What Capitalism Isn't

reply to post by drwizardphd


because:

1. no natural monopoly has ever been recorded in the history of the modern world.

2. market forces prevent monopolies from forming.

Therefore, we can say natural monopolies don't exist. All monopolies require the force of government to implement and maintain.

All of them.



of course, that's not the only video I have on the subject of monopolies.

Here's a few more.

And I can produce an epic amount of peer reviewed journal articles, books, lectures, and any other evidence you'd like to see on the historical facts about monopolies.




[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

1. no natural monopoly has ever been recorded in the history of the modern world.

This is incorrect.

Historical example

Such a process happened in the water industry in nineteenth century Britain. Up until the mid-nineteenth century, Parliament discouraged municipal involvement in water supply; in 1851, private companies had 60% of the market. Competition amongst the companies in larger industrial towns lowered profit margins, as companies were less able to charge a sufficient price for installation of networks in new areas. In areas with direct competition (with two sets of mains), usually at the edge of companies' territories, profit margins were lowest of all. Such situations resulted in higher costs and lower efficiency, as two networks, neither used to capacity, were used. With a limited number of households that could afford their services, expansion of networks slowed, and many companies were barely profitable. With a lack of water and sanitation claiming thousands of lives in periodic epidemics, municipalisation proceeded rapidly after 1860, and municipalities were able to raise finance for investment, which private companies often could not. A few well-run private companies that worked together with local towns and cities (gaining legal monopolies and thereby the financial security to invest as required) did survive, providing around 20% of the population with water even today. The rest of the water industry in England and Wales was reprivatised in the form of 10 regional monopolies in 1989.

Natural Monopoly

Originally posted by mnemeth1
2. market forces prevent monopolies from forming.

This answer is vague and incomplete.


Why do you believe "market forces" prevent monopolies from forming? What "market forces", precisely? If such market forces are supposed to prevent the formation of monopolies, why have natural monopolies formed in the past? Why is regulation of some form almost always implemented to prevent the formation of monopolies, if "market forces" will sufficiently do the job?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Therefore, we can say natural monopolies don't exist. All monopolies require the force of government to implement and maintain.

All of them.

Why?

Again, you aren't backing up or enforcing your claims, you are only making additional unsubstantiated claims to support your earlier unsubstantiated claims.

reply to post by drwizardphd


Did you even read the example you just posted?

With a limited number of households that could afford their services, expansion of networks slowed, and many companies were barely profitable.

ompetition amongst the companies in larger industrial towns lowered profit margins

And that's from the 1850's

Nothing other than this?

This is the best historical example you can find?

But lets go on:

municipalisation proceeded rapidly after 1860, and municipalities were able to raise finance for investment, which private companies often could not. A few well-run private companies that worked together with local towns and cities (gaining legal monopolies and thereby the financial security to invest as required) did survive, providing around 20% of the population with water even today

So because they couldn't get enough of a profit due to competition, they sought out a government sanctioned monopoly.

Well golly gee, doesn't that go to prove my point?

That's the best you got?


[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1


So because they couldn't get enough of a profit due to competition, they sought out a government sanctioned monopoly.

Well golly gee, doesn't that go to prove my point?

No. Because thousands of people died after the naturally monopolized water industry failed to provide affordable plumbing to vast amounts of people, the government stepped in and municipalised (placed under control of the local government) water so that citizens could again have affordable access to it.

Was that really so difficult to understand? If the example doesn't satisfy you then perhaps the famous Bell Telephone monopoly here in America during the late 19th century will suffice. Even highschool students should be familiar with that one.


And you have still failed to address my original question:

Why do you believe that a monopoly cannot form under capitalism? What exactly are the "market forces" that you claim will prevent such a monopoly, and why have they failed to prevent monopolies in the past?

reply to post by drwizardphd


Dude, I know its difficult, but try for me here.

Explain how there was a natural monopoly if there was so much competition that the private suppliers couldn't make a profit.

