Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

I appreciate what you are saying but it was still motivated by a capitalist agenda...What you see is the result of capitalism not state control restricting its ability. Government became party to the system and assisted the wealthy at the expense of the working class...Its principles create the problems not the other way round.

Dear Nero, was this a bill to limit civil rights? In Europe we suffer the same, less privacy, ID manditory to carry, income-requirement for to marry non-EU residents.

What Bill? Pepijn Sweep, you have to spell out more of the things you imply.
I have little idea what you are talking about.

The definition they give on wikipedia is what I would call "not being in a competitive market".
I use the word monopoly in it's pure literal sense: There is one seller. I suggest that this is the correct definition.

Maybe see here: Monopoly: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics

If you used monopoly in the sense of a company having control over the market, then of course what you're saying is right, quite per definition.
But then you're assuming something that doesn't have to be the case. A single seller does not have to have control over the market and there can be a non competitive market with more than a single seller.
Plus the term monopoly would essentially be meaningless, because it always depends on further explanation why the market is non competitive.

Government activity that interferes with free markets is by definition anti-capitalistic, regardless of whether the interference is intended to assist labor (socialism) or capital (fascism). As you said, 'the government became party to the system and assisted the wealthy at the expense of the working class.' That is anti-capitalistic. That does not happen in a true capitalist system.

You need to distinguish between capitalism (free markets) and plutocracy (rule of the wealthy). Being in favor of capitalism is not being in favor of big business or the rich. Problems that arise when corporations persuade governments to act in their favor by interfering in free markets are not problems of capitalism. High finance would never have gained the dominance it enjoys had not governments granted it a monopoly on the creation of credit.

Of course a capitalist system contains the seeds of corruption, as evidenced by the development of the fascist state in the U.S. from very laizze faire beginnings. However, this is not unique to capitalism. Every social system has the potential to be corrupted by powerful and/or wealthy people. There is a difference though; I would argue that if capitalism contains the seed of corruption, every other form of social order is the plant into which that seed wants to grow.

xris
Every social system has the potential to be corrupted by powerful and/or wealthy people. There is a difference though; I would argue that if capitalism contains the seed of corruption, every other form of social order is the plant into which that seed wants to grow.

Sure, but you're not accepting the market behaviour of one seller. What are the consequences of being the only seller in the market? The article you've posted touches on the correct term - monopoly pricing. What you've been asserting so far is that monopoly pricing doesn't exist, that the threat of competition will keep prices competetive. But that would be contradictory to the fundamental principle of business i.e. profit maximisation. There is absolutely no reason for a monopoly to price competetively because of imaginary competitors. It's like you driving at 30 on a 60 road because any minute now, the government might change the speed limit to 30. It doesn't make sense. Every company, regardless of the market structure, follows the principle of optimum pricing - charging the price that will yield the highest profits.



Nice article. But I disagree with this comment: "But if the monopoly is in fact more profitable than competitive enterprises, economists expect that other entrepreneurs will enter the business to capture some of the higher returns." This is assuming competitors can enter the market. The author doesn't touch on any of the barriers to entry that exist in many monopolies. Is the assumption that government protection is the only barrier? This is completely wrong.



We're going to have to agree on the definition of compete. For there to be competition, there must be at least two participants. In a monopoly there is only one, therefore there is no competition. Whether it will remain non-competetive depends on how well the monopoly utilises economic mechanisms of barriers to entry.

---------- Post added 01-29-2010 at 03:02 PM ----------

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

The Dream.

By josh0335



The dream had turned into a nightmare.

The End.

You have given us a very lengthy reply Nero but there is not one jot of informative argument against the power of monopolies. The word itself evokes the problems it creates and for you to dismiss the argument against them so easily without a serious reply, tells me, you have no defence.

That's because assuming that monopolies have power is faulty.
Look at the passage in blue.
Actually reading my posts for a change, xris, might bring you some understanding.

I read it most avidly, hoping for a decent reply, nothing of consequence was forth coming, I was disappointed.

It's very simple. Monopoly means there is one seller of a product. It does not mean that this one seller has to be protected from competition. If you are assuming that a monopoly must be protected from competition you are making a circular argument. Because you're not saying why it is protected. You are saying it is a monopoly because it is protected, and it is protected because it is a monopoly.
In evil, evil capitalism monopolies usually only happen when a company has some physical way of being protected from competition. But it is not protected because it is a monopoly, it is a monopoly because it is protected. Meaning that my solution, free markets, does away with this protection and therefore the kind of monopolies that can exploit it's customers can't happen.

But that's the point Nero without government interference it has the ability to control the market and destroy the opposition. Its only government monopoly commissions that can try to stop its relentless rise to dominance. There are no safe guards in a capitalist economy. The problem we see in our democracies at the moment, are the lobbyist who buy favours from cash strapped politicians. They are attempting to restrict control over the monopolies and government then has less ability to stop their advances.

No you are wrong. Nobody has the ability to control the market in the absence of government control.
The safeguards are there. That you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't work.

I agree no one can control the monopolies without government control, there are no safe guards. I think you are confused.

Monopolies only exist in the first place because of control.
You tell me why else they would exist.
There are safeguards in the free market, and they work. But obviously those who benefit from government control wouldn't tell you about them, would they?

O come on now Nero, you are telling me governments create monopolies ? Why would a government want monopolies when they are forever trying to limit their ability. You keep telling me there are controls in a free market but you dont tell me what they are or cant even give me an example.

Yes, governments create monopolies. Why, you ask? You have to think who is behind those governments. Who controls them with their lobbyists? Governments do the bidding of the big corporations. Does it really make sense to believe that a system designed by a bunch of rich people and their lobbyists is anti-rich people? Or does it make more sense that what they portray as anti-rich is really what benefits them, the rich?
Those who benefit from government control have the greatest self interest in making you believe that government control is necessary to "limit the greed of the free market", i.e. that it hurts them. But they love it, because it's them controlling! And it's control in their favor.
They, the powerful and their monopolies, fear nothing so much as the prospect of free markets. So to answer your first question, "Why would a government want monopolies when they are forever trying to limit their ability", they are not trying to limit monopolies, they are only pretending to to get those gullible "little people" to rally behind the establishment of their monopolies.

As for your second question, what controls there are against concentration of wealth / monopolies in the free market, I can only tell you that it's competition. Nobody can "control" the market, because if they offer a bad deal to the customer then somebody else will offer a better deal.
Since you asked for an example, if one company offered you bread with mold on it, you would buy from the company that has fresh bread. There is no free market reason that would hinder another company from offering you fresh bread. Which forces that first company to make fresh bread. That's the safeguard.
Unless there is some reason that someone else can't offer a better deal. But this reason can never happen in the free market. It can only happen in the absence of a free market. What should that reason be?
Actually, that's the question that separates us through all these months of disagreements: What is it, in a free market, that protects one company from another? And everything you bring up is either not an application of the free market (such as government control) or it doesn't protect companies from each others (such as economies of scale). So answer that question, if you can't, then I am right.