Socialism Creates Monopolies, Capitalism Destroys Them

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Capitalism creates a lot of junk we don't need, huge demands for pornography and drugs and not enough food, housing and heat to go around.
Somebody has to look at the big picture or we will all be freezing our butts off eating Cheetos, drinking beer and watching porn until our eyes fall out.

If you give rats coc aine they will continue eating it until they eventually die. Sorry to say...we are like those rats. Greater, balanced and more reasonable decisions must prevail or Capitalism is going to kill us.

dude, its posts like yours that make my day.

Lets dump capitalism for a system of totalitarian socialism because we are all going to get fat on cheetos unless there is a supreme dictator here to beat us into shape.

Praise Stalin.

I'm posting this on my blog

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Capitalism creates a lot of junk we don't need, huge demands for pornography and drugs and not enough food, housing and heat to go around.
Somebody has to look at the big picture or we will all be freezing our butts off eating Cheetos, drinking beer and watching porn until our eyes fall out.

If you give rats coc aine they will continue eating it until they eventually die. Sorry to say...we are like those rats. Greater, balanced and more reasonable decisions must prevail or Capitalism is going to kill us.

dude, its posts like yours that make my day.

Lets dump capitalism for a system of totalitarian socialism because we are all going to get fat on cheetos unless there is a supreme dictator here to beat us into shape.

Praise Stalin.

I'm posting this on my blog

I'm not a dude dude and I guess there just is no middle ground with you. Dictator or Capitalism? Expand your mind will you?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by OldDragger

A simple question.
What is the goal of competition?
Is it not....to win?
What happens to your "free market" then.
This is why we have Anti Trust laws.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by OldDragger]

OK.

So say I have a gas station, no competitors around for 200 miles in all directions.

How much do you think I can charge for gas?

Then a new gas station opens up across the street, how much can I charge for gas now?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

As much as you like after you walk across the street and say to the only other gas station owner in 200 miles "Let's both agree not charge less than X per gallon and we can both get rich...or we can both compete until our margins are painfully low and niether of us will make much money."

Or better yet...with the profits you have already made from being the only gas station in 200 miles prior to the station across the street opening...buy out the other gas station and maybe even a couple more expanding your exclusivity to 400 miles. Then fix the prices even higher.

Or how about using your profits that you have been stockpiling and drop your prices below what gas actually costs...thus quickly driving the new station across the street out of business...and then you can return to your previously huge inflated margins that having the only station in 200 miles affords you.

Or use your amassed profits to buy the local grocery store and pharmacy...then refuse to serve customers that use your competitors gas station.

Assuming there are none of those "intrusive" Anti-trust laws you seem so opposed to.

FYI - This is not hypothetical...it happens all the time in a free-market...on the scale of hundreds of Billions of dollars. Those grossley inflated margins come out of our pockets..you and I.

Here are two recent examples...

Monsanto's Antitrust Troubles
www.peopleandplace.net...

Intel, world's biggest computer chip maker, hit with more antitrust charges in FTC suit
www.startribune.com...





[edit on 30-12-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 30-12-2009 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0

No regulations = monopoly.

Are you kidding me?

What do you think is preventing US producers from competing against Chinese labor?

You got China artificially suppressing labor costs.

You got the US government regulating the living tar out of domestic producers with insurance requirements, labor wage requirements, zoning policies, emissions restrictions, etc.. etc.. etc..
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Honestly...no offense intended, but you are saying some really dumb things.

The US cannot compete with China because our government "regulates" the way our companies operate?

You do realize that China is a communist/socialist nation don't you?

SO...are you suggesting we need to become more Socialist/Communist to compete?...maybe do away with those pesky regulations prohibiting us from selling our toddlers to factories for cheap labor? Allow corporations to dump chemical waste directly into local rivers unabated?

Confused....because I thought you were making the case that unregulated capitalism not communism was the way to go?

We could go the other direction and assign trade restrictions to China to reflect the cost difference that they enjoy by using virtual and sometimes literal child slave labor....but that would mean more government interference in the "free" market...right?

Originally posted by endisnighe


Regulations are a way to control the marketplace and institute non competitiveness.

As for safety, if a product hurts someone, instead of allowing lawyers to limit liability to money, how about throwing their sorry arses in jail. Problems solved.

