Home | Community | Message Board


Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleIshmael
enthusiast

Registered: 10/29/99
Posts: 224
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #455276 - 11/11/01 08:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Your argument fails to take into account the tendencies of large corporations to become conglomerates - that is to assimilate other 'competitors' and thus, remove the source of competition. This is the main basis for a monopoly, not merely the legislative route (though I do not deny that it is in fact a well trod route). Government anti-trust laws are aligned primarily to deal with this method (which is why so many companies choose the legislative route). If we had no governmental interference in the form of anti-trust laws, the companies would go about this method of producing monopolies. But since we do, they utilize another method to produce the desired results. And this is important - Monolpolies are the /desired/ result. A concentration of power (translates to: 'capital' in the capitalist lexicon) inside an non-governmental, publically unaccountable entity.

I'll say it again, simply because I think it begs to be repeated: Capitalism's goal is to create powerful non-governmental entities - corporations and monopolies. And because it's the /goal/ capitalists will go about accomplishing it in whatever way they can. That includes /using/ the government towards that end.

Ish


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,839
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 46 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Ishmael]
    #456593 - 11/13/01 12:21 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Ishmael writes:

"Your argument fails to take into account the tendencies of large corporations to become conglomerates - that is to assimilate other 'competitors' and thus, remove the source of competition."

A conglomerate is not a monopoly, it is a conglomerate. A conglomerate cannot force me to join them. If I, as a toothpick maker, want to accept a buyout offer from MegaCorp, I will. If I don't want to, I won't, I will continue making toothpicks. Just because they WANT to assimilate me doesn't mean they can. It is MY choice either way.

"And this is important - Monolpolies are the /desired/ result."

Wrong. Profit is the desired result.

"I'll say it again, simply because I think it begs to be repeated: Capitalism's goal is to create powerful non-governmental entities - corporations and monopolies."

And I'll say it again, because it begs to be repeated: WRONG! A Capitalist's goal is to maximize return on his investment with as little risk and effort as possible. A monopoly does not guarantee maximization of profit: quite the reverse. In order to maintain a monopoly under pure Capitalism, a company has to be so excellent, operating under such a razor-thin profit margin, that it is unattractive for anyone else to try to compete. This is hardly maximization of profit. Maintaining a monopoly is a tremendous amount of effort... so much effort that no one has ever done it without government assistance. This is clearly not the best way to maximize ROI.

And, again, even IF one day someone actually establishes the first monopoly in the history of pure Capitalism, someone manages to be so excellent at making toothpicks that no one else wants to get into the toothpick business, WHO IS HARMED?

Whose rights are being violated? Nobody's. Whose tax dollars are being spent subsidizing an incompetent competitor just so the consumer has a choice of two brands of toothpicks to choose from? No one's.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offline-
newbie
Registered: 02/27/01
Posts: 11
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #458488 - 11/14/01 08:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

pinksharkmark, oh pinksharkmark...still caught up in your lonely Randian fantasy world? how cute :)

A more accurate term for Capitalism would be Market Stalinism - yet another bogus ideology that would bring much suffering to the world while power-hungry men attempt to initiate it from above & (of course) fail. Sound familiar? Good luck with your blueprint for humanity! I can see the ruins already.

Cheers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJammer
Computers areMORE Addictive!

Registered: 11/05/00
Posts: 3,998
Loc: (God's Country) - USA
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: Lallafa]
    #458498 - 11/14/01 08:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

The short and sweet: All I know is that you can count on US President Bill Gates to see to it that he always gets his way by brain-washing others to believe that a monoplisitic style business is good for the rest of us.

... never trust the greedy... big or small.