Oh, and Bell Telephone was a government sanctioned monopoly.

The telephone monopoly, however, has been anything but natural. Overlooked in the textbooks is the extent to which federal and state governmental actions throughout this century helped build the AT&T or "Bell system" monopoly. As Robert Crandall (1991: 41) noted, "Despite the popular belief that the telephone network is a natural monopoly, the AT&T monopoly survived until the 1980s not because of its naturalness but because of overt government policy."

Indeed, a chronological review of the industry's development produces an indisputable conclusion--at no time during the development of the Bell monopoly did government not play a role in fostering a monopolistic system.

That Bell article is from a peer reviewed journal by the way. Its all sourced and footnoted if you wish to dig deeper.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1


Dude, I know its difficult, but try for me here.

Explain how there was a natural monopoly if there was so much competition that the private suppliers couldn't make a profit.

Really?

You really don't understand this?

It's quite simple:

1. Privatized water companies set up infrastructure.
2. Limited availability of infrastructure results in monopolized use of infrastructure. (One or two water companies per city).
3. Under-use of infrastructure results in lowered profit margins (note: they were still making profits).
4. Lowered profit margins lead to increased costs.
5. Increased costs lead to only wealthier citizens being able to afford water.
6. Lack of available water leads to sickness and death.


Since you are still harping about my example and have thus far refused to answer any of my simple questions, am I safe in assuming that you do not have an answer for those questions?

If you do not wish to even discuss the points you make, why did you bother to start this thread? This is a discussion forum, after all.

reply to post by drwizardphd


competition lowering profit margins... What was that quote again?

competition amongst the companies in larger industrial towns lowered profit margins

So what you are saying is that they couldn't raise prices because competition prevented them from doing so, ergo, there was no monopoly.

I'm not answering your other questions because the videos posted already answered them.

If you refuse to watch them, I'm not going to write a novel explaining them.


How does that example jive with the definition of a monopoly you just posted?

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

It doesn't.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

competition lowering profit margins...

...

Originally posted by drwizardphd
3. Under-use of infrastructure results in lowered profit margins (note: they were still making profits).

If you can't even properly read what I wrote, what hope is there for discourse?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm not answering your other questions because the videos posted already answered them.

If you refuse to watch them, I'm not going to write a novel explaining them.

I asked you a very short question, and your reply was to post an hour-long youtube video by some guy no one has ever heard of. If you can't even answer such a simple question in your own words, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?



EDIT to add: I've noticed you've edited just about every one of your replies substantially after I have already responded to them. It is proper etiquette to signify edited material in the manner I have done. Otherwise it becomes very confusing looking over your posts to figure out what is new and what is old. Off topic, I know. I am just trying to help out so in the future people understand you better. If you wish to address entirely new points, don't edit them into your old posts, create a new one.

If you do edit something in, notify the reader as such. Or else things just get muddied and disorienting.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by drwizardphd]

reply to post by drwizardphd


what you wrote is fiction

what the article said was:

competition amongst the companies in larger industrial towns lowered profit margins

ergo, no monopoly.

The question is short, the answer is not. This is why I posted videos.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Possession 'rights' by themselves are completely arbitrary.
They have no intrinsic virtue, character or 'honor'.

If a state recognizes them as 'official' it is an inherent subsidy by government for the benefit/profit of 'owners' at the expense of taxpayers.

In otherwords,

While an honest tyrant would have to pay for his own henchmen,

In 'Capitalism' the deceptive tyrants get to force the taxpayers/peons to pay for their henchmen [police, lawyers, judges, etc.].

Capitalism is inherently a taxpayer subsidized form of government for the benefit of prior possessors.

So not only do they get the benefit of tyranny of property, they also force someone else to sustain the defense of that possession tyranny.

Capitalism is a more deceptive, more treacherous, more parasitic form of tyranny.

