It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

page: 13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian the least they are watched and held to scrutiny over their actions, as for the corporations that control and dictate alot of the markets, in an unregulated capitalistic system nobody can hold them accountable or simply "vote them out".

I think this is where I will jump in. I am probably over my head but one cannot learn if one does not engage right?

While it is true that a governmental body such as the one in the United States is held accountable to the People, to also say that a business is also not held accountable is removing a lot of factors.

Businesses and corporations are held accountable by the market. A business in a heavily regulated market, which most likely favors their business over their competitors, has an undue advantage and have been removed from the accountability of market forces such as supply and demand.

In an unregulated market, the supply is regulated by the demand that is placed upon that supply.

With the massive amounts of regulations that are currently in place in regards to corporations and business, the market tries to correct itself but is not allowed to because of those regulations. Consequences also do not stay within the sphere of that market and will spill over into compliment markets and viable alternative markets.

In an unregulated capitalist system the corporations dimishing opportunities and reserving their spot in the top by creating barriers cannot be held accountable.

This is only accomplished by retaining favoritism via regulations not the other way around.

In an unregulated market, competition is more widespread as it has the widest arms open for more players. Corporations and businesses themselves push for regulations as to create a business and market advantage. Rather than relying upon their goods and services they provide, the use the strong arm of regulation to gain the upper hand thus creating the barriers.

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

I understand the profit=zero issue.

That, however, doesnt address the question, which is, if you are opposed to all use of force, except for force to ensure property rights and civil rights, how can the market ever really reach the "perfect competition" level?

How do you get to the place where perfect competition could exist by enforcing all the gains made by imperfect competition?

As an example, say I, somehow, managed to swindle the "property right" to all rainwater before we did away with the old system. (Dont laugh, its been attempted) how can anyone else ever compete with me? I am in effect a monopoly on precipitation, and I can charge whatever I see fit for the rain to fall on your crops. Or, all the arable land in some region, or all standing fresh water, or whatever.

If we enforce property rights, and someone has come in and used the laws they have written to say "all mine" how can any perfect competition arise in those circumstances? Isnt that in effect, why the aristocracies were overthrown in many places? Because the people realized that if the few owned virtually everything, the many could never do anything other than pay ever increasing rents? (Grossly oversimplified, of course)

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:42 PM

In a recent letter to investors, he said mistakes were made in the bank’s mortgage business, but cited “regulatory lapses” and errors by the ratings agencies as triggers of the mortgage debacle.

This from Mr. Dimon of JPMorgan. "regulatory lapses" .... So unregulated capitalism in this case stacked the decks, with failure for most and success for a few.

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by desert

Well, what lapses occurred? Could it be that banks reduced their debt to income ratios in order to comply with Federal regulations that wanted to see more 'poor' people own homes? Regardless if these people could pay back their mortgages or not!

The regulation can go both ways and this type of regulation is the type that government believes it has the power to use in order to bring about a social engineering attempt that they know they would never be able to do via Congress. Which isn't even capitalism.

Now I know there were more and probably ones that are in good faith as a regulation. I only speak of the one I know of that was a serious lapse on the government's part in regards to a lot of these banks.

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:58 PM
i think most people who rely on a secret caste within capitalism would be ashamed at accepting an open caste system based capitalism; and your post borders along the lines of expressing the truth about castes created and maintained due to capitalism.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:55 PM
Here you throw these words oppurtunity and success around almost like they have no meaning. We have all heard at least one story about somone who overcame great tribulations in their lives. Amazing feats of victory that just make you ponder how strong the human will can be when the desire to change things is strong enough.

We mostly come into this world with all the tools necessary to survive.
That is all we are suppose to do..survive. Everything else is created by us for whatever reasons. The laws exist to stop corporate/political corruption, but all too many as we know figured out how to break these rules. So I say its the operators of the capitolistic system, not the system itself.
Does trying to survive in an urban setting next to a few hundred thousand other people sound like an intelligent way of life?
Much like trying to survive in a desert or country setting, with no commerce.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Mailman]

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I understand the profit=zero issue.

That, however, doesnt address the question, which is, if you are opposed to all use of force, except for force to ensure property rights and civil rights, how can the market ever really reach the "perfect competition" level?

How do you get to the place where perfect competition could exist by enforcing all the gains made by imperfect competition?

Someone can't come in and buy up all the resources, its impossible.

Only government can accomplish that task, which it already has.

Right now the federal government is the largest land owner in the US. All that land the government owns is entirely unproductive. By holding all that land, that means private citizens can not put that land to work. Either by mining resources, drilling for resources, or harvesting it for resources.

