Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sibirsky]

What is the private company using force over in this hypothetical situation?

I see where you are going with this.

It is using it over a contract. Now you will blab on about the social contract, and how you didn't sign it, and how if you do not adhere to it the gov will throw you in jail etc etc...
Well guess what, you can withdraw from the social contract. Revoke your citizenship and leave the country. Simplez

And go where? Another country? With it's own, ridiculous immigration laws, and it's own "social contract?"

I was referring to agreed to contracts. Written, signed by all parties involved, enforced.

[-St George]

Corporate employees could be compensated in part with stock options, making them part owners of the business.

Which happens today anyway...

[Laissez-Faire]

The thing about anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations in particular is that they both can impede the market of reward for innovation in a market, and are simply less necessary in a truly free and competitive market.

Monopoly's are bad. Making laws against monopoly's makes sense. Forget ideology and look at this from a cost-benefit perspective. Monopolies hold prices high, they keep production costs high, and keep production lower than it should be. Its not a question of freedom or liberty. Its a question of, is society better off with monopoly's and trusts running rampant? Undoubtedly the answer is no. Perhaps if we abandoned anti-trust laws we wouldn't see the entire nation fall under monopolistic industry's, but we would no doubt see the emergence of corrupt, colluding oligopolistic industries creating many of the same problems a monopoly does.

Something is bad =/= Job of the law

I agree that monopolies are bad. I simply say that monopolies would not be so traditional in a truly free market. Having the government determine monopolies, while suppressing competition that is the best way to regulate a monopoly through the market, is poor way to mitigate their negative effects.

[Sibirsky]

The thing about anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations in particular is that they both can impede the market of reward for innovation in a market, and are simply less necessary in a truly free and competitive market.

Monopoly's are bad. Making laws against monopoly's makes sense. Forget ideology and look at this from a cost-benefit perspective. Monopolies hold prices high, they keep production costs high, and keep production lower than it should be. Its not a question of freedom or liberty. Its a question of, is society better off with monopoly's and trusts running rampant? Undoubtedly the answer is no. Perhaps if we abandoned anti-trust laws we wouldn't see the entire nation fall under monopolistic industry's, but we would no doubt see the emergence of corrupt, colluding oligopolistic industries creating many of the same problems a monopoly does.

Problem is, the way the Sherman Anti-Trust Act works, is that a complaint must be brought to the government, against a supposed offender.

What this creates, is extremely unequal enforcement.

[Sibirsky]

Already addressed. Not the result of capitalism.

Are you a dumbass?!
People who owned the coal mines employed people to work for them to mine coal. How is that not capitalism?!

And? People always worked and where poor. The conditions prior to the industrial revolution were worse. People, including their children had no option, because of rampant poverty.

The industrial revolution led to an increase in production. Which led to an increase of incomes. Which led to the ability of people to demand safer working conditions. And the ability to afford them.

End of story.

[Anti Neo Nazis]

Monopoly's are bad. Making laws against monopoly's makes sense. Forget ideology and look at this from a cost-benefit perspective. Monopolies hold prices high, they keep production costs high, and keep production lower than it should be. Its not a question of freedom or liberty. Its a question of, is society better off with monopoly's and trusts running rampant? Undoubtedly the answer is no. Perhaps if we abandoned anti-trust laws we wouldn't see the entire nation fall under monopolistic industry's, but we would no doubt see the emergence of corrupt, colluding oligopolistic industries creating many of the same problems a monopoly does.

Problem is, the way the Sherman Anti-Trust Act works, is that a complaint must be brought to the government, against a supposed offender.

What this creates, is extremely unequal enforcement.

Again, like I said government isn't perfect. Far from it. The Anti-Trust act isn't perfect. The alternative however, is much more harmful than the flawed way we enforce competition law. And last time I checked the FTC was responsible for investigations regarding monopolies.

[Sibirsky]

Corporate employees could be compensated in part with stock options, making them part owners of the business.

Which happens today anyway...

Right. I'm not saying it doesn't.

[Sibirsky]

Problem is, the way the Sherman Anti-Trust Act works, is that a complaint must be brought to the government, against a supposed offender.

What this creates, is extremely unequal enforcement.

