But that's completely wrong. I'm not sure I can be bothered to go into why it's completely wrong, because you'll just state the same incorrect phrase again and again as if that's proof.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is no government intervention in capitalism. Capitalism mixed with politics gets you monopolies or oligopolies.Dilbert_X wrote:
No it doesn't, the reverse happens, look at GM - too big to fail, Microsoft - practical monopoly.Capitalism BREAKS monopolies or oligopolies.
Companies get big enough to buy the govt and they do so.
Some semblance of competition is kept to fool the public (the Republican/Democrat duopoly for example) but its mostly BS.
The point is unless you are content with living off government welfare you are paying for public education, whether you are making use of it or not. It is not a free education system, it is a taxpayer funded education system.Bertster7 wrote:
No they don't. Most people pay for it. There is a marked difference. It is a free education system. It gets paid for through taxes, but you don't have to have paid taxes to make use of it.
Demand for low cost education would be much greater than what it is right now, opening up a whole market for a new breed of education system.Berster7 wrote:
Why would the cost be driven down under a capitalist system? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Berster7 wrote:
None of that addresses the original point, that it is better to have universal education, free at point of use. Not having this would limit the number of people receiving a proper education dramatically, which would have a negative effect overall. Which is why NOWHERE uses a full on capitalist system - because it's impractical and could not work in practice - like communism.
This is the advantage. The idea of a "proper education" is a dated one - it is naive to believe that most people retain or even need most of the information they learn in a formal school setting, and yet we continue to try to cram more and more knowledge into the first quarter or so of every Western child's life. It is woefully inefficient in cost and result, and we would benefit greatly from more highly specialized education earlier in life.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
a focus on self-started education and education at the employer's expense
In pure capitalism there is no government intervention in economics. I don't know how that can be wrong, that is a definition. Using examples from our present day situation of a capitalism/social liberalism mix to try to prove Laissez-faire capitalism wrong can't be considered accurate.ghettoperson wrote:
But that's completely wrong. I'm not sure I can be bothered to go into why it's completely wrong, because you'll just state the same incorrect phrase again and again as if that's proof.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is no government intervention in capitalism. Capitalism mixed with politics gets you monopolies or oligopolies.Dilbert_X wrote:
No it doesn't, the reverse happens, look at GM - too big to fail, Microsoft - practical monopoly.
Companies get big enough to buy the govt and they do so.
Some semblance of competition is kept to fool the public (the Republican/Democrat duopoly for example) but its mostly BS.
Ideologically, pure capitalism is devoid of government intervention. In real life, however, that almost never happens. There are a few areas virtually devoid of government that operate somewhat capitalistically, but most of them are very unpleasant to live in (like Somalia).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is no government intervention in capitalism. Capitalism mixed with politics gets you monopolies or oligopolies.
This would be true if the dwindling of competition was a process devoid of government. 99% of the time, this isn't the case. Nearly every oligopoly or monopoly that has been created in a market is partially the result of intervention -- usually in the form of tax breaks or in loosening regulations. Intervention goes both ways -- not just in restricting business, but also in favoring it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If competition has to be propped up it is not proper competition, and the market suffers as a result in the long run. Capitalism breeds slow-growing but very effective competition - government intervention tides over the old and sick or hands the reigns over to the young and inexperienced.
Similarly, the only way these monopolies and oligopolies end is also through intervention. Government is an inevitable aspect of nearly every market.
This is why discussions of "pure" capitalism only work in classrooms. In reality, pure capitalisms are just as rare as pure communisms or pure socialisms. While I realize you don't use the term "pure" often in your discussions, you are referring to the ideological ideal of capitalism rather than its actual practical existence in reality.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-05-30 15:56:08)
I've lived in a town run by a corporation, possibly one of the only ones in existence that is.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If the "monopoly" has to continually drop his prices to deal with the influx of competition caused by his prices while they are high, it's not really a monopoly is it? There is competition that is keeping prices at a reasonable level. The more unreasonable the prices are raised to the stiffer the competition as a result.Flecco wrote:
Nothing would stop somebody who had a monopoly briefly dropping his prices to kill off the competition/buy them out, then jacking up his prices again.