--------------------
>>Jammer>>


Edited by Jammer (11/14/01 08:54 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejihead
addict
Registered: 06/09/00
Posts: 399
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #458761 - 11/15/01 01:06 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Rockafeller? Mellon? Carnegie? let me give you a low-down. they didnt need subsidies. they held horizontal as well as vertical monopolies over their respective industries. For instance, when Rockafeller became powerful enough to control the railroads and set his own rates, he was able to cut his prices so much that he undercut all of the small oil distributers in the mid-west, forcing them to join or go bankrupt because of the simple fact that Rockafeller was able to produce on such a huge scale. He controlled the oil wells, the train cars, the refineries, and the outlets. the horizontal monopoly. sure, it was a good product, but eventually he would have owned all of amerika if the government hadnt stepped in.
using your toothpick analysis, when the toothpick company held that monopoly for a long enough time, they would take over the shipping involved in the wood and packaging materials, they would probably be able to outbid any prospective toothpick buyer for the natural resources (trees!) and operate on such a large scale that they could regionaly cut prices and manipulate the market enough to destroy and prospective competitors. also in this day and age, they would be such a brand name that no one would be able to compete in terms of recognition. of course, toothpicks are arnt a very good example, as they are so small and inexpensive that they can be generically made. but new technology for example, well, your argument falls to shit without laws. gooooooooooooooooooooooo syndicalists.



--------------------
kill white noise


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,839
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 46 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: jihead]
    #458850 - 11/15/01 02:07 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

jihead writes:

"using your toothpick analysis, when the toothpick company held that monopoly for a long enough time..."

What's to say they would hold it for longer than a few months?

"...they would take over the shipping involved in the wood and packaging materials..."

Why? What possible benefit would there be? Where would the capital come from to do so? This is an unsupported assertion.

"...they would probably be able to outbid any prospective toothpick buyer for the natural resources (trees!)..."

Again, why is that? Prove it.

"... and operate on such a large scale that they could regionaly cut prices and manipulate the market enough to destroy and prospective competitors."

Again, unwarranted assertions. And, even if they did, WHO IS HURT? A would-be competitor who made a wrong business decision. Not toothpick consumers. Just because someone WANTS to get into the toothpick business, there is no guarantee he will be any good at it.

"also in this day and age, they would be such a brand name that no one would be able to compete in terms of recognition."

Brand recognition does not guarantee a monopoly. Coca-Cola has a pretty darn excellent brand recognition, yet it does not hold a monopoly in the cola market. MacDonald's is pretty recognizable, yet it doesn't hold a monoply on the fast food hamburger market.

"but new technology for example, well, your argument falls to shit without laws."

Give me an example. Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly on operating systems. IBM doesn't hold a monopoly on personal computers. Sony doesn't hold a monopoly on game consoles. Panasonic doesn't hold a monopoly on televisions. Exactly what kind of high technology are you talking about that is available from only a single monopolistic supplier?

pinky



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,839
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 46 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: -]
    #458861 - 11/15/01 02:17 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

- writes:

"still caught up in your lonely Randian fantasy world?"

Ayn Rand didn't invent the concept of pure Capitalism, and it is not necessary to have read any of her work to understand how it operates.

"A more accurate term for Capitalism would be Market Stalinism"

Please explain what you mean. Stalin ruled by force. Capitalism outlaws the initiation of force in human affairs. How is Capitalism Stalinism?

"- yet another bogus ideology that would bring much suffering to the world..."

How so? Give me a specific example of how people dealing with each other voluntarily, as traders trading value for value, would bring suffering to the world?

"...while power-hungry men attempt to initiate it from above & (of course) fail."

I don't know what you are talking about, but it isn't Capitalism. Under Capitalism, government is restricted to the protection of individuals. Government has nothing to do with the economy whatsoever.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejihead
addict
Registered: 06/09/00
Posts: 399
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #460096 - 11/16/01 03:58 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

What's to say they would hold it for longer than a few months? "
why wouldnt it? you think competitors are going to spring up over night with the resources to start a competitor? fat chance.

"Why? What possible benefit would there be? Where would the capital come from to do so? This is an unsupported assertion. "
heres some second grade economics: if you control all aspects of production, you have a distince advantage over your competitors in that they are forced to pay market/retail value for sed services. that goes for the trees too. if you control all the wood used for making toothpicks, you have no competition. this isnt that hard.

"Again, unwarranted assertions. And, even if they did, WHO IS HURT? A would-be competitor who made a wrong business decision. Not toothpick consumers. Just because someone WANTS to get into the toothpick business, there is no guarantee he will be any good at it. "

of course, but what if someone is better at it but cant get a foothold in the market because he is squeezed out everytime he tries. you think we would be able to afford desktop computers in our homes if it wasnt for regulated competition?? IBM was the first to make computers and would have been able to out pace any competitors in pure capitalism because they would have been able to hold complete ownership rights to the patents. of course, without government grants and funding, we wouldnt have computers or the internet at all. but lets ignore that and remember that Adam Smith is always right.

