Socialism Creates Monopolies, Capitalism Destroys Them

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
By your logic: We are in a communistic-influenced society.


No, you are wrong. Capitalism says that everyone should have the same chance, and we do. Communism says we should all be the same. So in cap..ism we have a shot at being rich, in com...ism there is no shot unless you are in the upper echelons of the country, which means one person out of the 5 that are up there with you.




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I'm not going to respond to a post with 20 quoted comments in it, that's something trolls do to derail a conversation with excessive time consuming tedious quote manipulation.

I will say this about patents though.

There is nothing free market about patents.

They empower a monopoly to a holder.

Free markets do not involve arbitrary monopolies created by government degree and enforced at gun point.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by lordtyp0


Wal Mart is a perfect example of Free Market Capitalism. They move in, destroy local businesses and the populace is so happy to save a twenty cents on a loaf of bread they don't even see the destruction.


BY "destroy" you mean they provide better goods and/or services at a lower cost. When WalMart establishes themselves in a community and other businesses leave, WalMart does not raise the prices or leave the community. The customers are niether gouged nor deserted. What's the problem?


They do so by artificially depressed prices. Wal-Mart sells at a loss when it first moves into an area, in an effort to drive out the local businesses. Once the competition is weakened or totally out of business, Wal-Mart returns its prices to something profitable. Wal-Marts also tend to employ far fewer people than were employed as a whole by the defunct businesses, and at lower wages and benefits. so the buying power of the community is reduced, which is an effective raise in price.

Faced with no competition - it's damn near impossible for an entrepreneur to compete against an established financial giant - Wal-Mart then steadily raises prices until it reaches a sustainable level that gets the most people shopping at the highest prices. It will then often maximize its profits by minimizing its labor costs - firing or part-timing a number of workers, putting the others on doubles with no overtime to pick up the slack, etc.

If the community's wal-mart outlet starts doing poorly, corp HQ will often pull the franchise from that locale, leaving a community that has no local business to turn to for the products they previously purchased at wal-mart. Which, is honestly just about everything from food to gas to shrubbery and school supplies. The local economy is so depressed that even if someone could open a new store, they would do poorly due to lack of business.

Now it's not just wal-mart. Pretty much every major franchise follows this system. They move in, drive the locals out of the market, provide fewer jobs at lower wages, and then fold, leaving an expensive-to-rent concrete building in their wake along with a higher rate of poverty.

Nobody has ever gotten rich from a wal-mart moving in.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I'm not going to respond to a post with 20 quoted comments in it, that's something trolls do to derail a conversation with excessive time consuming tedious quote manipulation.

I will say this about patents though.

There is nothing free market about patents.




Thats false sir

The founding fathers included intellectual property in the founding documents,
which a patent would fall under. I don't know if they are free market, but they are AMERICAN as eagles.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox


Nobody has ever gotten rich from a wal-mart moving in.


Nobody gets rich working at any retail outlet.

What's your point?

The people who win are the consumers that end up paying lower prices with a bigger selection.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I'm not going to respond to a post with 20 quoted comments in it, that's something trolls do to derail a conversation with excessive time consuming tedious quote manipulation.

I will say this about patents though.

There is nothing free market about patents.




Thats false sir

The founding fathers included intellectual property in the founding documents,
which a patent would fall under. I don't know if they are free market, but they are AMERICAN as eagles.


Just because patent law has been around for a long time doesn't mean its free market.

There's a lot of things that have been around for a long time that aren't free market.

Central banks included.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


In other words, you're going to refuse to address the fact that I sank your battleship. Fair enough, the usual response from ignorant freemarketeers is usually "Lalalalalalala i can't hear you!!!" So I appreciate a response that exercises a broader vocabulary.

Okay so, patenting. Say you invent something awesome like, oh, the internal combustion engine (just an example). You've put a large amount of time and money into getting this idea off the ground. Years of expermentation, payments to metalworkers, books and studies on propulsion and other engineering and physics stuff. Years i nthe making, you finally have an engine that can power damn near anything with just a little combustable fluid. You've sank your savings into the research and production of this thing, years of your life.