[sidenote: 'Acquisition' or 'Creation', as a secondary action of capitalism, does have some, potential points of merit.
But i don't think that was your point of topic.]

Additionally currencies/script used to be issued by banks, probably in most cases as a vehicle of expanding the money supply & managing to profit from it.

Some communities in America still offer & trade in token script.

You have assumed that 'capitalism' makes the supply & stable value maintenance of currency the function of government.
This can not be done without incurring overhead costs.
So either there must be taxes, or the government must at the very least be a non-profit, but self-supporting banking institution.
How you would expect even a non-profit banking institution to be self-supporting & solvent, without the ability to establish minimally necessary interest rates begs logic pretty badly.

Honestly people who are so pre-in-the-bag for capitalism who haven't even considered its fundamental [non-]basis is mind bogglingly sad.

Please examine the deep facts of capitalism before you blindly, recklessly & suicidally espouse it supposed 'virtues'.

reply to post by slank


I'm not sure what definition of capitalism you are going by, but capitalism doesn't require a State at all.

In fact most Austrian economists are anarchists.

So all this state interference you keep brining up has nothing to do with capitalism.

Perhaps more concisely:

'Honest' Capitalism is a government subsidy of arbitrary property ownership done at the expense of taxpayers.

And when it is no longer arbitrary & instead 'selective' it becomes nothing more than highway robbery behind the pretense of 'government official proprieties',

Making what we have today, which is Dishonest Capitalism.

Although 'dishonest capitalism' may be simply a self-redundant term.

Arguably, even the oxymoron of 'honest capitalism' is an impediment to the flow of wealth, or economic activity,

as well as blocking whole new paradigms of operation.

It blocks people's freedom of choice in how they choose to relate to or interact with one another.

You are the one talking about the state's requirement to create & keep stable currency.

So which side of your mouth are you talking out of now?

Protection of private property rights, where a person can use their property as they see fit.

Protection of private property rights, where a person gets to keep what they produce (money).

Protection of private contracts, where people are free to negotiate voluntary contracts with each other and have the courts uphold those contracts.

Free markets, where people can voluntarily exchange goods and services with each other as they see fit.

Protection of money's value, where those who counterfeit and artificially inflate the money supply are charged with a crime, rather than be rewarded with profits.

What EXACTLY is all that if not some kind of prescription for government?
Courts?
Common currency/currencies?
Protection of money's value?
Charged with crimes?

So you are going to have to get on one side or the other of your fabricated nonsense, OK?

Either it is an 'official' government 'system',

or it is the law of the jungle.

Please make up your darn mind.

Quit babbling POMPOUS nonsense.

edit: to add 'pompous'

[edit on 26-7-2010 by slank]

tangent thought/idea/question:

Isn't government a form of conspiracy?

Most notably against naturally occurring anarchy?

by some number or proportion of people?

isn't an agreement a conspiracy of sorts?

I mean it is all very contrived, manipulated. An attempt to impose a less activated operational context.
Do we get this idealized notion of pure & pious governance from religion or does it perhaps run deeper to genetic persuasion?

How well thought out is our notion of governance or government anyway?
What is the purpose(s)? consequence(s)?
What are the acceptable means?
What are the unacceptable means?
When does the expense of it outweigh the purpose(s)?

How well do we monitor the benefits, changes, projections, problems that result from its implementation?

[edit on 26-7-2010 by slank]

reply to post by mnemeth1

because: 1. no natural monopoly has ever been recorded in the history of the modern world. 2. market forces prevent monopolies from forming. Therefore, we can say natural monopolies don't exist. All monopolies require the force of government to implement and maintain. All of them.