Corporatism, lawyers, politicians and their ilk, love to say that their regulations will institute protection for the consumer. But in real world applications, they have the exact opposite effect.

End... I don't understand why you fellas with the right swing, claim that this and that have the opposite effect... It seems to be illogical and you guys apply it when it suits you.

Min wage makes people poorer
feeding people make them hungrier
regulation, creates more unruly behavior

Its silly, you need more on the list just ask

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Capitalism creates a lot of junk we don't need, huge demands for pornography and drugs and not enough food, housing and heat to go around.
Somebody has to look at the big picture or we will all be freezing our butts off eating Cheetos, drinking beer and watching porn until our eyes fall out.

If you give rats coc aine they will continue eating it until they eventually die. Sorry to say...we are like those rats. Greater, balanced and more reasonable decisions must prevail or Capitalism is going to kill us.

While we're tossing out gross mischaracterizations, I would think it would be appropriate to say that communism creates state-ran baby farms that produce mindless drone-children who grow up to become vodka swilling dolts. Oh yeah...they also eat mostly potatos and women's dresses are made from the potato sacks. Most of the houses in a communist country are made of concrete. There are suicide booths on every corner. 90% of all the deaths are either suicides or from government firing squads. And if you get shot by the firing squads, the state bills your family for the cost of the bullet.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by RKWWWW]

Originally posted by Janky Red

End... I don't understand why you fellas with the right swing, claim that this and that have the opposite effect... It seems to be illogical and you guys apply it when it suits you.

Min wage makes people poorer
feeding people make them hungrier
regulation, creates more unruly behavior

Its silly, you need more on the list just ask

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Janky Red]

Janky, time to bring you to the RIGHT side.

Minimum wage is a bad thing, what has created the reasoning behind the problem that has made it mandatory is the Global Market. Also monetary policy that has destroyed the value of the dollar.

Just a thought, can the decline of the value of the dollar, be correlated and be a causal effect of the decline in each successive generation's standard of living?

Monetary policy is another market control that has instituted a non-free market system. 1913 was when the Fed was instituted, and 16 years later the Great Depression happened. This latest crash and others in the past 50 years are a direct causal and correlary effect of market and monetary manipulation.

The very funny thing about the latest crash, who gets bailed out? The very entities that caused the crash in the first place-banks and financial institutions that are HUGELY government controlled.

People in the gov(private banking enforcement bureau) like Bernanke and Paulson like to claim that huge swings in the market were why the Fed was created. Than why is it the largest depression occurred, only 16 years following the institution of this regime? It is because the elite banksters and corporatists not only run our government, they want the crashes to occur.

Talk to any stock broker or market man and they will tell you that their is just as much money to be made in a depression/recession downswing as their is in a inflationary cycle.

For examples of non-free markets I have brought up Trusts and Foundations. Another are tax free entities. When the hell did a free market include tax free entities?

Every aspect of our lives, our economy, our very freedoms are being controlled, than people like to bash a free market or capitalist society.

We have never been a free market society since TPTB were put in charge of our money supply.

Oh how I wish I could have taken some Austrian economics classes where I went to college-2 different colleges that did not offer them. I use to argue with my Professors about the Keynesian theories behind governmental replacement of the consumer in their models. I received very high grades in both my macro and micro courses.

I would love to rub their faces in the total meltdown we currently have and tell them, I TOLD YOU SO!

We are in their control whether we have a "supposed" capitalist society or the soon to come all out Oligarchy.

My theory alone on the minimum wage, is that it would be an irrelevant issue, if the gov would just limit the amount of immigrants(both legal and illegal) into our market. Notice how both parties(of the two headed snake) have not interfered in the absolute flooding of our labor base with immigrants? The past 30 years alone, the immigration department has declared that over 40 million people have come here both legally and illegally. I believe those numbers are a total misrepresentation of the actual numbers. It is more like 80 million immigrants. You can look at birth statistics to confirm my number. The average American family has been stagnant in the birthrate-something like 1.3-1.8kids/family, yet we have the population of the US exploding to 320 million people?

Their are so many problems that have been directly caused by our government sock puppets, I could point to every one of their actions to give a direct causal link to every problem we have now.