Again, like I said government isn't perfect. Far from it. The Anti-Trust act isn't perfect. The alternative however, is much more harmful than the flawed way we enforce competition law. And last time I checked the FTC was responsible for investigations regarding monopolies.

I'm against it, in it's entirety. However, as a form of compromise, I propose exact guidelines for something like market share.

If market share is > X% Sherman Anti-Trust Act enforced, monopoly broken up.
If market share is < X% nothing happens.

Because of the way it is now enforced, government went after a company (IBM) that had 65% market share. After years in court, government dropped the suit. So I guess 65% is close, but not quite large enough.

Yet another time, government stopped a shoe company with 1% market share, from acquiring another shoe company that also had 1% market share. Obviously 2% is a dangerous monopoly.

What happened to equality, as far as law is concerned?

[Anti Neo Nazis]

Again, like I said government isn't perfect. Far from it. The Anti-Trust act isn't perfect. The alternative however, is much more harmful than the flawed way we enforce competition law. And last time I checked the FTC was responsible for investigations regarding monopolies.

I'm against it, in it's entirety. However, as a form of compromise, I propose exact guidelines for something like market share.

If market share is > X% Sherman Anti-Trust Act enforced, monopoly broken up.
If market share is < X% nothing happens.

Because of the way it is now enforced, government went after a company (IBM) that had 65% market share. After years in court, government dropped the suit. So I guess 65% is close, but not quite large enough.

Yet another time, government stopped a shoe company with 1% market share, from acquiring another shoe company that also had 1% market share. Obviously 2% is a dangerous monopoly.

What happened to equality, as far as law is concerned?

I'm not arguing that the process of breaking up monopoly's isn't sometimes corrupt and silly, not am I saying that replacing the SATA with something more appropriate wouldn't be a bad idea. What I'm saying is compared to the alternative of no anti-trust legislation at all, the SATA is necessary to prevent the awful economic problems associated with a monopoly.

[Sovietiya]

I see where you are going with this.

It is using it over a contract. Now you will blab on about the social contract, and how you didn't sign it, and how if you do not adhere to it the gov will throw you in jail etc etc...
Well guess what, you can withdraw from the social contract. Revoke your citizenship and leave the country. Simplez

And go where? Another country? With it's own, ridiculous immigration laws, and it's own "social contract?"

I was referring to agreed to contracts. Written, signed by all parties involved, enforced.

Alright then. I have an idea to replace it, but I am afraid it would not be implemented in your free-market delusio... ahem, paradise, due to the beneficiary sides.

At 18, you have the option to sign the social contract. If you do, you pay taxes, but you get benefits such as free healthcare (to you free-marketers, maybe not so. But here in the UK with the NHS, the this is included), free higher education, larger pensions etc. If you don't, you don't pay taxes, but you have to pay for all services.

I am not saying I would implement this, but it's an idea. But why bother suggest it to you? To you, pensions, free healthcare and free higher education is filth and scum.

But whatever. Communism isn't possible, a completely free-market would screw us all, but regulated capitalism and (democratic) socialism, the middle points, are not as bad.
You may disagree and think that deregulated capitalism is utopia, well I would rather be able to buy a computer that does not 'conveniently' brake down right after the warranty runs out. I would like to be able to be paid enough to be able to survive and not have to work 3+ jobs just to be able to feed myself, let-alone my family, and I would like to have sufficient safety while at work.

Nuff' said.

[Laissez-Faire]

I'm against it, in it's entirety. However, as a form of compromise, I propose exact guidelines for something like market share.

If market share is > X% Sherman Anti-Trust Act enforced, monopoly broken up.
If market share is < X% nothing happens.

Because of the way it is now enforced, government went after a company (IBM) that had 65% market share. After years in court, government dropped the suit. So I guess 65% is close, but not quite large enough.

Yet another time, government stopped a shoe company with 1% market share, from acquiring another shoe company that also had 1% market share. Obviously 2% is a dangerous monopoly.

What happened to equality, as far as law is concerned?

I'm not arguing that the process of breaking up monopoly's isn't sometimes corrupt and silly, not am I saying that replacing the SATA with something more appropriate wouldn't be a bad idea. What I'm saying is compared to the alternative of no anti-trust legislation at all, the SATA is necessary to prevent the awful economic problems associated with a monopoly.