What the hell is a natural monopoly, All monopoly's take some work and time to come into being, they don't happen naturally not unless a force totally out of this world comes, then it can create a monopoly for good or bad but most likely for both good and bad... Are you saying you wish to get rid of government...That is unsane for such that live in such huge populated groups...then all you would be left with is whatever ideology or rhetoric is the biggest when governance stops...So basically take your pick tyranny of capitalism tyranny of socialism or communism. Or if you prefer a aristocracy and religious institution. And all of these require the force of government to even be in "existence" much less implement in to a monopoly. Capitalists and communists are a group of people with interests in government to support there way of life or as they say now "to get paid", it's a system..... Capitalism just means not having other powers interfere with trade so as to create a tyranny "the cornering of goods". Communism and Socialism have the same basic meaning only different function. Its a trio of systems in government Capitalizing by way of Socializing for the Communion of self and group... The only way to do that is to govern all within a "balance" so none gets the total upper hand, there by creating a tyranny... special interests... are the beginning of a tyranny for a special group or ideology.....

Why do you think they all go to Washington DC...Its in there interest all these groups live off of each other including the process of government at the end being a capitalist just means your in your own interest.... thereby its the most honest of ideology's... but still a ideology. The will to power is in all of them....And government and governance is playing chess and keeping all in checkmate...so as the world can move forward. It was build to attract all the idolaters and ideology's and processes and those that process governance... in one coherence and thereby governing. Like I said "government either governs or is governed" governs meaning in balance.. governed meaning out of balance......And it looks like the international Fascists and corporation have the upper hand...so government is governed... till they can get rid of government... basically free there hands totally... to control the other factions and become all encompassing. Thereby the special interests in government and whoever owns the international companies becoming a aristocracy. And the rest get to play under there rules but there will be little governing only rules one must adhere to or else. We are all capitalists. Individually or collectively in groups with interests.


But I got to admit your idea of getting rid of government is interesting. And it could be done. But exactly why or what for...I mean other then if you have a special interest in it not being around. Then it wouldn't be in ones interest while you live in a society... and aren't going to be part of the group of the next society that comes into power, you will basically be under there control/thumb. But it has happened before in the past so I guess it could happen in the future...It could be interesting times especially with the tech now a days.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by galadofwarthethird]

reply to post by slank



All good questions..

Isn't government a form of conspiracy?

seems like there is some conspiracy in government. So I would think that on some level yes.

Most notably against naturally occurring anarchy?

Ya hence governing. It seems to be its basic function.

by some number or proportion of people?

Well they seem to be attracted to government. Almost like they gravitate around it.

isn't an agreement a conspiracy of sorts?

Seems like government agrees to conspire a lot or it could be the subsidiaries that are part of government. Either way only if you agree to conspire.

I mean it is all very contrived, manipulated. An attempt to impose a less activated operational context. Do we get this idealized notion of pure & pious governance from religion or does it perhaps run deeper to genetic persuasion?

From my experience we are herd animals ever since we came down from trees and even then we were in groups for survival.. So I would say its more in our genes and subconscious and religion was a ideology of survival at a time in the past. It has both deteriorated and advanced us in some ways.

How well thought out is our notion of governance or government anyway? What is the purpose(s)? consequence(s)? What are the acceptable means? What are the unacceptable means? When does the expense of it outweigh the purpose(s)?

It seems like we go with what works till painfully it does not work then we move on.
Purpose survival and other things but mostly survival one would assume.
Consequences who knows but there are always consequences.
Acceptable means ahh now there is a good question I havent thought much into but im guessing it depends on who you ask and what is withing there means.
Unacceptable means, most likely your neighbors acceptable means.
When doesn't the expense outweigh the purpose, it seems like most times it outweighs it.

How well do we monitor the benefits, changes, projections, problems that result from its implementation?

Only in what we can see its a minds eye type of thing...improvising it seems like..always improvising..for worser or better. Some things remain constant but those are hard to see, to creature that are always improvising.


Interesting questions I wonder if any of them can be totally known..I guess we need more opinions on them to see a different take.




[edit on 26-7-2010 by galadofwarthethird]

Originally posted by slank
Either it is an 'official' government 'system',

or it is the law of the jungle.

Please make up your darn mind.