"Brand recognition does not guarantee a monopoly. Coca-Cola has a pretty darn excellent brand recognition, yet it does not hold a monopoly in the cola market. MacDonald's is pretty recognizable, yet it doesn't hold a monoply on the fast food hamburger market. "

very much true, but if a company held a true monopoly, they would have enough money to out advertise any upstart competitor that isnt going to be able to afford commercials and billboards. you refer wayyyyy to much to companies in a our mixed system. if you really want to have abstract discussions, refer to abstract ideas, not examples in reality.
Give me an example. Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly on operating systems. IBM doesn't hold a monopoly on personal computers. Sony doesn't hold a monopoly on game consoles. Panasonic doesn't hold a monopoly on televisions. Exactly what kind of high technology are you talking about that is available from only a single monopolistic supplier? "

right, again, this is all under our current system, which protects smaller companies against monopoly. these have no relevance to a purely capitalist society, so dont even bring it up. if it wasnt for our patent laws, we would still be listening to RCA radios.




--------------------
kill white noise


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCrobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/04/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #461175 - 11/16/01 05:07 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

pink... Do you think that people are mature enough to act in a way they should, or in a way it is easier to them? You know that giving money with big interests is FORBIDEN in a most of the countries. You know why? That is because the SYSTEM protects the one who is in SHIT. Why? Because system have more use of the one, if the one is working fine under 30% interest in 30 years than under 100% interests in one year.

But, here come the bad guys (aka big coorporations which hold the monopoly over some things) who act in a parasitic way. They want as much money as they can get, and go on! In that way the SYSTEm goes backwards and everything goes to shit. So the whole system goes to SHIT*.


Monopoly. I do not know have ou ever runned some sort of bussines? But if you did, you will understand that established company is a way infront of you. If you want to take some market from them, the company will deciede to CRUSH you. And that is the way how their MONOPOLY acts. The monopoly does not mean you have the only PRODUCT in the world. It means that if somebody else tries to enter that market, wont succeed without a HUUUUUUGE amount of money.
And regular peron doen not have that HUUUUUUGE amount of money. And even if they did, the first hypothetical company can get more money and stay in that bussines.
All in all that thing tend to make ELITISTIC minority of the capitalists who RUN the world. And you turn out to be just a workingpower with low PAY.

According to the history, it seems that nowdays bad guys have learned that when things go to shit, people start the new SYSTEM. So they act in a shadow manner with fale democracy system and so on, wich is pretty obvious in the US.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offline-
newbie
Registered: 02/27/01
Posts: 11
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #463732 - 11/19/01 08:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

In reply to:

Ayn Rand didn't invent the concept of pure Capitalism, and it is not necessary to have read any of her
work to understand how it operates.




Quite right, but I never stated the contrary. Just pointing out your silly adherence to the psuedo-philosophy of Objectivism and how it has warped your logic.

In reply to:

Please explain what you mean. Stalin ruled by force. Capitalism outlaws the initiation of force in human
affairs. How is Capitalism Stalinism?




Never said Capitalism is Stalinism - rather I said it was Market Stalinism. I'll leave it up to you figure out the difference & what exactly that term means. Not that difficult.

In reply to:

How so? Give me a specific example of how people dealing with each other voluntarily, as traders trading
value for value, would bring suffering to the world?




Specific? Okay - Chile.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMeltingPenguin
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2,138
Loc: new england
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #473385 - 11/29/01 11:12 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

>The government will not stop him from doing so. NO ONE will stop him from doing so.


that is very untrue pink shark. If the first toothpick company i mob run, then the second one gonna experince a little trouble getting offa the ground


--------------------
Growing anything is good for the soul


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJimi Thing
member
Registered: 02/18/01
Posts: 34
Loc: Home - MD; School - PA
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: MeltingPenguin]
    #473423 - 11/29/01 12:05 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