It is now time that both the left and right actually blame the real causes of all of this mess, on the shoulders of the real architects behind our current demise. THE GOVERNMENT SOCK PUPPETS AND THEIR CORPORATE/BANKSTER CROOKS BEHIND THEM.

edit to move a comma

[edit on 12/30/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Janky Red


All that was the result of government involvement. Land grants, graft, government regulations enacted with the intent to limit competition government contracts and right always awarded in no bid deals to those with the inside track with sleazy politicians, and money to shower them with.

. But as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force,

That force does not have to come at the point of a gun, or knife, but can come in the form of government involvement, stock manipulations, fraud, extortion, political graft; these things do not promote free trade and mutual benefit. It is here that the government has its role in the economy. The courts as arbiter in these cases and the congress enacts laws within constitutional limits that punishes and seeks to control their use.

Wal-Mart is really a good example. They are huge; they can buy in bulk and at lower prices,
They do tend to run out of business small marginal businesses that compete with them.

On the other side, they bring low prices, inventory, taxes, payrolls, healthcare, and jobs. As long as they compete fairly I say leave them alone. And as for ruining the local businesses, studies show that the small stores that find other ways to compete and make a profit, (they offer better customer service, convenience, they specialized). The bottom line is that those that do stay in business are more profitable, better run, and financially stronger than before Wal-Mart came to the area. Again if and when economic pressures begin to build Wal-Mart will find itself in completion from others, or perhaps we will see a basic change in technology that takes away Wal-Mart’s advantages or makes them a liability.

Free trade by free men is not extreme. It’s the foundation of our basic rights as individuals.

There were depressions prior to the advent of the Federal Reserve system. The federal reserve wasn't created to eliminate fluctuations in the business cycle, but rather ease their effects. You can look at the panics of the late 1800's and early 1900's prior to the creation of the Fed to prove my point. Business and capitalism, even if you ask any student of business history, was ruthless during this period.

Stock brokers don't make money when the market does nothing. Up or down, they still get their commission on trades. This crash was just companies using high leverage on bad investments blowing up on them. Yes, it was during the Clinton administration that enacted programs to essentially give homes to people who didn't deserve them, but it was extreme speculation on the belief that people would pay that ruined these bankers. All of their algorithms and quant analysts forgot one factor when attempting to quantify mathematically the risk of a particular security...what if I just don't wanna pay for my house? What if I just walk away?

The free market works fine in theory, it makes excellent sense if everyone has all available information to them. In the real world, we don't know everything, and efficient allocation is useless, because of greed, dishonesty and the pursuit of profit at another's expense.

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Capitalism creates a lot of junk we don't need, huge demands for pornography and drugs and not enough food, housing and heat to go around.
Somebody has to look at the big picture or we will all be freezing our butts off eating Cheetos, drinking beer and watching porn until our eyes fall out.

If you give rats coc aine they will continue eating it until they eventually die. Sorry to say...we are like those rats. Greater, balanced and more reasonable decisions must prevail or Capitalism is going to kill us.

While we're tossing out gross mischaracterizations, I would think it would be appropriate to say that communism creates state-ran baby farms that produce mindless drone-children who grow up to become vodka swilling dolts. Oh yeah...they also eat mostly potatos and women's dresses are made from the potato sacks. Most of the houses in a communist country are made of concrete. There are suicide booths on every corner. 90% of all the deaths are either suicides or from government firing squads. And if you get shot by the firing squads, the state bills your family for the cost of the bullet.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by RKWWWW]

Look, what we need is PLANNING. And something different than what we've got. I don't need your horror stories. If you want to take some fantastical leap to some dark corner of your imagination and equate addressing the basic needs of the populace, with "communism" and firing squads...well, I can't argue with you....so

Let's just call capitalism what it is..."worship of the almighty dollar."

I can live with it - if we can call it what it is.

reply to post by endisnighe


Nice post end - star!

I do not agree with the creation of the fed, ironically enough it was a privatization, which is normal an optimal choice for conservativesque folk as opposed to federalization/socialization. However I am glad you and I can agree on this 100%, certainly was not the act of a sane president or government.

depression

But let us look at the basics - men bought up great portions of various sectors, dumped, created a panic and it cascaded from there - correct???

If so how would an unfettered market have prevented it in the first place?

