pimpdave wrote:I'm pretty sure you see unconstrained capitalism in the black market, like illicit drugs, etc.
There's no law against selling illegal drugs? Doesn't making the product illegal constrain the market?
The ultimate of nit picking.
Well, your statement just doesn't make sense. At times, people act polite by trying to ignore what you write.
You've pretty much bankrupted your reputation here. That probably culminated with all your TPDS threads. Granted, they're funny, but no one should take you seriously anymore.
pmchugh wrote:I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.
In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.
Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.
I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.
It depends on the legal system, the means of enforcement, the constitution, the social attitudes which shape human actions, etc. etc. etc. There's more to it than just "capitalism/market economics causes or leads to oligarchy." If that was true, then consider the following:
The ideas which are the opposite of "privatism" (state ownership) and "market economics" (no markets, no prices, just central planning) was already applied by the Soviet Union. Did that not lead to an oligarchy? My point is that there's obviously more to it than it being a matter of "oh, you have private ownership and market economics; therefore, somehow your society will end in a oligopoly."
That doesn't say anything about my point, you essentially just said: IF A THEN B NOT A once lead to B Therefore B is not dependent on A.
All it points out is that there are other ways to achieve oligarchy apart from capitalism, which I don't deny.
You are right in that there may be factors that I have not considered but I did admit that I may be "lacking in imagination", either way I simply cannot conceive of a purely capitalistic state as described that would not lead to an oligarchy. Certainly every real world attempt to implement capitalism that I know of has failed.
Basically put, given capitalism and a desire to trade:
Capitalism -> Disparity of Wealth -> Greater Access to Resources for the Rich -> Rich get Richer -> Upper Class Desire to trade + Social Classes -> Uneven trade -> Uneven Power -> Upper Class = Oligarchy
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
Phatscotty wrote:I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.
I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.
Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.
They obviously have not dominated your education, because you clearly have not a real clue about most of those ideologies.
When you can put the number of younger people even aware of what liberalism and Progressivism represented, its pretty clear the idea that it dominates education institutions is a farce.
A farce perpetuated to keep people from seriously criticizing those who truly DO dominate - namely big business interests and the interesto of others already in power. Liberals, to contrast believe every citizin should have power and dignity.
pmchugh wrote:I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.
In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.
Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.
I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.
I think if you look at economics on a longer-term historic basis, I think you'll find that the less control, the better. In pre-medieval societies, economies were controlled only by the government; that didn't work out too well for the less fortunate.
LOL... nice twisting of things, there, greekdog. The root of Medeval power was not an esoteric belief in government, it was the idea that those in power were put there by God.
thegreekdog wrote:Similarly, if you compare medieval societies with current societies, you'll find a big difference.
thegreekdog wrote:Compare people in the US to people in other countries that don't have a developed capitalist economic system. Hell, the vast, vast majority of poor people in the United States have televisions!
The difference was DEMOCRACY and a constitution that heavily respected individual rights. Capitalism fit within that system,but only when constrained. When unconstrained,we saw conditions in the US cities that were horrible and incredibly inhumane.
Also, we had a LOT of wonderful resources, and for a time, actually allowed white citizens (occasional others,though not often) to get land just for working it. This, too contributed to the idea of power to the multitudes.
thegreekdog wrote:I guess my point is the question is not whether capitalism is bad; it's whether capitalism is better than everything else. I think it is. I think you do need to regulate it, but not in a way that benefits one group of people over another. A couple of examples - You can't have a regulation that is onerous for one business, but not another, just because the first business is smaller. You can't have tax benefits for one industry and not have them for all industries. I think if we take that stuff out of government, we'll all be better off.
You are confusing bad tax policies with government. We have bad tax policies precisely because those with money are allowed to heavily dominate policies. So, of course, they manipulate things to benefit themselves and not the average population. Sadly, a lot of people have bought into the hype. Liberalism (not communism or Communism) is the antidote to that.
You also dismiss any real benefit to society from regulation. If a business is constrained because it causes harm to the rest of us, then that is a GOOD. And, by having regulations that dictate such terms, we force industry to find safe ways of doing things. Allowing companies to pollute, ignore labor regulations and wage rules, to name a few, is creating an extreme moral hazard for corporations.
We feed oil companies instead of forcing industry to use already available alternate technologies. The longer we allow that,the more entrenched the dependence becomes... even while we see the extreme harm such dependence causes us.
thegreekdog wrote:I guess my point is the question is not whether capitalism is bad; it's whether capitalism is better than everything else. I think it is.