This is a very interesting thread. Jihead makes some very good points about 19th century America and horizontal and vertical monopolies. Pinksharkmark also has some valid points on the ability of competition to spring up uninhibited. Well, I just thought I'd throw this out, see how you guys interpret this. In my home county Comcast Cable has a county-mandated monopoly. They have exclusive rights to the cable wires running on state phone polls, and have exclusive rights all cable business in the county. For the longest while they were the only alternative to regular rabbit ears, and one could expect the prices to rise fairly steadily. However, since they were a luxury, they still technically competed with regular rabbit ears and so would push special deals and lowered ratesevery so often. But for the most part they charged whatever they wanted. Now however, even though they still maintain their exclusive rights, they are starting to receive more and more competition from satellite dish companies now that their products are much more affordable. So, I've noticed Comcast's prices have remained fairly static over the last few years, and not only are they hawking more deals they also now actually have regular advertisments. It's a very interesting spin on the concept of monopolies and competition.

Anyway, I realize this is about pure capitalism, which the above example is obviously not a representative of. In my opinion nothing pure is good, but a balance of many economic systems are the best.


--------------------
Jizzout


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,839
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 46 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: -]
    #486789 - 12/11/01 02:16 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

- writes:

"Just pointing out your silly adherence to the psuedo-philosophy of Objectivism and how it has warped your logic."

The arguments I have used in this thread to defend pure Capitalism neither originated with Ayn Rand nor are unique to Objectivism. You have not pointed out any logical flaws in my statements, merely labelled me an Objectivist, implying that my statements therefore MUST be incorrect.

"Never said Capitalism is Stalinism - rather I said it was Market Stalinism. I'll leave it up to you figure out the difference & what exactly that term means. Not that difficult."

It is up to you to define your terms, not me. If my attempt to guess at exactly what you mean by "Market Stalinism" turns out to be incorrect, you will castigate me for putting words in your mouth. To prevent that, why not provide a definition?

"Specific? Okay - Chile. "

Are you seriously suggesting that anything even remotely resembling pure Capitalism ever existed in Chile? If so, you are in error.

You seem enamored of the standard Statist approach to debate; i.e. slinging buzzwords and catch phrases willy-nilly rather than using clarity and reason. Is it because you are incapable of refuting my points, or do you just lack the patience to articulate your arguments fully?

pinky









--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,839
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 46 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: jihead]
    #486827 - 12/11/01 02:49 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

jihead writes:

"you think competitors are going to spring up over night with the resources to start a competitor?"

It takes relatively few resources to start a toothpick company. Or a pasta company, or hundreds of other enterprises. So, yes, I do think that competitors can spring up overnight.

"if you control all the wood used for making toothpicks, you have no competition."

No one has ever been able to corner the market on wood production. No one ever will.

"you think we would be able to afford desktop computers in our homes if it wasnt for regulated competition?"

Yes, I do. I am typing this post on a Mac. Apple computer received no government assistance. Their success had nothing to do with regulated competiton.

"IBM was the first to make computers and would have been able to out pace any competitors in pure capitalism because they would have been able to hold complete ownership rights to the patents."

Apple violated no patent laws in constructing their personal computer. Nor did Sun, or DEC or Honeywell or Hewlett Packard in the mini and mainframe business. And, the reason IBM flubbed the personal computer market so badly has nothing to do with government regulation, and everything to do with bad business decisions and poor product design.

"of course, without government grants and funding, we wouldnt have computers or the internet at all"

Nonsense. Computers were developed by private industry.

"very much true, but if a company held a true monopoly, they would have enough money to out advertise any upstart competitor that isnt going to be able to afford commercials and billboards."

Just because a company holds a monopoly (and so far, none does) does not necessarily mean that it will have unlimited funding for advertisements. And, just because a company advertises more than its competitors does not mean it is guaranteed to survive. In the seventies, I used to see TV ads for a soft drink called "Gini" countless times every day for years... more often than I would see Coke or Pepsi ads, and that is saying something! Where is "Gini" today?

"you refer wayyyyy to much to companies in a our mixed system. if you really want to have abstract discussions, refer to abstract ideas, not examples in reality. "

I use existing companies merely as concrete examples of the abstract principles I am describing. While it is not strictly necessary to use concrete examples, it clarifies things.