Explain that end... Cause I do not get how a free market would have prevented this collusion. Explain with coherence how doing nothing would have changed things, I cannot fathom it, but maybe you do.



[edit on 31-12-2009 by Janky Red]

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Phedreus
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Wal-Mart is really a good example. They are huge; they can buy in bulk and at lower prices,
They do tend to run out of business small marginal businesses that compete with them.

On the other side, they bring low prices, inventory, taxes, payrolls, healthcare, and jobs. As long as they compete fairly I say leave them alone. And as for ruining the local businesses, studies show that the small stores that find other ways to compete and make a profit, (they offer better customer service, convenience, they specialized). The bottom line is that those that do stay in business are more profitable, better run, and financially stronger than before Wal-Mart came to the area. Again if and when economic pressures begin to build Wal-Mart will find itself in completion from others, or perhaps we will see a basic change in technology that takes away Wal-Mart’s advantages or makes them a liability.

Free trade by free men is not extreme. It’s the foundation of our basic rights as individuals.

But you do realize your notion of free trade as proposed is extended to Saudi's, Chinese, Mexicans you name it. Dealing in junk, derivatives, capital manipulation, etc...
This is all part and parcel of the free market you guys are championing. Hence the word free... So what makes you or anyone else think that manipulation of the market will not go into double overtime. Buy up, sell short, repeat, with impunity-

I will repeat and ask you to explain

what free market principle will prevent the richest from buying up, short selling
and destabilizing the market for unheard of profit?

They would be in theory free to do that correct?

Please explain that, please

On to Walmart - I am placing a judgement on Walmart based upon observations.
Walmart is NOT a good force in America IMO - they practice what I mentioned above.
Come into a community, take a hit on profits in order to starve off the other business's,
eventually the community becomes indentured to walmart as there is NO other feasible option for goods or employment in the area. So these people are free to
MOVE? STARVE or capitulate? One stop one choice, no government interference and we have a virtual monopoly to small to raise eyebrows - All chinese junk because that is all they sell and all people can afford... So it surely is a win win for China IMO

then we have this, just to rub it in

healthcare which is then passed off onto the tax payers, because they distribute all the jobs and set all the wages which exclude a sum to even consider private healthcare.

www2.nbc4i.com...

Not my idea of freedom, hey, but its legal right? You apply this principle across the board and then tell me of the freedom YOU will maintain.

Capitalism creates monopolies.

Where Wal-Mart enter a neighbourhood and the Mom-And-Pop stores go out of business, there is no competition to Wal-Mart : A Monopoly.

Watch Dave Gorman's "America Unchained" : a documentary where a man attempts to drive across America without visiting one single chain outlet. He fails.

Wal-Mart - Microsoft - Ticketmaster/LiveNation : monopolies one and all.

Capitalism is a monopoly as well.

reply to post by mnemeth1

You are so right.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the government bailouts of companies "that were too big to fail." The misguided politicians only mad the situation worse.

If a company is "too big to fail" that is a sign that market forces should break it up (not the government).

reply to post by Janky Red

When Wal-Mart was run by Sam Walton, they advertised that they bought American to sell whenever possible. Now, I doubt that they could run an ad featuring American made products. And that is not entirely their fault.

reply to post by Janky Red


Okay, another component to the problem of the global economy is the global economy.

Centralization of the economy has caused the very problems of the huge cyclical or harmonics (per se) of the economy.

Centralization or globalization has caused the very ripple effects that permeate our current problems. A question to ask here is, has China already hit the upswing or have they been able to remove themselves from the very global market that has caused this depression.(it is a depression-4 continuous quarters of declining GDP is the basic description of a depression-just because the gov dumped enough fiat money in the last quarter to squeak by a 2.2% increase does not bolster my current attitude toward the economy)

Now, for the problems of owners of stock dumping and causing problems in the markets. Decentralize the markets or institute a time requirement for the sale and purchase of these stocks. Also, these so-called derivatives, they are nothing tangible. These should never have been allowed to be traded. What do the markets actually produce? Absolutely nothing. Now we have Goldman Sachs(and other elitist controlled banking conglomerates) taking market manipulation to a new level. Making transactions in the 100's of millions in NANOSECONDS using software that has been stated in open court to be able to manipulate the markets.