When competition is allowed to work, corporations become self-limiting in size. A corporation that becomes too bloated will face difficulty in keeping its operation streamlined and flexible.

You don't need a perfectly competitive market to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and improve quality. The electronics market is the best example of this. The electronics market is largely unregulated. There is massive competition, massive innovation, and prices continue to fall even in the face of inflation. This is how ALL markets can work if government gets out of the way.

You show me a market where prices are increasing over time and I'll show you how government interference is solely responsible for that price increase.

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Ausar
i think most people who rely on a secret caste within capitalism would be ashamed at accepting an open caste system based capitalism; and your post borders along the lines of expressing the truth about castes created and maintained due to capitalism.

The alternative is a system which forces people into the same caste.

Leave people alone, let them prosper. Jealousy leads people to covet what is not theirs. You may envy those with more than you (in a higher caste as you put it), but there are hundreds of millions of people who envy what you have: internet, running water, electricity, stores with food, jobs. By not giving them what you have, you are part of maintaining a caste system which benefits you.

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Govt's duty to protect their own industries and workers. If a shoe can be made and sold at $1 then why is the US incapable of doing so? It has the brains and the resources to do so, but why the need to instead import and sell at $2, by Wal Mart or anyone else?

The reason is simple! You live in a country with easy acess to internet, a robust power grid, running water, universities, cars, boats, aircraft, etc. An hour of your labor is worth a tremendous amount thanks to that infrastructure. It makes you more efficient than somebody living in Guatemala who can only really offer honest, unmechanized manual labor. To pay you to make clothes and kid's toys is inefficient - your labor is simply too expensive. You expect too much pay because your standard of living is so high.

The man in Guatemala, however, can produce these items for little money due to his lower standard of living. In fact, it actually gives him a competitive edge over you! While he makes things more more cheaply than you can, you can produce things he simply cannot. Those things might require electricity, a computer, a university education, etc.

By banning international commerce (as you suggest we do), you hurt so many. You hurt the consumer who wants to make his money go farther. You hurt the man in Guatemala who wants to give himself a better life. The man just wants a job. The only people you benefit (and temporarily at that) are those who have to compete with cheap labor. For the sake of the steel worker, you make everyone suffer. For the sake of the auto worker, you make everyone suffer. Let people be free.

If you had it your way, the U.S. never would have manufactured cars for fear of displacing the horse and buggy industry ...

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by downisreallyup
1) What is BEST for the individual in the short term is usually not BEST for the group in the long term. Maximizing local optimums usually cause a degradation in overall system performance.

2) Any degradation in overall group performance will have a negative impact on the individuals that make up that group.

Connect those two previous ideas logically and think about what it means.

It's like the example of a group of boy scouts walking on a path. If you put the fastest walker in front of the group, and the slowest walker in the back, which is the best case for the individuals, the group will suffer as it naturally spreads out. As time goes along, they will not be a group any more, and all the benefits of a group will be lost.

On the other hand, if you put the slowest walker in the front, which is not best for each individual, the group will stay together naturally. The group dynamics will be that the entire group will prodded along by the guy in the back to go as fast as they can, while still remaining a group over the long haul. Nobody, however, will be able to go faster than the slowest guy.

What is best for one is likely to be helpful to the group. If I'm doing good and accomplishing my goals, then I'm in a position where I can help others who I care about to accomplish their goals. This is why if you are in a rich country like the USA you are better off... because other people around you would be "getting the best for themselves".

The boy scout who walks ahead of the group is in danger of getting lost. It isn't best for him to get too far ahead. It is in his best interest to stay back with the group.

Why is it that "connections are everything" in this world? It is because the human race has evolved to where we care about our selves by caring for others. By helping others, we help our selves. That is why exclusively violence-free regulation works in the marketplace. We are interested in helping others out to some point, and when we make our purchases, most of us will factor in our effects on others just a little bit when making the purchases. And that is all that is needed... just a little bit of concern for others. Not a collectivist bending over backwards to force us to serve others... just a bit of voluntary concern is enough and I do think people have that.

I also believe that even if 25% of people in a society are extremely generous it is enough to make up for the 75% of those who are selfish. The 25% who are generous have a big chip... which is their helping of others. Their power is in withdrawing help from those who are by their view doing wrong. By exploiting an extensive network of connections, they can withdraw $100 worth of certain forms of help to specific people, which is a non-violent method when compared to using laws to extract $100 at gun point.

<< 10  11  12   >>

log in