"this is all under our current system, which protects smaller companies against monopoly. these have no relevance to a purely capitalist society. if it wasnt for our patent laws, we would still be listening to RCA radios."

Are you saying that a Capitalist society would have no patent laws? Would you care to defend that assertion?

pinky












--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,839
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 46 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Crobih]
    #486862 - 12/11/01 03:22 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Crobih writes:

"I do not know have ou ever runned some sort of bussines?"

Yes. More than one.

"But if you did, you will understand that established company is a way infront of you."

You mean the way IBM used to be way in front of Compaq and Dell and Gateway? Or the way that A&W used to be way in front of MacDonald's? Or the way that Zeller's used to be way in front of WalMart?

"If you want to take some market from them, the company will deciede to CRUSH you."

Not always true. Besides, just because a company might WANT to crush another company doesn't mean it WILL. See my examples above, just a short sample of many examples of established companies getting knocked off by newcomers.

"And that is the way how their MONOPOLY acts. The monopoly does not mean you have the only PRODUCT in the world."

Ummm... yes it does, actually. That is the definition of monopoly, honest. You can check a dictionary if you don't believe me.

"It means that if somebody else tries to enter that market, wont succeed without a HUUUUUUGE amount of money. "

Nonsense. See WalMart. Or Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak of Apple.

"And regular peron doen not have that HUUUUUUGE amount of money. And even if they did, the first hypothetical company can get more money and stay in that bussines."

As I have demonstrated, being first does not guarantee success. Even being first, having an enormous amount of money, having a better product, having a huge advertising campaign, and fantastic brand recognition does not guarantee success. Example? Sony and their Beta format VCR.

pinky



pinky







--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCrobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/04/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #487333 - 12/11/01 02:19 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

pink. I have to say that I am really sorry that you did not agree with me in ANY point.

I see your point. BUT.

First. Monopoly... you may be right about its meaning in a dictionary. the meaning of the Monopoly I mentioned is the one I wrote. I do not know exact word for it, so please help me out with it.

Its a true that we live in a dynamic world. With dynamic rules.
Your examples are totally valid. But you have to understand that IBM was established in a very much running industry where you can have a possibility to enter with a NEW product. It is same with sony and beta format and with many other examples.

My concern is on things wich are not so DYNAMIC. And you can imagine there is many of them in a world. Maybe even more than not so dynamic things.
I live in a small country with no money for investition. In last time big companies made malls and those malls destroyed all those little shops wich where here before. They are strong enough that they can keep low profits for extended period of time and destroy all others.

Thier only interest is maximisation of profit. Now there are 3 or 4 centers for shoping here. 3 or 4... they can easily find thier interests and join together to take as much money form the poor people as they possibly can. That is the problem of monopoly I am talking about. there is many more examples, but this one is pretty good IMO.

Next, all those things even IT are going to establishment, real establishment. IBM had bad politics in their past and that is their main problem. But what will happen when there is not going to be big space for better? ( I assume that IT IS POSSIBLE) I assume the best will form some sort of monopoly and move out every other. That is concern I am talking about.

PS What about WalMart?

"As I have demonstrated, being first does not guarantee success. Even being first, having an enormous amount of money, having a better product, having a huge advertising campaign, and fantastic brand recognition does not guarantee success. Example? Sony and their Beta format VCR. " - you

No it does not guarantee success. Good managment plus those two things guarantee MONOPOLY (wich I am talking about).




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: Lallafa]
    #487706 - 12/11/01 07:19 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Pure Capitalism would create a situation where a very few own everything, and the vast majority own nothing.

It would suck

Socialism isn't bad. Many great countries (Sweden, Iceland, not to mention Norway, the 1st best place on earth to live acording to the UN) have what Americans would call a socialist economy.

Pure capitalism is undemocratic, unfair and down right evil. It's about me me me and the hell with everybody else


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,839
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 46 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Crobih]
    #494306 - 12/18/01 12:25 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Crobih writes:

"Monopoly... you may be right about its meaning in a dictionary. the meaning of the Monopoly I mentioned is the one I wrote. I do not know exact word for it, so please help me out with it."