I will agree with you that some variation of capitalism is probably the best solution. Probably. Although no matter what ideology you pick, they are all unsatisfying.
Getting back the point of the OP, is it possible that atheism in the west is more highly correlated with communism because the religious are more inclined to accept what they are told? You only have to listen to the way some people talk about communism on this forum to see the effect of western capitalist propaganda. Just a thought.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
pmchugh wrote:I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.
In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.
Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.
I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.
It depends on the legal system, the means of enforcement, the constitution, the social attitudes which shape human actions, etc. etc. etc. There's more to it than just "capitalism/market economics causes or leads to oligarchy." If that was true, then consider the following:
The ideas which are the opposite of "privatism" (state ownership) and "market economics" (no markets, no prices, just central planning) was already applied by the Soviet Union. Did that not lead to an oligarchy? My point is that there's obviously more to it than it being a matter of "oh, you have private ownership and market economics; therefore, somehow your society will end in a oligopoly."
That doesn't say anything about my point, you essentially just said: IF A THEN B NOT A once lead to B Therefore B is not dependent on A.
All it points out is that there are other ways to achieve oligarchy apart from capitalism, which I don't deny.
You are right in that there may be factors that I have not considered but I did admit that I may be "lacking in imagination", either way I simply cannot conceive of a purely capitalistic state as described that would not lead to an oligarchy. Certainly every real world attempt to implement capitalism that I know of has failed.
Failed? Here we are in 1st world countries, using computers to type to each other through the Internet. We're in digital space that connects billions of people who are geographically separated by thousands and thousands of miles. We thrive on the spillover effects of many people's ideas, inventions, and production plans. We have computers for cheap, and a world of nearly zero transaction costs. What failure?
pmchugh wrote:Basically put, given capitalism and a desire to trade:
Capitalism -> Disparity of Wealth -> Greater Access to Resources for the Rich -> Rich get Richer -> Upper Class Desire to trade + Social Classes -> Uneven trade -> Uneven Power -> Upper Class = Oligarchy
Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.
(again, it isn't capitalism).
Here's another test: did humans have higher standards of living 2000 years ago or today?
(your cause-and-effect timeline of events misses a lot of benefits)
pmchugh wrote:I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.
In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.
Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.
I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.
It depends on the legal system, the means of enforcement, the constitution, the social attitudes which shape human actions, etc. etc. etc. There's more to it than just "capitalism/market economics causes or leads to oligarchy." If that was true, then consider the following:
The ideas which are the opposite of "privatism" (state ownership) and "market economics" (no markets, no prices, just central planning) was already applied by the Soviet Union. Did that not lead to an oligarchy? My point is that there's obviously more to it than it being a matter of "oh, you have private ownership and market economics; therefore, somehow your society will end in a oligopoly."
That doesn't say anything about my point, you essentially just said: IF A THEN B NOT A once lead to B Therefore B is not dependent on A.
All it points out is that there are other ways to achieve oligarchy apart from capitalism, which I don't deny.
You are right in that there may be factors that I have not considered but I did admit that I may be "lacking in imagination", either way I simply cannot conceive of a purely capitalistic state as described that would not lead to an oligarchy. Certainly every real world attempt to implement capitalism that I know of has failed.
Failed? Here we are in 1st world countries, using computers to type to each other through the Internet. We're in digital space that connects billions of people who are geographically separated by thousands and thousands of miles. We thrive on the spillover effects of many people's ideas, inventions, and production plans. We have computers for cheap, and a world of nearly zero transaction costs. What failure?
pmchugh wrote:Basically put, given capitalism and a desire to trade:
Capitalism -> Disparity of Wealth -> Greater Access to Resources for the Rich -> Rich get Richer -> Upper Class Desire to trade + Social Classes -> Uneven trade -> Uneven Power -> Upper Class = Oligarchy
Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.
(again, it isn't capitalism).
Here's another test: did humans have higher standards of living 2000 years ago or today?
(your cause-and-effect timeline of events misses a lot of benefits)
BBS I meant failed as in "not managed to produce a non-oligarchical society" since that was the point of the discussion.
Your counter example fails by the same logic as your previous one, many things may cause oligarchy and IMO one of them is capitalism. You can point out non-capitalist oligarchies all day long, it simply doesn't change anything. It's akin to pointing out that sprinklers don't make the grass wet because you have seen wet grass caused by rain and not sprinklers.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
1) Your model is silly because it overlooks tremendous benefits.
2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.
3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.