Quit babbling POMPOUS nonsense.

edit: to add 'pompous'

[edit on 26-7-2010 by slank]

no.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Well you may be flustered to know that you're speaking with somewhat of an anarcho-primitivist.

Hey that's OK, nothing wrong with that ideology and with a socialist economy, using common law, you would be free to be as primitive as you want.

However, I believe that to realistically transition to holistically sustainable and functional Anarchist societies we must be able to freely experiment with ALL of the forms/theories/combinations of Anarchism... and though I hate to say it, even Anarcho-Capitalism. Now I agree that Anarcho-Capitalism is essentially a quasi-Anarchism recently formed by Libertarians with more ideological balls. However... most of them take on a willful ignorance of the most widely accepted and prominent forms of Anarchism as seen in Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarcho-communism, etc. as well as ignorance of the conflicts/contradictions between Capitalism and true Anarchism. I personally believe that such inherent contradictions within Anarcho-Capitalist thought will cause its failure... all the more reason to let Anarcho-Capitalists experiment with it- if it works as a viable Anarchist alternative then good, if not then no biggy we were correct and they can learn for themselves that a different form of Anarchism is necessary.

I agree with your assessment, but we've seen what capitalism has done, why should we trust it will be any better without government?
But it wouldn't ever happen anyway, real capitalists need the state system to control the population and protect their assets. Without the state they couldn't hold a monopoly on the ownership of the means of production, and the workers would start to control their own places of work and naturally collectivize for the betterment of them all. This happens all the time in times of crises.

I am a firm believer though, that a diversity of cultures is necessary in a post-state world. We cannot yet argue that ONE form alone is acceptable over all others when a functional/sustainable Anarchist world may include (and even NEED) many forms of society (even non-Anarchist ones). Biological diversity is preferable in the wild and in the course of evolution, I believe cultures work the somewhat the same way. This is why uniform GM crops are dangerous... one weakness is exploited and ALL are wiped out. Whereas a diversity of cultures (as a diversity of genetics in crops/flora) can collectively resist total annihilation with a diversity of regionally developed strengths/weaknesses.

But we're not talking culture, that is a separate issue, we're talking about economy and the supply of needed resources. Without that their is no culture.

Of course, I'm speaking of lofty goals/visions, but if we are to take our knowledge, ideals, and futures seriously we must consider the lofty and radical... because as we all know, this is ALREADY a very radical and lofty society we live in. Outside of an environmental/circumstantial necessity, I believe that breathing room and reasonable opportunity should be allowed and even provided in society for experimentation with alternative forms of society, including and especially Anarchist ones. Of course there are many historical and occurring examples of de-facto Anarchism we can look to... however I think that we can also foster/foment more concentrated and deliberate sovereign experimentations with Anarchism within nation-states. Though I'm sure asking the state to subsidize or otherwise allow experimental alternatives to itself will be quite a difficult task, for a variety of reasons.

Well again when the owners of the means of production are onto a good thing for themselves, they're not about to give it up. Power over people is better than any drug to some.

My personal view within Anarchism is that the bulk of science supports sustainable human societies in the form of more primitive tribes. The bottom line is that we MUST consume less resources and we MUST halt unsustainable population growth. I don't know that even Anarcho-syndicalism addresses this sufficiently as it seems to continue industrialization albeit without the tyrannies of hierarchy/Capitalism (except perhaps towards the natural environment). That means we may have to give up some useless or destructive modern conveniences/luxuries... but it also means we can regain some crucial things that were lost long ago for which humans yearn for (even if they can't put their finger on what exactly). I don't know if the entire WORLD has to reduce consumption... I'm sure the planet can sustain a small portion of the world living unsustainably, but the problem we face is that TOO MANY people are living unsustainably. That's why... in our future Anarchist world, I call for a continuation/isolation of futurism, transhumanism, space exploration, advanced technology and magnificent cities on the island of Japan so that we may all visit from time to time and continue to enjoy and learn of scientific marvels.