I think you are confusing "Monopoly" with "Dominance". It is true that if one is first into a new market, or has more money than the established players already in a market, one has an INITIAL advantage over others. It is not true (as has been demonstrated over and over again) that this initial advantage is a PERMANENT one. At least it isn't true under pure Capitalism, since in a Capitalist society the only way a given company can maintain its dominance is through excellence.

Under our current economic system (which is NOT pure Capitalism), however, the first one into a market often DOES hold an advantage, because of government interference. There are endless examples of shitty companies that couldn't deliver quality by themselves being kept afloat through government interference. Just one of many examples: the big Chrysler bailout about twenty years ago. Under pure Capitalism, Chrysler would have vanished in the 80s.

"But you have to understand that IBM was established in a very much running industry where you can have a possibility to enter with a NEW product. It is same with sony and beta format and with many other examples."

Are you saying that my examples only hold true for NEW inventions? Not so. I used MacDonald's as an example. Hamburger places existed long before MacDonald's did. I also used WalMart as an example. Department stores existed long before WalMart did. Neither of these companies introduced ANYTHING new. Neither was the first into their particular market. Neither of them had ANY money at all to enter the battle against older, richer, well-established companies with brand-recognition and big advertising budgets. Yet now each one is the leader in its field. And each did so with no help from government, either economic help (such as subsidies or special tax breaks) or legislative help (such as restriction of their competitors).

"I live in a small country with no money for investition. In last time big companies made malls..."

Malls are NOT built by MacDonald's or by WalMarts. They are built by real-estate developers who rent their spaces to ANYONE who wants to pay the higher rent that malls charge.

"...and those malls destroyed all those little shops wich where here before."

The owners of those little shops had the right to move their businesses from their old locations into a new location in a mall, if they so chose. I don't know what it's like in Croatia, but that happens all the time in North America.

"They are strong enough that they can keep low profits for extended period of time..."

So what is the problem? Everyone always seems to be screaming at businessmen all the time for being so profit-oriented. Seems to me you would be DELIGHTED to see a businessman accept LESS profit. If a business decides to accept lower profits by lowering prices, then the sacred consumers are getting a good deal, right? If a poor family can save enough on its clothing bill because they can now buy their clothes for 70% at WalMart instead of 100% at "Mom and Pop's Clothing Shop", then that family now has extra money it can spend on a computer to help the kids get ahead in school, right? Or on a new car to replace their twenty year old Yugo. And there is not just one poor family, there are THOUSANDS of poor families that shop at WalMart. So thousands of people benefit by the new WalMart store in the new mall, against one family (Mom and Pop, who are BUSINESSMEN also, don't forget) who have a tough business decision to make.

You used the phrase "extended period of time", but in reality, that period of time is unlimited. WalMart will ALWAYS have low prices, because they know that as soon as they lift their prices too much, a hundred more "Mom and Pop" businesses will jump in. All the anti-Capitalists use the same argument: "The prices will only stay low until WalMart (or whoever) drives its competitors out of business. Then they will jack up the prices and rob us blind because there will be no competition left!" Well, guess what? That never happens. I challenge you or anyone else to provide me with a single example of that prediction coming true. Take all the time you want.

"Thier only interest is maximisation of profit."

Of course. Mom and Pop didn't go to all the trouble of running their own business because they were interested in MINIMIZING their profit, either.

"Now there are 3 or 4 centers for shoping here. 3 or 4... they can easily find thier interests and join together to take as much money form the poor people as they possibly can."

Well, I have already shown that poor people benefit from a WalMart more than rich people do. WalMart certainly does not "take as much from the poor people as they possibly can". WalMart takes less from Joe and Sally for a kid's dress than Mom and Pop's Clothing Shop ever did. Besides, no one is forcing the poor people to shop at the malls. Poor people shop at malls because they are convenient. No need to drive all over the city to pick up a dozen different items... they can save time and transportation money by making one trip to the mall instead. If the poor people WANT to continue shopping at individual stores that exist outside malls, they can. And don't tell me that the ONLY stores that exist in your town are in one of 3 or 4 malls. That is an exaggeration.

"That is the problem of monopoly I am talking about. there is many more examples, but this one is pretty good IMO."