4) "Oligarchy" is a vague term. "Rule by the few." How few is few? Shall we set the number arbitrarily? How can we change the number across time, so that the "tendency to oligarchy" theory holds true? In ancient civilizations, very few had control over the people. Today, power is more distributed. Is it still "oligarchy"? Well, it depends on how ambiguous that word becomes. It also depends on the question "compared to what?"
5) And "rule" is another key factor. With the rise of "basic human rights," can we admit that democratic governments are more constrained in their rule than medieval monarchies, tribal despots, and modern day autocracies? Sure, so now "rule" varies across time and place, so the "tendency to oligarchy" theory becomes less tenable.
How many times would you like to change the meaning of "capitalism" and "oligarchy" in order to suit your "tendency to oligarchy" theory? Without any clear criteria, you can always point vaguely to the past and the present and declare, "oligarchy, oligarchy everywhere."
pimpdave wrote:I'm pretty sure you see unconstrained capitalism in the black market, like illicit drugs, etc.
There's no law against selling illegal drugs? Doesn't making the product illegal constrain the market?
It's not illegal everywhere. But anyway, it sounds more and more like this idea of unconstrained capitalism is just a fantasy. Someone could come up with some kind of constraint somehow to any example provided, which would prevent the ability to list the pros and cons of this fantasy system, because ultimately that's the point... to have some system that appears attainable but actually isn't, so it's easy to criticize any changes proposed to the current system (such as breaking up the trusts).
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Now that actually addresses my points and fairly well.
BigBallinStalin wrote:1) Your model is silly because it overlooks tremendous benefits.
Well except this point, this was put in a specific context in that tgd called our current system an oligarchy. It is NOT a debate on whether capitalism is better than Xism.
2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.
I don't think this is true at all.
3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.
Agreed.
4) "Oligarchy" is a vague term. "Rule by the few." How few is few? Shall we set the number arbitrarily? How can we change the number across time, so that the "tendency to oligarchy" theory holds true? In ancient civilizations, very few had control over the people. Today, power is more distributed. Is it still "oligarchy"? Well, it depends on how ambiguous that word becomes. It also depends on the question "compared to what?"
Of course the term is vague, compared to medieval times we are less oligarchical and there are other forms of capitalism which may be less oligarchical than our own. It is a subjective term. Perhaps I have strayed too far from the original premise that I argued, I'll quote it again.
pmchugh wrote:Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in the rich, who unconstrained would only get richer and more powerful.
5) And "rule" is another key factor. With the rise of "basic human rights," can we admit that democratic governments are more constrained in their rule than medieval monarchies, tribal despots, and modern day autocracies? Sure, so now "rule" varies across time and place, so the "tendency to oligarchy" theory becomes less tenable.
I agree that power is less direct than in a system without human rights but if you control a vast majority (ya vague ik) of goods production and service provision, I would still call that "rule".
Without any clear criteria, you can always point vaguely to the past and the present and declare, "oligarchy, oligarchy everywhere."
Point taken, if I wasn't too lazy to think any further then I would attempt to draw falsifiable claims about what it means to be oligarchical.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
BigBallinStalin wrote:we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies
good point, BBS
when most people say "unconstrained capitalism" I think they assume it's a synonym for the current, state-hyperinflated economy x10 ... a world in which Wal-Mart owns even the corner store; they don't have the cognitive ability to appreciate the ways Wal-Mart benefits from the current, corporatist super-state model and how "unconstrained capitalism" - whatever it is - would neuter those benefits
(not that I'm a capitalist, of course, just an impartial observer)
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
pmchugh wrote:I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.
In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.
Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.
I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.
There would never be a chance for an oligarchy to come into existence; they only exist at the behest of the State. Laws and regulations serve to prop the giants up and keep the money at the top. They would implode upon pure structural costs the moment such safety nets were nixed. The "evil" corporations and such could never come into existence without the concerted effort of those in business and those making regulations. Otherwise, there are natural bounds in place that limit widespread control.
pmchugh wrote:Now that actually addresses my points and fairly well.
BigBallinStalin wrote:1) Your model is silly because it overlooks tremendous benefits.
Well except this point, this was put in a specific context in that tgd called our current system an oligarchy. It is NOT a debate on whether capitalism is better than Xism.
That's understandable, but there's an underlying issue here: (A) Does the current 'rule' by a few really matter? If yes, then how? (B) What's a better alternative that reaps equivalent, long-run benefits for humans?
(please see my answer below).
pmchugh wrote:
2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.