The best way to break up monopolies is simply to leave it to the market. If the market is truly free.

[New Palikir]

Keynesian. That means I'm a Capitalist, but half of the US thinks I belong in the other categories.

[French Guyane]

This is getting close to comedy gold.

On one side you have communists who wish to smother innovation and growth with a singular state monopoly market and on the other side you have the Libertarians who wish for no regulation to be placed in order to stop massive private monopolies from taking over their sector of the economy. Two sides of the same coin.

[Sovietiya]

This is getting close to comedy gold.

On one side you have communists who wish to smother innovation and growth with a singular state monopoly market and on the other side you have the Libertarians who wish for no regulation to be placed in order to stop massive private monopolies from taking over their sector of the economy. Two sides of the same coin.

Actually, I would be in the middle (although in real life I am not political due to certain reasons, but that aside, I love a good debate).

I would say it is Socialists and Centrists vs Libertarians.
I say socialist as something different to communist (because they are different).

[Sibirsky]

And go where? Another country? With it's own, ridiculous immigration laws, and it's own "social contract?"

I was referring to agreed to contracts. Written, signed by all parties involved, enforced.

Alright then. I have an idea to replace it, but I am afraid it would not be implemented in your free-market delusio... ahem, paradise, due to the beneficiary sides.

At 18, you have the option to sign the social contract. If you do, you pay taxes, but you get benefits such as free healthcare (to you free-marketers, maybe not so. But here in the UK with the NHS, the this is included), free higher education, larger pensions etc. If you don't, you don't pay taxes, but you have to pay for all services.

I am not saying I would implement this, but it's an idea. But why bother suggest it to you? To you, pensions, free healthcare and free higher education is filth and scum.

But whatever. Communism isn't possible, a completely free-market would screw us all, but regulated capitalism and (democratic) socialism, the middle points, are not as bad.
You may disagree and think that deregulated capitalism is utopia, well I would rather be able to buy a computer that does not 'conveniently' brake down right after the warranty runs out. I would like to be able to be paid enough to be able to survive and not have to work 3+ jobs just to be able to feed myself, let-alone my family, and I would like to have sufficient safety while at work.

Nuff' said.

Did I say, welfare and the social safety net is filth and scum? Why use such language?

And your vision of deregulated capitalism is nonsense. Planned obsolescence, for example is a joke. If firms make computers that break down in 3 months, or a year, a competing firm would market a better, more reliable computer.

What makes you think, incomes would be so low, that you would need 3 jobs? That's nonsense. Incomes in capitalist economies are many times higher than elsewhere. Because capitalist economies are more productive. None of this, has anything to do with regulation. Like I said, what seems like 20 times by now, workplace safety did not improve due to regulations. Safety improved because people could afford safer conditions. Again, this is a result of higher productivity, thanks to capitalism.

So, make some taxes optional, but the benefits of those taxes, conditional upon the payment of those specific taxes? This is better, and going in the right direction.

[Sibirsky]

This is getting close to comedy gold.

On one side you have communists who wish to smother innovation and growth with a singular state monopoly market and on the other side you have the Libertarians who wish for no regulation to be placed in order to stop massive private monopolies from taking over their sector of the economy. Two sides of the same coin.

Monopolies are not creations of free markets. We are not Libertarians, but libertarians. The Libertarian Party does not accurately represent libertarianism.

[Anti Neo Nazis]

I'm not arguing that the process of breaking up monopoly's isn't sometimes corrupt and silly, not am I saying that replacing the SATA with something more appropriate wouldn't be a bad idea. What I'm saying is compared to the alternative of no anti-trust legislation at all, the SATA is necessary to prevent the awful economic problems associated with a monopoly.

The best way to break up monopolies is simply to leave it to the market. If the market is truly free.

That's ludicrous. If the market is completely free and unfettered, and companies are allowed to operate without any regulation whatsoever monopolies will no doubt emerge. Oligopolies will begin colluding like mad. The free market isn't some magic being that fixes all of societies problems. The market fails. And it fails a lot. Lack of competition is a prominent example of a market failure. The invisible hand cannot alone stop a company from dominating a market. If the conditions exist it will happen. Monopolies can emerge for a variety of reasons. Patents, difficulty in entering an industry, buying out competitors, etc. And the economic consequences are overwhelmingly negative.