There's one road into that town, it is closed roughly six months of the year due to flooding. So the sea-freight service to the town is a lovely, lovely money spinner.
There's a monopoly on the shipping too, completely controlled by the Perkins Shipping Group (pretty sure that's their name). Several years ago somebody started a company up to take them on. They dropped their prices, effectively starved his business of cash-flow then bought him out so they got his barge cheap. I have seen this in action FM. The town is called Nhulunbuy. Almost every business in the town has a monopoly on the local market that is basically only affected by goods and services offered from the 'net. Even those have to come in by sea or air though and for the most part by-sea shipping is involved. Monopolies are hard to break, if not impossible, without outside regulation or interference from a governing body.
BP had a nice little monopoly on fuel there, they were only hampered by the freight costs inflicted upon them by Perkins.
Last edited by Flecco (2009-05-30 16:04:58)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I agree there's no government intervention, that's pretty obvious. What you're wrong about is that monopolies cease to exist under pure capitalism. Without government intervention, large corporations are free to operate at a loss until the competition dies off, then whack up their prices to whatever they want.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
In pure capitalism there is no government intervention in economics. I don't know how that can be wrong, that is a definition. Using examples from our present day situation of a capitalism/social liberalism mix to try to prove Laissez-faire capitalism wrong can't be considered accurate.ghettoperson wrote:
But that's completely wrong. I'm not sure I can be bothered to go into why it's completely wrong, because you'll just state the same incorrect phrase again and again as if that's proof.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is no government intervention in capitalism. Capitalism mixed with politics gets you monopolies or oligopolies.
If the "monopoly" has to continually drop his prices to deal with the influx of competition caused by his prices while they are high, it's not really a monopoly is it? There is competition that is keeping prices at a reasonable level. The more unreasonable the prices are raised to the stiffer the competition as a result.ghettoperson wrote:
I agree there's no government intervention, that's pretty obvious. What you're wrong about is that monopolies cease to exist under pure capitalism. Without government intervention, large corporations are free to operate at a loss until the competition dies off, then whack up their prices to whatever they want.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
In pure capitalism there is no government intervention in economics. I don't know how that can be wrong, that is a definition. Using examples from our present day situation of a capitalism/social liberalism mix to try to prove Laissez-faire capitalism wrong can't be considered accurate.ghettoperson wrote:
But that's completely wrong. I'm not sure I can be bothered to go into why it's completely wrong, because you'll just state the same incorrect phrase again and again as if that's proof.
Flecco a modern standard of living cannot be obtained through capitalism in an obscure, low population, low accessibility region.
I know, but that doesn't mean you can justify using real life examples of monopolies and oligopolies as evidence of the "failures of capitalism".Turquoise wrote:
Ideologically, pure capitalism is devoid of government intervention. In real life, however, that almost never happens. There are a few areas virtually devoid of government that operate somewhat capitalistically, but most of them are very unpleasant to live in (like Somalia).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is no government intervention in capitalism. Capitalism mixed with politics gets you monopolies or oligopolies.
It should be the case.Turquoise wrote:
This would be true if the dwindling of competition was a process devoid of government. 99% of the time, this isn't the case. Nearly every oligopoly or monopoly that has been created in a market is partially the result of intervention -- usually in the form of tax breaks or in loosening regulations. Intervention goes both ways -- not just in restricting business, but also in favoring it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If competition has to be propped up it is not proper competition, and the market suffers as a result in the long run. Capitalism breeds slow-growing but very effective competition - government intervention tides over the old and sick or hands the reigns over to the young and inexperienced.
This is my point.
I know. Favoring business is just as bad as restricting it, as I have said it breeds weak competition.
Do you have any line of reasoning to back this up, or are you just going to speak in absolutes? I've already laid out my side.Turquoise wrote:
Similarly, the only way these monopolies and oligopolies end is also through intervention. Government is an inevitable aspect of nearly every market.
I know I am, and I do so quite intentionally. The ideal is the only thing in my mind worth striving for, and effort should be devoted to finding ways to reach the ideal instead of finding ways why you can't.Turquoise wrote:
This is why discussions of "pure" capitalism only work in classrooms. In reality, pure capitalisms are just as rare as pure communisms or pure socialisms. While I realize you don't use the term "pure" often in your discussions, you are referring to the ideological ideal of capitalism rather than its actual practical existence in reality.