And the day after unveiling it, five other companies are using your exact same design, producing it without your leave, and since they didn't invest so much time and money into R&D, they can do so faster and cheaper than you.

In other words, your intellectual property has been stolen and its value turned against you.

That is why there are patents, to guard against theft of intellectual property. it's pretty much the cornerstone of a functional capitalist system

[edit on 29-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Ideas are not property in a free market.

Having the idea first and being the first to market has its own rewards.

What do you think would happen if levis held the patent on jeans.

No one could make jeans except for levis.

How much do you think levis would charge for a pair of jeans?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by lordtyp0


Wal Mart is a perfect example of Free Market Capitalism. They move in, destroy local businesses and the populace is so happy to save a twenty cents on a loaf of bread they don't even see the destruction.


BY "destroy" you mean they provide better goods and/or services at a lower cost. When WalMart establishes themselves in a community and other businesses leave, WalMart does not raise the prices or leave the community. The customers are niether gouged nor deserted. What's the problem?


They do so by artificially depressed prices. Wal-Mart sells at a loss when it first moves into an area, in an effort to drive out the local businesses. Once the competition is weakened or totally out of business, Wal-Mart returns its prices to something profitable. Wal-Marts also tend to employ far fewer people than were employed as a whole by the defunct businesses, and at lower wages and benefits. so the buying power of the community is reduced, which is an effective raise in price.

Faced with no competition - it's damn near impossible for an entrepreneur to compete against an established financial giant - Wal-Mart then steadily raises prices until it reaches a sustainable level that gets the most people shopping at the highest prices. It will then often maximize its profits by minimizing its labor costs - firing or part-timing a number of workers, putting the others on doubles with no overtime to pick up the slack, etc.

If the community's wal-mart outlet starts doing poorly, corp HQ will often pull the franchise from that locale, leaving a community that has no local business to turn to for the products they previously purchased at wal-mart. Which, is honestly just about everything from food to gas to shrubbery and school supplies. The local economy is so depressed that even if someone could open a new store, they would do poorly due to lack of business.

Now it's not just wal-mart. Pretty much every major franchise follows this system. They move in, drive the locals out of the market, provide fewer jobs at lower wages, and then fold, leaving an expensive-to-rent concrete building in their wake along with a higher rate of poverty.

Nobody has ever gotten rich from a wal-mart moving in.


I'm not looking to get rich from a WalMart moving in. Just looking for better selection, lower prices and one-stop shopping.

A commom claim I hear about WalMart is that they raise the prices after establishing themselves. I've never seen a Walmart have extremely low prices on startup. My experience is that the prices in estabished store A are the same as new store B.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Actually selection is greatly reduced due to the local monopolization. Yes, you can choose from a wider variety of colors for your toxic made-in-China flip flops, but your choice in who to buy from and what you want from your products has been severely curtailed. You can only buy from wal-mart, and you can only buy goods that wal-mart execs and managers think you might want. That is a net loss in choice compared to several smaller businesses competing in the area.

And as I pointed out, the lower prices are artificial at first, and then come on the backs of inferior products and reduced labor costs. Both factors actually add cost to the products in question. A cheap or dangerous product needs to be replaced quicker, and a loss of labor results in less community income and purchasing power.

Nobody ever got rich off the savings they make at wal-mart. But lots of people have ended up poorer than they were when wal-mart started.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW

A commom claim I hear about WalMart is that they raise the prices after establishing themselves. I've never seen a Walmart have extremely low prices on startup. My experience is that the prices in estabished store A are the same as new store B.


Yeah I think he's full of hot air on that one.

Out of the thousands of wal marts that have opened, there may be cases of this happening, but I don't see it as a systemic problem.

Either way, a store selling products at a loss is a benefit to consumers. Eventually they will have to raise prices or go out of business. If they raise prices, new competitors will spring up to drive prices back down.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Actually selection is greatly reduced due to the local monopolization. Yes, you can choose from a wider variety of colors for your toxic made-in-China flip flops, but your choice in who to buy from and what you want from your products has been severely curtailed. You can only buy from wal-mart, and you can only buy goods that wal-mart execs and managers think you might want. That is a net loss in choice compared to several smaller businesses competing in the area.