I don't think this is true at all.
The "problem" with voluntary exchange and free competition is that even if one producer has a high concentration of market share (or "power"), it doesn't matter if competitors can enter the market and whittle away at the one producer's profits. Ultimately, producers must respond to the demands of consumers; otherwise, their goods won't be purchased, they'll incur a loss, and go out of business--unless of course, there's crony capitalism at play: the few get bailed out, while the banners of "Save Our Economy" our misleading waved.
In a market economy (i.e. capitalism), producers are at the mercy of consumer preferences. Of course, the rules can be bent away from voluntary exchange and free competition via the methods of crony capitalism.
The gateway to increased wealth is marginally diminished by the actual rule of the few but implicitly through many well-intended voters. Actual rule over markets can only be done through the state, which is reinforced by social institutions. To my dismay, I see many people mistakenly reinforce the state's power as a seemingly good response to "constraining capitalism," but what they miss is that this appeal to the state reinforces the actual rule by the few. Instead of combating crony capitalism, they paradoxically support it, and in turn actually end up supporting those above outcomes described in the spoiler.
Hence:
BBS wrote:3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.
(to which you agree, and I'm glad to hear it, but unfortunately, I don't think many people fully see the big picture yet).
(A) Does the current 'rule' by a few really matter? If yes, then how? (A) The actual rule of the few does matter, but it depends on the means, which is the state and also the implicit support of many people who mistakenly believe that they're somehow constraining capitalism and benefiting themselves.
(B) What's a better alternative that reaps equivalent, long-run benefits for humans? (B) To use a cover-all term, Limited Government. To me, that implies more reliance on community-based means of helping others (without the corruptible influence of the state). This leads to a shift from government regulation and its monopolies (i.e. central planning) toward the self-enforcing market process, thus enabling individuals and communities to seek new avenues of discovery for solving problems (i.e. spontaneous order). In other words, it's a shift from government control to self-governing control by individuals within their respective communities.
So, that being said:
pmchugh wrote:Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in the rich, who unconstrained would only get richer and more powerful.
BBS wrote:5) And "rule" is another key factor. With the rise of "basic human rights," can we admit that democratic governments are more constrained in their rule than medieval monarchies, tribal despots, and modern day autocracies? Sure, so now "rule" varies across time and place, so the "tendency to oligarchy" theory becomes less tenable.
I agree that power is less direct than in a system without human rights but if you control a vast majority (ya vague ik) of goods production and service provision, I would still call that "rule".
One's unintentional support of crony capitalism reinforces the current oligarchy. This power is concentrated in an extremely wealthy group, who "constrained" only get richer and more powerful.
Note: not everyone within the extremely wealthy group is to blame. Many rationally play the rules of the game as they're provided by the state. And some are extremely wealthy yet try to abstain.
BigBallinStalin wrote: Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.
(again, it isn't capitalism).
)
Uh since when did Ancient societies not have trade?????
To the extent they did not, they had those in power simply taking what they wanted from those underneath. However, trade very much happened. Its just the world was effectively smaller.
pmchugh wrote:I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.
In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.
Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.
I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.
There would never be a chance for an oligarchy to come into existence; they only exist at the behest of the State. Laws and regulations serve to prop the giants up and keep the money at the top. They would implode upon pure structural costs the moment such safety nets were nixed. The "evil" corporations and such could never come into existence without the concerted effort of those in business and those making regulations. Otherwise, there are natural bounds in place that limit widespread control.
-TG
What natural bounds? History shows exactly the opposite. Those in power are able to gain more power. Only when they oppress the masses enough that they absolutely cannot tolerate the conditions do you get revolution. Revolution basically replaces one power with another... at least, until the idea of democracy.
That is demonstrated by everything from Machiavellis' The Prince to study of all ancient powerful civilizations. The idea that ours is the first society to have a decent middle class, to have a populace that is well provided for is false. Egypt, India, even the Maya etc all had this. Things got screwed up when either those at the top got greedy, they ran out of resources/faced environmental disaster.
Here's a 20 minute talk that I found rather interesting, and may be (at least tangentially) related to the topic at hand: not so much the title, but the evolved conversation.
BigBallinStalin wrote: Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.
(again, it isn't capitalism).
)
Uh since when did Ancient societies not have trade?????
To the extent they did not, they had those in power simply taking what they wanted from those underneath. However, trade very much happened. Its just the world was effectively smaller.
I didn't say that. See the underlined. "Little trade" refers to the relatively small degree of trade compared to the degree of trade in today's global economy.
pmchugh wrote:I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.
