Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

the point is though that a ruling class can be formed by corporate land owners. Its a ruling class by a different name and a different form, but its a ruling class nontheless.

Greed is not based on capitalism, it's based in human nature. Capitalism merely allows already existent greed to be harnessed for productive activity.

That's entirely true that capitalism in its pristine state has never existed in reality. In that sense, it is merely a 'hope for the future' -

The dissemination of large scale government to the 'free market', opens the formation of a different ruling class based upon large scale beaurocratic corporations without the relationship with large scale beaurocratic government.

In North-west Europe existed the Hanze-Union. A Union of trading cities with fixed measurements, this was till around 1100. Ships and cargo were often from diffent owners but all under the protection of the Hanze. Later you find the Republics of Venice and Genua.

Maybe old-fashioned capitalism is a thing of the past and not of the future. May-be it just gets a new label.

Just a try to understand different opinions, not motivated by greed but by interest. :detective:

Oh, I see what you mean.
Essentially that argument is "capitalism concentrates wealth", correct?
Well, it doesn't. This has been shown to not happen in the real life economy. Wealth almost exclusively concentrates due to government interferences.
In free markets, concentrating wealth is quite difficult, as you have competition. After dissemination of large scale government to the free market competition would root out the formation of a ruling class.

But you cant show examples of capitalism, you have admitted as much.

What will stop monopolies seizing control ?

Competition cant be eliminated without government government controls, that has been experienced.

Most of the land is owned by a very small amount of people in the UK and that is from an inherited aristocracy that held power through rampant capitalism from our past. If you look at capitalism at its height in the British isles it created large amounts of wealth for a few...

When our aristocracy took its land it was rampant capitalism , how would future capitalism solve that position?

Monopolise with their wealth simple gobble up any new guys that show any initiative.

Its only governments that can limit their ability.

Im sorry, till you can point to a fine example of a capitalist society, it will be just a script from a horror film, for me.

Competition. If a product is sold above it's market value, somebody will offer it cheaper, unless there is some government restriction on doing that.
A monopoly as such is not a bad thing, if that is the most efficient way of producing a product, meaning the monopolist doesn't exploit it's situation. Then the customer gets the best/cheapest product, and society as a whole benefits. If the monopolist exploits his situation by demanding higher prices or offers worse quality because customers have to buy with him, then in a free market somebody will offer that product cheaper or better, and take over market shares of the monopolist. Unless government keeps him from doing so.
Exploitative monopolies have never developed in real life without some form of government protection of the monopolist.
This has been shown theoretically and empirically. And it is so common sense among economists that most don't bother saying it out loud.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread again but I have to disagree with the above. Once again, you've not grasped what a monopoly is. It controls the market. It has an inelastic supply curve, which means it actually dictates the market value of its product. There is no natural market price, so whatever they dictate is gospel. No competitor can undercut the set price because they would be selling it below the market value (set by the monopoly) and would thus go bust or not make enough profit to get a substantial share of the market. And where there is no competition, there is no efficiency so you will always pay inflated prices when buying from a monopoly.

The US and I think most of the Western world has measures to stop large companies having monopolies on a domestic market precisely because of this problem. The barriers to entry become so high that new companies can't compete. So exploitative monopolies (which doesn't really make sense, as all companies are exploiting their presence in the market) can happen without government intervention.

I think the point is that if you are admitting that concentrated wealth is a bad thing, then capitalism doesn't resolve this problem.

You've used a statistic a few times in this thread, being that the richest people are no longer on the list after a decade. Would you mind providing a source for this? Because I'm wondering whether you are referring to companies or individuals. Microsoft, Coca Cola, etc. haven't fallen anywhere over the decades, although their directors and top shareholders have come and gone.

Nero for an advocate of pure capitalism you have strange concept of its workings. Corporate companies have no enemies without government. They act with impunity , they are the masters of all their empire. Take Nestles, no morality , no care for the coffee bean growers nor the African mother tricked into using formula milk. Their turnover is more than many countries they abuse. You cant control their ability with competition , there aint non. As soon as a competitor looks like making inroads into its profits, it buys them up and they disappear.

Wealth concentration is control. Money is power.One word..BANKERS

History of the british Isles, would you say our early medieval history was more about capitalism or socialism? I always thought of it as the ultimate in capitalism through anarchy. This is when those land owners stole the land and centuries of capitalism never once took it from them.

Nero, I have to tell you , you are becoming very rhetoric and unable to grasp history for what it is not what you imagine.British history up till the middle of the 20c was one of unopposed capitalism. That's why oppose it.

I have given socialists successes and you say its gifted with assets that deny its ability.

British history up till the middle of the 20c was one of unopposed capitalism.

Britain through most of the 19th century was highly capitalistic, except in one very important regard: the Bank of England. No amount of welfare, regulation, state control of production and so forth does more to threaten the essential dynamic of the free market (free competition) than a central bank, literally owned and operated by the wealthiest private banking interests in the land. British industry was ruined because of the depredations of high finance, which would have been impossible without the central bank. For example, the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, which opened up the English market to foreign grain imports, destroyed the english yeomanry, and drove a huge segement of the population into the cities. The abominable labor conditions during this period are more a result of that trend - excess industrial labor in overcrowded cities - than of any fundemental tendency of capitalism to brutally exploit workers. Of course, another cause was the absence - due to government prohibition and repression - of functioning labor unions, which in a free market act as a counbter-balance to immense corporations. Back to my point though; the repeal of the Corn Laws, and of other protective tarrifs on imported industrial goods, was not achieved through the influence of English manufacturers or landowners. Rather, it was the bankers, in control of the central bank, who wanted 'free trade.' Why? Because of some preference for open markets in principle? Hardly, they wanted 'free trade' because it would make England increasingly dependent on foreign manufactures and commodities; as they controlled the international markets through the endless credit of the central bank, this meant that they could garantee themselves a position as middleman in that trade....