And as I pointed out, the lower prices are artificial at first, and then come on the backs of inferior products and reduced labor costs. Both factors actually add cost to the products in question. A cheap or dangerous product needs to be replaced quicker, and a loss of labor results in less community income and purchasing power.

Nobody ever got rich off the savings they make at wal-mart. But lots of people have ended up poorer than they were when wal-mart started.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]


I've been all over the US, and I've never seen some place that was completely dominated by wal mart. If a town only has one store and its a wal mart, I'd wager the locals (other than those locals who are retail competitors) appreciate the store being there.

Competition drives out inefficient stores and reduces prices. All I see from the "socialists" in here are calls for more regulation that make prices HIGHER and reduce competition.

Who wants that?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Ideas are not property in a free market.


No, becuase the free market is basically based upon the idea of piracy. Why do you think I argue against the concept of the "free market"? It's only free for the most blackbeard-ish.


Having the idea first and being the first to market has its own rewards.
Sure, if you ignore the inconvenient fact that R&D costs money that your competitors didn't have to spend, allowing them to produce cheaper products at a higher profit.


What do you think would happen if levis held the patent on jeans.

No one could make jeans except for levis.

How much do you think levis would charge for a pair of jeans?


Considering that copper riveted jeans were in fact patented by Levi Strauss co. on May 20, 1873... Patent #139121 in fact...

I'll let you go do your own research

[edit on 29-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Ideas are not property in a free market.


No, becuase the free market is basically based upon the idea of piracy. Why do you think I argue against the concept of the "free market"? It's only free for the most blackbeard-ish.


Having the idea first and being the first to market has its own rewards.
Sure, if you ignore the inconvenient fact that R&D costs money that your competitors didn't have to spend, allowing them to produce cheaper products at a higher profit.


What do you think would happen if levis held the patent on jeans.

No one could make jeans except for levis.

How much do you think levis would charge for a pair of jeans?


Considering that copper riveted jeans were in fact patented by Levi Strauss co. on May 20, 1873... Patent #139121 in fact...

I'll let you go do your own research

[edit on 29-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]




Ideas can be replicated infinitely without the original holder loosing anything. Patent law has no business being in a free market. Patents create arbitrary monopolies.

So you are arguing that we should have monopolies?

I suppose if you are a socialist, you see monopolies and mega corporations as a good thing.

Nice dodge on the levis patent question. You know what I was trying to get at.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   


If Nestle is out peddling toxic baby formula to other countries, I have to assume exactly the same thing will take place there as it does everywhere else on the planet. People will stop buying it and sue for damages.


In the U.S. It is so cost prohibitive to sue large companies that it is near impossible. Let alone in third world countries where people commonly make well below $5/day. Failing that, the company can buy the judges and politicians or forever hold it in status while quibbling about jurisdiction.



You don't need a government regulation to prevent bad baby formula from being sold.

Just like you don't need regulation to prevent a company from adding rat poison to cans of coke. They aren't going to do it because they will put themselves out of business fast.

Much like the HIV tainted vaccinations in Asia a few years back? Countless tainted products are sold overseas instead of trashed because trashing is much less profit.


And you keep blaming corporations for moving jobs overseas, while completely ignoring the fact that our tax rates are high, our regulations are burdensome, and our excessive credit makes domestic production unnecessary.

These things are all due to government, not corporations.

Corporate tax is less than the middle class income bracket. Then they have countless loopholes to not pay. ie: most companies pay radically less tax in percentage than any middle class family.
They move jobs overseas because they can pay radically less to employees without benefit overhead. This is a company thing. It's called "Outsourcing" might want to look it up.

If I have an employee that I pay 10/hour in direct wages to, I am actually spending closer to 30/hour after breaking down health benefits, misc costs such as training etc. This is known as "Total Economic Cost".

A couple more economic terms:
"The law of diminishing returns": This is the market equilibrium on a product or service. If I sell below value X I run out of inventory and my profits are slim, if I am over Y then my stock remains for a long time but my individual sale of the item is much greater. The equilibrium is where profits and production are sustainable over a quarter. This is where people get the idea of 'free market'. Unfortunately it does not work like that.