Well, first of all, it is not monopoly that you are describing when you talk about shopping malls. It is centralization. Secondly, you haven't even demonstrated that centralization is harmful to "poor people". So I can't agree that it is a good example of anything.

"Next, all those things even IT are going to establishment, real establishment. IBM had bad politics in their past and that is their main problem. But what will happen when there is not going to be big space for better? ( I assume that IT IS POSSIBLE) I assume the best will form some sort of monopoly and move out every other. That is concern I am talking about."

I'm sorry, Crobih. I respect your ability to communicate in many languages (I only know three, and can write well only in one, English... so I am much worse than you), but I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you put it into different words?

"Good managment plus those two things guarantee MONOPOLY"

No, it does NOT guarantee monopoly, it doesn't even guarantee dominance. I have given concrete examples to support my points. Can you give me even ONE example to support yours?

pinky






--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,839
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 46 minutes
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: carbonhoots]
    #494322 - 12/18/01 12:41 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

carbonhoots writes:

"Pure Capitalism would create a situation where a very few own everything, and the vast majority own nothing."

Got any facts to back that up with? The only societies where the vast majority own nothing are Statist ones.

"Pure capitalism is undemocratic..."

How so? Everyone is allowed to vote, wealthy and impoverished alike. What's undemocratic about that?

"...unfair..."

In what way? Specifics... we need specifics, here!

"...and down right evil."

Since the ultimate evil in human affairs is the initiation of physical force, which is expressly forbidden under pure Capitalism, but accepted as natural and necessary under Socialism, I submit that Socialism is the more evil of the two.

"It's about me me me and the hell with everybody else"

Under Capitalism, "me me me" looks after himself, and leaves others in peace. Under Capitalism, "me me me" doesn't insist that the government take money from some and give it to others, wasting two thirds of it in the process. Under Capitalism, "me me me" deals with others voluntarily if it is to the benefit of both parties, and minds his own business when it is not. Which "me me me" would you prefer as a neighbor?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: Phred]
    #494373 - 12/18/01 01:30 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

How bout American society? It's pretty capitalist.

The three richest American citizens, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and John Walton have combined financial assets worth more than the pooret 100,000,000 Americans combined.

Capitalism is undemocratic because a vote don't count for shit. The whole point of these "Free Trade Deals" is to further remove the economy from any government (democratic) control. Under capitalism it's one dollar. one vote. The previous paragraph emphasizes how centralized economic control is.

It's unfair because by giving exclusive ownership rights to shareholders, and no propriety rights to labour, many men and women give their time and heart and soul for a company that pays them as little as it can, and may just leave them behind when they relocate to some place like Thialand where they can pay workers pennies a day.

Me me me is a very narrow perspective. After all, there's a whole universe out there. And whatever else evil may be, it's rooted in the Me Me Me. That perspective says to burn down rainforest for a few years of pasturland. Or to forgo R&D in alternate energy, and just burn more and more oil.

A good example is Edison (inventer of lightbulb). He had a great business in providing DC power. When Tesla discovered AC power, Edison did all he could to supress the technology. Why? Not because he thought DC was better for developing civilization. No. Simply, he was selling DC, and he didn't want to chance losing his money making business. If Edison would have succeeded, he would have held back the progress of the human race. That is evil.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Edited by carbonhoots (12/18/01 01:55 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* ...
( 1 2 3 all )
Component 937 42 12/11/02 12:50 PM
by Evolving
* Rants and Ramblings on Capitalism and Socialism
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 1,067 30 02/28/05 02:32 PM
by rogue_pixie
* capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
BrAiN 7,179 149 02/24/05 01:50 PM
by cb9fl
* monopolies...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 1,054 61 08/11/03 04:45 PM
by Cornholio
* Capitalism or Communism? Which is better?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
HagbardCeline 1,779 95 06/27/03 02:28 AM
by downforpot
* Corporations are not capitalism Evolving 399 4 10/12/04 01:56 AM
by Worf
* Is worldwide Capitalism impossible?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PhredM 1,676 80 07/15/03 06:18 AM
by hongomon
* Monopoly Rules.... Capitalism. GabbaDj 618 5 01/02/02 04:14 AM
by Ulysees

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
4,341 topic views. 0 members, 12 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:

Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2014 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 20 queries.