And again it's capitalism and the never ending need to make profit for the private owner that keeps us producing crap that does no one any good, because someone is willing to buy it, when we could be producing food for starving people.

[edit on 7/26/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
The idea of right wing equaling limited government is complete BS and an American re-writing of history. There is nothing to support that claim. Go anywhere else in the world and tell them you're 'right-wing' and they'll get the impression you are a jack-booted, authoritarian, nazi sympathizer.

Look at the history of Europe, where fascism was very popular for awhile, and show me where they reduced government.

Look for Mussolini, Franco, Hitler...

American rewritting history BS, the United States was started under the auspices of limited government, it has been with the implementation of Socialist policies that the government has grown so much.

Mussolini's authoritarian government included SOCIAL REFORM, which goes against "rightwing ideology"... not to mention that HItler WAS A SOCIALIST, and not a rightwing, but that is a Socialist rewritting history he obviously doesn't know about.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of todays capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

Every policy of Hitler was Socialist...heck he was even an environmentalist...

The only one in that group which might be viewed as "rightwing" was Franco, and his ideology has NOTHING to do with Republicanism...

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is not authority controlling everything, it is a system where the workers control everything collectively, as in worker cooperatives.

First you need to learn your history if you are going to discuss this topic.

In Socialism THE STATE claims to represent the people but it doesnt... when "everything" is owned collectively IT DOESN'T BELONG TO ANYONE, and only a small group get to choose what you can get, and that small group is the state...

Originally posted by ANOK

When you work at joe blows factory you do not own what you produce, joe blow does.

...of course you don't because you are working in the building which is owned by "joe blows"...and you are making something out of materials which "joe blows" owns... You are being paid to produce something which you don't own... But if you owned the materials, or if you invent something, and if you harvest somehting in your land YOU own it...

Again a Socialist, or worse, trying to rewrite history...

Originally posted by ANOK

Capitalism itself is a central authority and without government it simply can not work because capitalism has to protect it's interests.
What would stop the workers from taking over their work places? Why would we sit around broke when we could take over the means of production and take the profits for ourselves?

Your so called utopia of Socialism cannot exist without a government, hence why it always gets stucked with a bunch of Socialist dictators instead of producing the "heaven" you people keep claiming comes from it...

Originally posted by ANOK

None of those countries were socialist. See if you new what socialism was, and not what you're told by capitalists, then you would be able to use your gray matter and figure out what is what. It's really not that hard.

None of those countries were worker controlled, they had a state, a government, capitalism, and a dictator. That is NOT socialism.

Again, a new Socialist who is ignoring history because he thinks, like so many before him, that his utopia leads to heaven...

Obviously you haven't read Marx, and his thugs... and of course you have to give links from Socialists, or worse, which always like to claim "the people are in power"...

BTW buddy, for the 100th time, I was born in Cuba, i experienced and lived Socialism, something which obviously you haven't done. No book of yours is going to show me anything new abut Socialism...

In Socialism individuality is frowned upon for the "collective", and this in turn takes away the right of every individual, which means the entire nation is under a dictatorship where the state claims to represent the people and does what it claims is for the good of all... That's what happens in China, Cuba, Vietnam, and EVERY other country that takes the "Socialist/Communist road"...

Originally posted by ANOK
The only time socialism was really tried was in Spain in the 1930's when the workers collectivized the work places and production raised by 20%.

Oh boy... You truly have no idea of what you are talking about... Why do you think the so called "second republic of Spain didn't last so long?... because everyone was happy including the regular people?... The secular movement that came with the second republic of Spain, which was not democratic in any way, caused for leftists to attack religious people which which happened to be the mayority.

Angry mobs attacked religious people, which btw in case you didn't know Catholics have ALWAYS been a mayority in Spain, and churches in general which exarcerbated the conditions that led to the second civil war in Spain but which Fraco took advantage of.




[edit on 28-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]