In the above example of the employee, I was paying out of pocket 10/hour, but economic cost is 30. OR, I can outsource to another company and pay them 20/hour. I am freed of the 10/hour overhead in eco. cost.

If I get tax credits for whatever reason, and am able to outsource to India for my tech support paying less than 20/hour, and my production to china where there are no unions or regulations-my profit margin per unit sold skyrockets.

This leads to the third concept: Opportunity Cost.
What am I giving up to attain an objective.
This can be seen in day to day life. I have 20 bucks on me, I can buy a couple movie tickets, or a decent meal for one person, or put in savings etc. etc. The concept comes into play by comparing what is gained and lost for each choice.

With the employee: Say my product sells for 40 bucks a unit. Of that my production cost in states is probably around 15 bucks since it is common for more than a 200% markup-usually more. This leaves 25 bucks to pay salaries and more importantly make a profit.

If I chop 10 dollars per hour for my tech support guy, and easily 10 bucks on production costs by outsourcing to china. This means not only have I reduced my production cost to $5 a unit, but I have greatly reduced my after sale service and created a much larger-per unit profit zone. (range of profit and overhead is now $35/unit).

Now, say I make 100,000 units a year. To produce as I was in the U.S. my profit potential is in the neighborhood of 2,500,000 for my unit run.

My employee economic cost was 62,400/year (for one tech guy) If we give an arbitrary value to my one production guy, it would be the same for simplicity. 124,800 for two employee wages in economic cost (health benefits, training etc.etc.)

This leaves about 2.4 million a year. This covers rent (prob at least 3k/month for office, prob closer to 8k/month for production area). Shipping and distribution costs-prob 20k/year depending on the size of our product. Marketing, utility costs, licence fees, lawyer retainer, accountant etc. etc.

What is left for my salary? Prob around 100k at the end of the year.

Now if I outsource:
production cost: 5/unit. Profit/bill range: $35 = 3.5 Million
Salaries: combined 83,200 (Being EXTREMELY generous with that amount).
All the rest of the costs are intack, only: I no longer have a production rent amount or similar. I also have reduced cost for my employee.
My base value is a million over what it was. This means my new yearly income for ME is closer to 1.1 million. A 10 fold increase in my income from my company.

In this case: The government would need to incentivise me over a million a year for me to consider keeping my production in the U.S.

As is I pay an accountant and get all sorts of deductions from charities (deduction value is much higher than donated value) to other loopholes.

You think some tax credits will keep me here?




I might also add that our military industrial complex takes up HUGE amounts of resources that could otherwise go to the private sector. All that metal and machinery could be going to produce domestic goods if government wasn't out buying it all up.


Sure, though it doesn't seem connected. Would be great to have all those resources redirected into our infrastructure. But you seem to indicate it would be best served giving it to companies.

An example of this issue: Insurance Companies; Whine constantly about rising costs to justify increase in premiums-yet each quarter they have record setting profits.






[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by RKWWWW

A commom claim I hear about WalMart is that they raise the prices after establishing themselves. I've never seen a Walmart have extremely low prices on startup. My experience is that the prices in estabished store A are the same as new store B.


Yeah I think he's full of hot air on that one.

Out of the thousands of wal marts that have opened, there may be cases of this happening, but I don't see it as a systemic problem.

Either way, a store selling products at a loss is a benefit to consumers. Eventually they will have to raise prices or go out of business. If they raise prices, new competitors will spring up to drive prices back down.


I've been having the same basic discussion about WalMart for ten years and for ten years I've been told that WalMart is on the verge of springing their little monopoly trap on the unsuspecting customer.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I've been all over the US, and I've never seen some place that was completely dominated by wal mart. If a town only has one store and its a wal mart, I'd wager the locals (other than those locals who are retail competitors) appreciate the store being there.


Never? Because I've had the opposite experience. Do the consumers appreciate the store being there? Considering it's very likely the only store within reasonable driving distance, I'm sure they appreciate it. i'm sure htye would appreciate having competition to choose from even more


Competition drives out inefficient stores and reduces prices. All I see from the "socialists" in here are calls for more regulation that make prices HIGHER and reduce competition.

Who wants that?