Err...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Flecco a modern standard of living cannot be obtained through capitalism in an obscure, low population, low accessibility region.
Close to the highest average per-capita earnings in Australia...
It is a mining town. Rio Tinto owns it at the moment. It exists to service and run the mine + alumina processing plant there. They have a better standard of living there than most of the NT and much of the rest of Australia.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Then what are you complaining about? Clearly no extreme price gouging if you have such a high standard of living.Flecco wrote:
Err...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Flecco a modern standard of living cannot be obtained through capitalism in an obscure, low population, low accessibility region.
Close to the highest average per-capita earnings in Australia...
It is a mining town. Rio Tinto owns it at the moment. It exists to service and run the mine + alumina processing plant there. They have a better standard of living there than most of the NT and much of the rest of Australia.
Why not? Since real life examples are all we can go by, what else would you expect me to use?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I know, but that doesn't mean you can justify using real life examples of monopolies and oligopolies as evidence of the "failures of capitalism".
Regulations can be set that do not weaken competition but simply make the market as open as possible to competition.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It should be the case.
This is my point.
I know. Favoring business is just as bad as restricting it, as I have said it breeds weak competition.
Human nature and history. Do I really need anymore than that?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do you have any line of reasoning to back this up, or are you just going to speak in absolutes? I've already laid out my side.
I'm the opposite. I focus on pragmatics. Whatever is most practical in maintaining a strong economy is what I strive for. Sometimes, this is less regulation, sometimes it's more.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I know I am, and I do so quite intentionally. The ideal is the only thing in my mind worth striving for, and effort should be devoted to finding ways to reach the ideal instead of finding ways why you can't.
What separates man from beast, our human brain, and its ability to simulate situations that do not actually exist in real life.Turquoise wrote:
Why not? Since real life examples are all we can go by, what else would you expect me to use?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I know, but that doesn't mean you can justify using real life examples of monopolies and oligopolies as evidence of the "failures of capitalism".
Not true. If you "open the market to competition" you do so by lowering the necessary standards of the competition.Turquoise wrote:
Regulations can be set that do not weaken competition but simply make the market as open as possible to competition.
Unless the world is going to end tomorrow, yes.Turquoise wrote:
Human nature and history. Do I really need anymore than that?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do you have any line of reasoning to back this up, or are you just going to speak in absolutes? I've already laid out my side.
You can say "x has never happened" with nothing but human nature and history to back you up. You cannot say "x will never happen" with nothing but more of the same.
You are not pragmatic, you are short-sighted. You look at what is going to keep the economy going in the next 1-20 years, not what is the best for the economy in the long term.Turquoise wrote:
I'm the opposite. I focus on pragmatics. Whatever is most practical in maintaining a strong economy is what I strive for. Sometimes, this is less regulation, sometimes it's more.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I know I am, and I do so quite intentionally. The ideal is the only thing in my mind worth striving for, and effort should be devoted to finding ways to reach the ideal instead of finding ways why you can't.
Just because the tree takes a long time to bear fruit does not mean the planting of the seed is not pragmatic.
Basic necessities like food can cost 150%-200% what they do elsewhere in the NT, so anywhere between 250%-300% of the cost for people on coastal NSW/Victoria. During the oil price hikes unleaded hit something like $2.50AU a liter, diesel cost even more. Rent for a three bedroom house could be $500+ a week not including the power and water bills.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Then what are you complaining about? Clearly no extreme price gouging if you have such a high standard of living.Flecco wrote:
Err...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Flecco a modern standard of living cannot be obtained through capitalism in an obscure, low population, low accessibility region.
Close to the highest average per-capita earnings in Australia...
It is a mining town. Rio Tinto owns it at the moment. It exists to service and run the mine + alumina processing plant there. They have a better standard of living there than most of the NT and much of the rest of Australia.
I didn't have a real problem with it though, in remote Australia things are always expensive. You were trying to argue that monopolies can't exist in a purely capitalist system. They can. They do. They always will. They may rise and fall with external factors such as the influence of the resources sector or financial markets, but they happen. To claim a monopoly isn't a monopoly because the prices are low is a fallacy. Pure capitalism, as lovely as it is in theory, is impractical. The general human population isn't intelligent enough to make it sustainable or to recognise the faults with the system and avoid them.
