had to slow down your build out due to lack of subscribers. You're struggling. Comcast see this. So they make an offer to buy out your fledgling ISP. Since you have investors to pay off, and you're not doing as well as you had hoped, you accept.
So yes, there are always barriers to entry, and once a player has gained critical mass, a capitalist market will trend toward monopoly.
That would suck ass if you bothered to actually THINK about the implications
Unless you happen to be someone not at the top. Then it's a pretty awesome deal. Just because you can't imagine anything but those at the top running everything doesn't mean it can't be done.
There's nothing saying that more shares can't be issued. The only stipulation is that the actual EMPLOYEES are the majority shareholders. Not some investment bank or hedge fund.
How does an employee reap the benefit of his invested capital short of retiring?
Well, there are these things called "dividends" that companies often issue to shareholders.
who's to say you can't give that to someone else in trade?
It can be part of the terms and conditions you agree to when you agree to work there.
The capitalism I know uses greed / necessity (or a desire to make more for philanthropic reasons) as the bait to get people to do things.
Like cut corners. Pollute the air. Abuse the employees.
In capitalism the greed is meant to be used as a balancing factor. Sure one man is a greedy fucker who will abuse all of his workers to death ... but ... there are 1000 greedy workers with less 'power' but just as much greed, and they'll do things to balance it out ... like vote.
You're making the assumption that all of those workers are rational. You're also making the assumption that the greedy ass employer won't pool together with other greedy ass employers, and spread propaganda about how the 1000 greedy workers should vote AGAINST their interests. And even after doing that, the greedy ass employers won't take all those jobs to China anyway, leaving the workers with nothing.
In capitalism, there is no real balance of power. Those who have the money, have the power. Period.
And to cut corners and break the rules.
Not to mention it's that "least resources" part where Capitalism really fails. The Capitalist way is to produce as much as you can, and damn the environment, and damn your employees. If you can cut costs by filling the river with shit, then you should do it. If you can cut costs by paying your workers less, or cutting their health benefits, then you should do it.
No, it doesn't. Capitalism does NOT account for extreme greed, and the fact that people will game the system in order to satisfy that greed. Capitalism assumes that all actors will be rational, and that they will all behave. This is proven to be completely false.
It works brilliantly at all three of those aims
No, it doesn't. And there's no evidence that shows it does. There's some that shows that it's better for those on top of society, but almost nothing for those on the bottom. Especially when you look at Quality of Life.
Bogus claim
Accurate claim, unless you're on top of society. Those on the bottom are not served by capitalism in the least.
If you're going to define Communism is purist theoretical terms and claim it's a system that's never been implemented, then you have to acknowledge that that pure capitalism, as in totally free market, has never really been tried, either.
We've been a hell of a lot closer to pure Capitalism than we have to pure Communism.
No, that was the government
No, it was the banks. They were the ones who lobbied for regulations to be removed, and they were the ones that performed every fucking action that led to the collapse. They did it with full independence and completely knowing what they were doing. To blame that on government is fucking crazy.
Of course, then I read the rest of your post and realize you're just another one of the extreme crazy right wingers who hates anything on the left, has a completely irrational hatred of government, and has a religious like belief in the "free market".