Capitalisim vs. Socialisim

[Moral Libertarians]

Monopolies are almost always created by the state.

That's a cool story, bro. So you're denying that in an unrestricted market that companies wouldn't buy each other out so they can be the leader in what they do? Is that why the United States is moving to try to stop T-Mobile and AT&T from merging to keep market competition and not allowing one company to control more customers then anyone else?

While monopolies can be funded and supported by the state, that isn't the definition I'm using.

America =/= unrestricted market. Regulations, particularly patents, stifle innovation and competition in the technology sector.

[Industrial Republics]

That's a cool story, bro. So you're denying that in an unrestricted market that companies wouldn't buy each other out so they can be the leader in what they do? Is that why the United States is moving to try to stop T-Mobile and AT&T from merging to keep market competition and not allowing one company to control more customers then anyone else?

While monopolies can be funded and supported by the state, that isn't the definition I'm using.

America =/= unrestricted market. Regulations, particularly patents, stifle innovation and competition in the technology sector.

Point out where I said America was an unrestricted market. I didn't, I pointed out regulation in the United States stopped from a monopoly-like company from forming.

[High Overlord Rhys]

Capitalism. Market democracy is the only way to ensure equality and liberty for everyone. Vote with your dollars.

You say you want equality, and then you say 'Vote with your dollars'. Trouble with Capitalism is, some people have more dollars (and therefore votes) than others. Hence, they are not equal.

[Moral Libertarians]

America =/= unrestricted market. Regulations, particularly patents, stifle innovation and competition in the technology sector.

Point out where I said America was an unrestricted market. I didn't, I pointed out regulation in the United States stopped from a monopoly-like company from forming.

You didn't. I did. My implicit point was supporting Sib's in that unlimited competition will destroy monopolies in a free market. The regulation creates monopoly.

[Old Tyrannia]

I tend towards Centrist, 'Third-Way' economics such as Corporatism and a blend of Socialist and Capitalist features. Pure Socialism is both inefficient and gives the Government too much power, whereas pure, unregulated Capitalism tends to give large corporations too much power and leads to unethical practices. Co-operation between the Government, unions and corporations is the best way to ensure no group suffers.

[Industrial Republics]

Point out where I said America was an unrestricted market. I didn't, I pointed out regulation in the United States stopped from a monopoly-like company from forming.

You didn't. I did. My implicit point was supporting Sib's in that unlimited competition will destroy monopolies in a free market. The regulation creates monopoly.

And how will this competition rise in a market dominated by monopolies that can force stores not hold their product?

[Moral Libertarians]

I tend towards Centrist, 'Third-Way' economics such as Corporatism and a blend of Socialist and Capitalist features. Pure Socialism is both inefficient and gives the Government too much power, whereas pure, unregulated Capitalism tends to give large corporations too much power and leads to unethical practices. Co-operation between the Government, unions and corporations is the best way to ensure no group suffers.

Cooperation between these groups is usually achieved by corporations corrupting the state, unions corrupting the state, unions trying to use the state to control businesses, and corporations trying to use the state to control unions and crush competition. You don't like corporations? Oppose the state.

[Moral Libertarians]

You didn't. I did. My implicit point was supporting Sib's in that unlimited competition will destroy monopolies in a free market. The regulation creates monopoly.

And how will this competition rise in a market dominated by monopolies that can force stores not hold their product?

If the businesses are making abnormal ("too much") profit, new firms will seek to enter the market to partake of these profits. Increase in supply = decrease in market price. Eliminating state-created barriers such as licensing allows this competition to form.

[Old Tyrannia]

I tend towards Centrist, 'Third-Way' economics such as Corporatism and a blend of Socialist and Capitalist features. Pure Socialism is both inefficient and gives the Government too much power, whereas pure, unregulated Capitalism tends to give large corporations too much power and leads to unethical practices. Co-operation between the Government, unions and corporations is the best way to ensure no group suffers.

Cooperation between these groups is usually achieved by corporations corrupting the state, unions corrupting the state, unions trying to use the state to control businesses, and corporations trying to use the state to control unions and crush competition. You don't like corporations? Oppose the state.

I would if that didn't mean opposing civilization. I sort of like living in an ordered society, thanks.

[Tekcirb]

Some kind of Mixed Economy Socialism.

[Socialist Romania and Slovakia]

Socialism is a wide view and can mean almost everything

I would say I am an mixed market guy. Big corporations must be regulated heavily but small bussiness (like restaurants, hotels etc) not. Except for hygienic stuff etc.

[Sibirsky]

Monopolies are almost always created by the state.

That's a cool story, bro. So you're denying that in an unrestricted market that companies wouldn't buy each other out so they can be the leader in what they do? Is that why the United States is moving to try to stop T-Mobile and AT&T from merging to keep market competition and not allowing one company to control more customers then anyone else?

While monopolies can be funded and supported by the state, that isn't the definition I'm using.

One company will always have more customers than anyone else. With millions of customers, scratch that, tens of millions of customers, it is impossible for the two largest players, to have the exact same number.

You think the lawsuit against AT&T was filed because the US government decided there would be too little competition? It was filed because Sprint got their panties in a bunch over being such a shit service provider, that AT&T and Verizon have so many more customers, they want to stop their growth, at any cost, even using the government to do so.