In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.
Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.
I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.
There would never be a chance for an oligarchy to come into existence; they only exist at the behest of the State. Laws and regulations serve to prop the giants up and keep the money at the top. They would implode upon pure structural costs the moment such safety nets were nixed. The "evil" corporations and such could never come into existence without the concerted effort of those in business and those making regulations. Otherwise, there are natural bounds in place that limit widespread control.
-TG
What natural bounds? History shows exactly the opposite. Those in power are able to gain more power. Only when they oppress the masses enough that they absolutely cannot tolerate the conditions do you get revolution. Revolution basically replaces one power with another... at least, until the idea of democracy.
That is demonstrated by everything from Machiavellis' The Prince to study of all ancient powerful civilizations. The idea that ours is the first society to have a decent middle class, to have a populace that is well provided for is false. Egypt, India, even the Maya etc all had this. Things got screwed up when either those at the top got greedy, they ran out of resources/faced environmental disaster.
player wrote:What natural bounds? History shows exactly the opposite. Those in power are able to gain more power. Only when they oppress the masses enough that they absolutely cannot tolerate the conditions do you get revolution. Revolution basically replaces one power with another... at least, until the idea of democracy.
That is demonstrated by everything from Machiavellis' The Prince to study of all ancient powerful civilizations. The idea that ours is the first society to have a decent middle class, to have a populace that is well provided for is false. Egypt, India, even the Maya etc all had this. Things got screwed up when either those at the top got greedy, they ran out of resources/faced environmental disaster.
Okay, take for example Harley-Davidson. They should've failed years ago. They're selling sub-par bikes that cannot compete with Japanese imports. They tried in the '50s to apply for a 40% tax on all imported bikes. In the '80s, they were so close to failing they cried about how Japanese imports were threatening them. Reagan instituted a 45% import tax thereafter, allowing Harley to continue selling obsolete bikes (they even claimed this was an appeal). This is an example of regulations which uphold inferior companies.
If this had been purely capitalist, Harley either would've adjusted their product accordingly, or gone the way of the dinosaur. Instead, they appealed to those who write laws with some chumming around and got a pass.
pmchugh wrote:Now that actually addresses my points and fairly well.
BigBallinStalin wrote:1) Your model is silly because it overlooks tremendous benefits.
Well except this point, this was put in a specific context in that tgd called our current system an oligarchy. It is NOT a debate on whether capitalism is better than Xism.
That's understandable, but there's an underlying issue here: (A) Does the current 'rule' by a few really matter? If yes, then how? (B) What's a better alternative that reaps equivalent, long-run benefits for humans?
A- Yes simply put, a small number of people with similar interests will do what is best for themselves rather than what is best for society as a whole. I actually think the OWS movement raised a lot of valid points.
B- I don't know. I don't think the best solution is deregulate deregulate deregulate. I think it has more to do with getting a competent government that can better understand the implications of the decisions they make and that are less liable to coercion and misdirection from the financial markets. You may think this is unrealistic but I don't think it is any less realistic than selfish and ruthless businesses spontaneously combining to make an society of altruists, i.e. if individuals can make money out of peoples misery then they will.
BBS wrote:
pmchugh wrote:
2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.
I don't think this is true at all.
The "problem" with voluntary exchange and free competition is that even if one producer has a high concentration of market share (or "power"), it doesn't matter if competitors can enter the market and whittle away at the one producer's profits. Ultimately, producers must respond to the demands of consumers; otherwise, their goods won't be purchased, they'll incur a loss, and go out of business--unless of course, there's crony capitalism at play: the few get bailed out, while the banners of "Save Our Economy" our misleading waved.
In a market economy (i.e. capitalism), producers are at the mercy of consumer preferences. Of course, the rules can be bent away from voluntary exchange and free competition via the methods of crony capitalism.
Ah I think I misunderstood you, I presumed you thought that free markets would lead to a monopoly free market (which I disagree with). You raise a good point, the monopolies must remain competitive in a sense or they will lose their grasp and that certainly diminishes the power that a monopoly has over others. I think perhaps their influence is a lot less direct than I was imagining previously.
The gateway to increased wealth is marginally diminished by the actual rule of the few but implicitly through many well-intended voters. Actual rule over markets can only be done through the state, which is reinforced by social institutions. To my dismay, I see many people mistakenly reinforce the state's power as a seemingly good response to "constraining capitalism," but what they miss is that this appeal to the state reinforces the actual rule by the few. Instead of combating crony capitalism, they paradoxically support it, and in turn actually end up supporting those above outcomes described in the spoiler.