In a perfect world, we would live in a sustainable, capitalist based voluntary democracy where everybody is free to do what they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another. We don't live in a perfect world.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
No. I am arguing that in the long term capitalism will break all monopolies. They are inevitable short term obstacles.Flecco wrote:
You were trying to argue that monopolies can't exist in a purely capitalist system.
I didn't say it wasn't a monopoly, I said why do you care.Flecco wrote:
To claim a monopoly isn't a monopoly because the prices are low is a fallacy.
Sounds like a reason why theoretical capitalism could exist to me. If you can identify problems you can solve them.Flecco wrote:
The general human population isn't intelligent enough to make it sustainable or to recognise the faults with the system and avoid them.
They can't be broken by somebody trying to directly compete though. Only via outside factors. In the case I mentioned Rio Tinto threatened to upgrade the shitty dirt track into a proper road that would be open all year.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No. I am arguing that in the long term capitalism will break all monopolies. They are inevitable short term obstacles.Flecco wrote:
You were trying to argue that monopolies can't exist in a purely capitalist system.
Generally the long term means jack shit to a human though, given they live for 50-100 years then die. It might break monopolies in the long run, but then again, who cares if it destroys the planet in the process.
Fair point, I cared because the prices weren't low though. When somebody tried to compete they killed his cash flow and bought him out of business, perpetuating their monopoly for the foreseeable future.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't a monopoly, I said why do you care.Flecco wrote:
To claim a monopoly isn't a monopoly because the prices are low is a fallacy.
The general populace wouldn't though. They'd rape the environment and destroy the planet quite happily, without a second thought for future generations, as they already are.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Sounds like a reason why theoretical capitalism could exist to me. If you can identify problems you can solve them.Flecco wrote:
The general human population isn't intelligent enough to make it sustainable or to recognise the faults with the system and avoid them.
Economic models have to be designed to factor in human ignorance, indifference and greed, not to be based on the idea that people will ignore their more base impulses and pursue the greater good for everybody.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Outside of astrophysics, hypotheticals only matter when they are demonstrable. If you can somehow set up a country with a government that does not interfere at all with the market, then your hypotheticals will be applicable. Until then, they are only useful in an academic sense.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What separates man from beast, our human brain, and its ability to simulate situations that do not actually exist in real life.
Reducing barriers to entry does not equate to weaker competition. Current dominators of a market will naturally seek to keep out competition. Barriers are set by both government and corporations themselves. Even without government involvement, these barriers are created. So, if one is to expect a market to ever have feasible competition, a certain lessening of barriers is necessary.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not true. If you "open the market to competition" you do so by lowering the necessary standards of the competition.
Without a precedent to go by, it is illogical to assume x will occur.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Unless the world is going to end tomorrow, yes.
You can say "x has never happened" with nothing but human nature and history to back you up. You cannot say "x will never happen" with nothing but more of the same.
Just because you have planted the seed does not mean it will bear fruit.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are not pragmatic, you are short-sighted. You look at what is going to keep the economy going in the next 1-20 years, not what is the best for the economy in the long term.
Just because the tree takes a long time to bear fruit does not mean the planting of the seed is not pragmatic.
Just because you say that twice doesn't make it any more true.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If the "monopoly" has to continually drop his prices to deal with the influx of competition caused by his prices while they are high, it's not really a monopoly is it? There is competition that is keeping prices at a reasonable level. The more unreasonable the prices are raised to the stiffer the competition as a result.
A monopoly once formed is unbreakable until a bigger corporation steps in a takes over. In the end there will be one corporation which runs everything.
Maybe FM can explain how microsoft have been forced to lower prices to compete with Apple.
Wait, no they haven't...
Wait, no they haven't...
Well, to be fair... in that case, Apple raised their prices. Nearly everything Mac related is more expensive than its PC equivalent.AussieReaper wrote:
Maybe FM can explain how microsoft have been forced to lower prices to compete with Apple.
Wait, no they haven't...
Apple is a very different kind of situation, because they are a niche market.