Yes, totally uncontrolled markets are not the way to a secure marketplace. But neither is total control. Common sense attitudes and the market manipulating processes that are allowed now, need to be banned completely from the market.

Time controlled regulations is the safest bet to these market problems.

If it was to take say a two day process to make market purchases, none of the asshats that manipulate the market to make vast fortunes off of nothing but the manipulation, would be history.

I know i ventured to your other comment to another poster, but I feel common sense is the only way to proceed.

I feel the regulations and manipulations by our government institute the very problems that we now face.

K.I.S.S. Always remember that acronym.

When governments and lawyer's enact these draconian laws and statutes, they are not for the protection of the everyday man. They are installed to create the ability of conglomerate techniques to destroy competition and also to manipulate markets.

Foundations and Trusts need to be outlawed. These entities are another form of total control of assets without the overview of normal controls. Huge law firms are created just to hide and manipulate these things. Not for the betterment of any cause, only for the tax exempt status and manipulation as the norm.

Capitalism as a pure idea is good. The capitalism we exist under, is total dog poo. The only swear word the mods let me get by with.

The OP has been very forthright in his analogy. BUT, there is more to markets than just capitalism. There is the Tax controls, Centralization, Corporate laws, Foundations, Trusts, Banks and many other items to consider.

It seems everytime I get into a thread nowadays it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

I am beginning to like our discussions Janky.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Once the social net work devolves into a capitalistic enterprise there goes your source for reliable and free information. You will have to pay for information and you will never be sure the promoter is not editing it for you.

Can't wait until the money grab reaches the internet. See if you like Capitalism so much then.
Capitalism without wisdom levels mountains for ore, razes rain forests for lumber and uses humans as live guinea pigs, to test products.

Soon we will have nothing left to cut down and sell off. This is equivalent to a person selling their eyes, heart and lungs. You can't sell what you are using.

Not when the Capitalism is manufacturer driven and not "people driven."

When the company that makes something is the largest determining factor whether an item sells, i.e. costly and effective marketing, this does nothing for the people.

It corrals them for plucking.

What the people want should be the first concern of Capitalism not controlling and guiding and directing what the people get (or see) and there for what they want.

I think the following is an example of a Capitalist ponzi scheme on a par with anything Bernie Madoff is guilty of happening in plain sight.

Drug manufacturers.
Most people do not need drugs of any kind because what ever their body needs to readjust to a healthy state can be found in food.

Drug manufacturers find these components in food isolate them and sell them back to people as drugs after a few opaque "clinical trials."

There is a medical treatment for a lite facial peel that has lactose as the active ingredient in it. You can accomplish the same thing with buttermilk instead of spending thousands on this treatment.
There is a popular prescription cholesterol lowering medicine - the active ingredient is derived from processing and picking out isolated components in oat bran.

This isn't better. It is just bankrupting the country and taking peoples money.
And drug related complications kill innocent people all the time.
Overuse of prescription drugs is among the nations top causes of premature death.

But this is preferable to "socialism?"

What do you call socialism anyway...?
Is that where you DON'T allow the free markets to kill the people you get in there with a military and do it yourself?

Call it Capitalism, free markets or whatever you want but killing people and taking their money is just killing people and taking their money.

This money could go back into the economy, improving the quality of life in meaningful ways instead of filling drug makers pockets.

GWB as a favor to the drug companies passed the largest spending initiative in the Senior Prescription Drug Program. The Sr Prescription Drug program did some questionable good for a great many people however in its implementation it also went over board, enabling Drug Manufacturers to aim deceptive and fear based advertising to seniors and sell them a vast array of prescription drugs, mobility chairs and medical supplies....many they do not and would not need with preventative health, life style and diet measures as the emphasis, not Capitalism.

For example there are programs that deliver diabetes supplies to your house.
God forbid anyone suggest these folks give up sugar.

The commercial for the Hover round says we'll work with Medicare and your insurance company to get you your hover round ABSOLUTELY FREE. Taxpayers are paying for it.

If the market were PEOPLE DRIVEN
rather than manufacturer driven...Capitalism would work

But I think in many of the things we see going on around us...the decisions were made behind closed doors and SOCIETY DIDN'T actually HAVE A SAY about it until it was already half way down their throat.