Hmm does this work two ways then? Should the south-east of England (the rich twats) be voting for more government regulation? Are they paradoxically supporting the downfall of "crony" capitalism which perpetuates their control?
BBS wrote:Note: not everyone within the extremely wealthy group is to blame. Many rationally play the rules of the game as they're provided by the state. And some are extremely wealthy yet try to abstain.
I actually don't believe that politicians, rich cunts etc. are personally more morally reprehensible than most. I just wish they would notice that people are inherently biased and attempt to work on their own "corruption". Everyone is the hero of their own story.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
thegreekdog wrote:I guess my point is the question is not whether capitalism is bad; it's whether capitalism is better than everything else. I think it is.
I will agree with you that some variation of capitalism is probably the best solution. Probably. Although no matter what ideology you pick, they are all unsatisfying.
Getting back the point of the OP, is it possible that atheism in the west is more highly correlated with communism because the religious are more inclined to accept what they are told? You only have to listen to the way some people talk about communism on this forum to see the effect of western capitalist propaganda. Just a thought.
Based on history classes I've taken and books I've read, there is some correlation between religion and capitalism, especially in the west. The "Protestant work ethic" is a term bandied about for good reason I think.
I think the comments regarding communism stem from "USA! USA! USA!" more than religion, but that's just my impression. If you find a US nationalist, you'll find an ardent anti-communist.
pmchugh wrote:I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.
In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.
Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.
I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.
I think if you look at economics on a longer-term historic basis, I think you'll find that the less control, the better. In pre-medieval societies, economies were controlled only by the government; that didn't work out too well for the less fortunate.
LOL... nice twisting of things, there, greekdog. The root of Medeval power was not an esoteric belief in government, it was the idea that those in power were put there by God.
thegreekdog wrote:Similarly, if you compare medieval societies with current societies, you'll find a big difference.
thegreekdog wrote:Compare people in the US to people in other countries that don't have a developed capitalist economic system. Hell, the vast, vast majority of poor people in the United States have televisions!
The difference was DEMOCRACY and a constitution that heavily respected individual rights. Capitalism fit within that system,but only when constrained. When unconstrained,we saw conditions in the US cities that were horrible and incredibly inhumane.
Also, we had a LOT of wonderful resources, and for a time, actually allowed white citizens (occasional others,though not often) to get land just for working it. This, too contributed to the idea of power to the multitudes.
thegreekdog wrote:I guess my point is the question is not whether capitalism is bad; it's whether capitalism is better than everything else. I think it is. I think you do need to regulate it, but not in a way that benefits one group of people over another. A couple of examples - You can't have a regulation that is onerous for one business, but not another, just because the first business is smaller. You can't have tax benefits for one industry and not have them for all industries. I think if we take that stuff out of government, we'll all be better off.
You are confusing bad tax policies with government. We have bad tax policies precisely because those with money are allowed to heavily dominate policies. So, of course, they manipulate things to benefit themselves and not the average population. Sadly, a lot of people have bought into the hype. Liberalism (not communism or Communism) is the antidote to that.
You also dismiss any real benefit to society from regulation. If a business is constrained because it causes harm to the rest of us, then that is a GOOD. And, by having regulations that dictate such terms, we force industry to find safe ways of doing things. Allowing companies to pollute, ignore labor regulations and wage rules, to name a few, is creating an extreme moral hazard for corporations.
We feed oil companies instead of forcing industry to use already available alternate technologies. The longer we allow that,the more entrenched the dependence becomes... even while we see the extreme harm such dependence causes us.
At the risk of becoming embroiled in misunderstanding:
(1) Medieval "governments" didn't exist because of the idea that those in power were put there by God. Medieval power existed because of wealth and force (same as today). In medieval times they justified being in power by, among other things, "Hey, I'm here because of God." Some of those other things were "hey, I have more swords than you" and "hey, my dad was duke." In modern times, people justify power by, among other things, "I have more money than you" and "You get to elect me."
(2) I would argue that government interference prevented cities from becoming clean or jobs from becoming humane. I could point to that lecture on Youtube I always link to, but I won't, because it's pointless.
(3) People with money dominate politics and the government because the government is involved. If the government were not involved, we wouldn't have such domination. I've provided examples in this thread and elsewhere. If Barack Obama and John McCain weren't unofficially told what to do by the people and companies giving them money, we may have had a much different election four years ago. I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.