You've failed to explain how regulation reduces competition. Ironically you are making that argument while openly praising the effect deregulation has on monopolizing the market by giants such as wal mart!

As for socialists... You need to learn what words mean before you use 'em. Socialism and private industry are not opposites. hell socialism and capitalism aren't opposites, and work side by side in most of the world. Socialism is public control of public institutions and infrastructure - institutions such as electricity, water, and transportation are under public control, but your supermarket is yours, not the public's.

I'm pushing for increased competition which not only provides higher net wages but also lower prices. Your group tends to forget about the "wages" part, since most of you have never actually worked and have no idea where the money to take advantage of the supposed low prices comes from.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Its cost prohibitive to sue a large corporation for damages?

Are you nuts?

Lawyers will do it for FREE if they think they can win!

Large corporations = deep pockets, trial lawyers favorite kind.

If corporations are selling tainted products overseas, then the people in those countries will sue and stop buying the products. Regulation is not necessary. I fail to see where you are making the point that it is "necessary" to have regulations when the market automatically drives out those producers.


Corporate tax on profits absolutely is less than the middle class tax, however you don't solve our production problems by raising corporate taxes! You cut government spending, regulation, taxes, involvement in the market, etc.. etc.. etc.. and reduce the taxes on the middle class.

Raising corporate taxes isn't going to create jobs that's for sure. However reducing taxes on the middle class just might.

Your argument is circular.

On the one hand you point the finger and say corporate taxes are too low, then on the other hand you say producers outsource because the cost of production is so much lower in foreign countries.

I'm arguing that even with with China suppressing labor rates, we could dramatically increase our domestic production of we cut out all the government regulation, taxation, subsidies, and financial market manipulation that drive up production costs here.

All those things add up to make production here unprofitable.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Ideas can be replicated infinitely without the original holder loosing anything. Patent law has no business being in a free market. Patents create arbitrary monopolies.


What imaginary world are you living in?


So you are arguing that we should have monopolies?


Obviously your private universe is populated by straw men.


I suppose if you are a socialist, you see monopolies and mega corporations as a good thing.


I suppose you still don't understand what any of those three terms actually means.


Nice dodge on the levis patent question. You know what I was trying to get at.


Dodge? Do you even know what that word means?


You were arguing that if levis had a patent on jeans, only htye would make jeans and jeans would be hugely expensive. I demonstrably proved that you were wrong. That's not a dodge, it's just you being wrong. Unfortunately for you, no matter what patented product you picked, you would still be wrong.

I suggest you learn your words, and while you're at it, pick up some basics of patent law.

I have to go to work. I'll explain that concept to you when you're old enough to be hired at full wages.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Never? Because I've had the opposite experience. Do the consumers appreciate the store being there? Considering it's very likely the only store within reasonable driving distance, I'm sure they appreciate it. i'm sure htye would appreciate having competition to choose from even more


The market says otherwise.

People vote with their dollars.



Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You've failed to explain how regulation reduces competition. Ironically you are making that argument while openly praising the effect deregulation has on monopolizing the market by giants such as wal mart!

As for socialists... You need to learn what words mean before you use 'em. Socialism and private industry are not opposites. hell socialism and capitalism aren't opposites, and work side by side in most of the world. Socialism is public control of public institutions and infrastructure - institutions such as electricity, water, and transportation are under public control, but your supermarket is yours, not the public's.

I'm pushing for increased competition which not only provides higher net wages but also lower prices. Your group tends to forget about the "wages" part, since most of you have never actually worked and have no idea where the money to take advantage of the supposed low prices comes from.


There is a reason wal mart lobbied for a higher minimum wage. They want it higher because it hinders start ups from competing against them.

Wal mart would be completely happy with a mandate that all retail employees in all stores must be offered insurance for instance. Such a ruling would drive up costs equally among all retailers. This cost increase would drive out all the small stores that compete with wal mart. Since wal mart has the cheapest supplier connections and the most streamlined distribution system, they will inevitably STILL have the lowest prices.

Think about that.

If you mandate all the retailers have to buy insurance, who still has the lowest prices?

Wal mart.

Who is now going to be bankrupted?

Wal mart?

I think not.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join