In a genuine free market, there is always someone else that comes along, with a better idea. It may be cheaper, more efficient, whatever. It is never stagnant.

Government however, creates barriers to entry, typically due to pressure from within the industry itself.

[Sibirsky]

I tend towards Centrist, 'Third-Way' economics such as Corporatism and a blend of Socialist and Capitalist features. Pure Socialism is both inefficient and gives the Government too much power, whereas pure, unregulated Capitalism tends to give large corporations too much power and leads to unethical practices. Co-operation between the Government, unions and corporations is the best way to ensure no group suffers.

You're wrong on capitalism. Cooperation between government, corporations and unions, gives those corporations and unions too much power.

[Old Tyrannia]

I tend towards Centrist, 'Third-Way' economics such as Corporatism and a blend of Socialist and Capitalist features. Pure Socialism is both inefficient and gives the Government too much power, whereas pure, unregulated Capitalism tends to give large corporations too much power and leads to unethical practices. Co-operation between the Government, unions and corporations is the best way to ensure no group suffers.

You're wrong on capitalism. Cooperation between government, corporations and unions, gives those corporations and unions too much power.

Without regulation, capitalism is inherently unethical, as there is nothing to stop corporations from exploiting their workers and engaging in unethical practices.

[Old Tyrannia]

Without regulation, capitalism is inherently unethical, as there is nothing to stop corporations from exploiting their workers and engaging in unethical practices.

Besides people not buying their products and switching to a more ethical company or start producing what they need for themselves, with today's technology it's hard to hide anything.,

Not really. If there is no government to regulate things, how does the average British consumer know how, say, Nike is treating its Indian workers in Mumbai? How do you know if a company is dumping toxic waste or not? Also, you're presuming that humans are inherently good when they are not.

[Sibirsky]

You're wrong on capitalism. Cooperation between government, corporations and unions, gives those corporations and unions too much power.

Without regulation, capitalism is inherently unethical, as there is nothing to stop corporations from exploiting their workers and engaging in unethical practices.

Unions, and other, ethical employers stop unethical employers in their tracks.

[Keronians]

Besides people not buying their products and switching to a more ethical company or start producing what they need for themselves, with today's technology it's hard to hide anything.,

Not really. If there is no government to regulate things, how does the average British consumer know how, say, Nike is treating its Indian workers in Mumbai? How do you know if a company is dumping toxic waste or not? Also, you're presuming that humans are inherently good when they are not.

Mumbai's one of the better cities overall.

You should go to Bangalore.

[Sibirsky]

Besides people not buying their products and switching to a more ethical company or start producing what they need for themselves, with today's technology it's hard to hide anything.,

Not really. If there is no government to regulate things, how does the average British consumer know how, say, Nike is treating its Indian workers in Mumbai? How do you know if a company is dumping toxic waste or not? Also, you're presuming that humans are inherently good when they are not.

The media? Consumer watchdog groups?

[Keronians]

Without regulation, capitalism is inherently unethical, as there is nothing to stop corporations from exploiting their workers and engaging in unethical practices.

Unions, and other, ethical employers stop unethical employers in their tracks.

I assume you mean trade unions, and if so, then how is being allowed to be in a trade union guaranteed?

[Old Tyrannia]

Not really. If there is no government to regulate things, how does the average British consumer know how, say, Nike is treating its Indian workers in Mumbai? How do you know if a company is dumping toxic waste or not? Also, you're presuming that humans are inherently good when they are not.

The media? Consumer watchdog groups?

And in a world where corporations are completely unregulated, you assume that they won't be able to influence these things?

[Keronians]

Not really. If there is no government to regulate things, how does the average British consumer know how, say, Nike is treating its Indian workers in Mumbai? How do you know if a company is dumping toxic waste or not? Also, you're presuming that humans are inherently good when they are not.

The media? Consumer watchdog groups?

Consumer watchdog groups? What in the hell is that?

Anyway, action from pressure groups is not guaranteed to work. It's common knowledge that firms like Nike, Adidas, etc. make use of child labour. The consumer here still doesn't give a rat's ass about it.

[Aurora-Nova]

The only legitimate argument in this thread, from either side, is, "The OP would be able to spell better if he grew up in a [capitalist/socialist] society." All other arguments are invalid.

[Keronians]

Mumbai's one of the better cities overall.

You should go to Bangalore.

They are not, If you are rich our have family rich enough to have a net connection then you would probably live in a country where your basics self interests are easy to attain thus giving you the ability to worry about normative issues which either means that you'll care or not and people that are angry over something tend to make other people and this could put the business in jeopardy. Hong Kong says hi

[Sibirsky]

Unions, and other, ethical employers stop unethical employers in their tracks.

I assume you mean trade unions, and if so, then how is being allowed to be in a trade union guaranteed?

I mean labor unions. As long as they are voluntary, I have no issues with them. There is nothing anti-free market in labor unions, other than the fact that they tend to level wages.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Socialist. Resources should be shared by all in the state, there's no reason why some should be able to live like kings while others have to worry if they can feed themselves.