[French Guyane]

This is getting close to comedy gold.

On one side you have communists who wish to smother innovation and growth with a singular state monopoly market and on the other side you have the Libertarians who wish for no regulation to be placed in order to stop massive private monopolies from taking over their sector of the economy. Two sides of the same coin.

Monopolies are not creations of free markets. We are not Libertarians, but libertarians. The Libertarian Party does not accurately represent libertarianism.

Free markets exist in the sem-regulated market. Why won't they exist in the complete free market?I also made no reference to the Libertarian Party in America or any other country.

[Sibirsky]

The best way to break up monopolies is simply to leave it to the market. If the market is truly free.

That's ludicrous. If the market is completely free and unfettered, and companies are allowed to operate without any regulation whatsoever monopolies will no doubt emerge. Oligopolies will begin colluding like mad. The free market isn't some magic being that fixes all of societies problems. The market fails. And it fails a lot. Lack of competition is a prominent example of a market failure. The invisible hand cannot alone stop a company from dominating a market. If the conditions exist it will happen. Monopolies can emerge for a variety of reasons. Patents, difficulty in entering an industry, buying out competitors, etc. And the economic consequences are overwhelmingly negative.

There is always another player to emerge and compete.

[Sibirsky]

Monopolies are not creations of free markets. We are not Libertarians, but libertarians. The Libertarian Party does not accurately represent libertarianism.

Free markets exist in the sem-regulated market. Why won't they exist in the complete free market?I also made no reference to the Libertarian Party in America or any other country.

Um, the first is tautological, and I will ignore it. I'm not sure, what you are trying to say.

You capitalized the word libertarian. That refers to the name of the political organization. The movement, is not capitalized.

I am a libertarian but not a Libertarian.

[New Rogernomics]

The best way to break up monopolies is simply to leave it to the market. If the market is truly free.

So in other words, allow corporations to take control of the economy, who then take control of the economy, maintain their monopolies and fight against each other. I don't see how this is any different than a mixed economy, save all the small-medium sized businesses have now been crushed/forced into a deal with a corporation/bought out.

[Sovietiya]

The best way to break up monopolies is simply to leave it to the market. If the market is truly free.

That's ludicrous. If the market is completely free and unfettered, and companies are allowed to operate without any regulation whatsoever monopolies will no doubt emerge. Oligopolies will begin colluding like mad. The free market isn't some magic being that fixes all of societies problems. The market fails. And it fails a lot. Lack of competition is a prominent example of a market failure. The invisible hand cannot alone stop a company from dominating a market. If the conditions exist it will happen. Monopolies can emerge for a variety of reasons. Patents, difficulty in entering an industry, buying out competitors, etc. And the economic consequences are overwhelmingly negative.

This.
I am not 100% against capitalism, but in an economy I would prefer economic democracy; for the private sector, market socialism, for the public sector and politics, participism.
I like to think politics and economics as problem solving; capitalism is working, for now.
It will become outdated, eventually.

[Sovietiya]

The best way to break up monopolies is simply to leave it to the market. If the market is truly free.

So in other words, allow corporations to take control of the economy, who then take control of the economy, maintain their monopolies and fight against each other. I don't see how this is any different than a mixed economy, save all the small-medium sized businesses have now been crushed/forced into a deal with a corporation/bought out.

You should read Jennifer Government. I am almost finished reading it. It is very good.

Edit: omg I completely forgot this was the Jennifer Government: Nationstates forum. LOL!

[Anti Neo Nazis]

That's ludicrous. If the market is completely free and unfettered, and companies are allowed to operate without any regulation whatsoever monopolies will no doubt emerge. Oligopolies will begin colluding like mad. The free market isn't some magic being that fixes all of societies problems. The market fails. And it fails a lot. Lack of competition is a prominent example of a market failure. The invisible hand cannot alone stop a company from dominating a market. If the conditions exist it will happen. Monopolies can emerge for a variety of reasons. Patents, difficulty in entering an industry, buying out competitors, etc. And the economic consequences are overwhelmingly negative.

There is always another player to emerge and compete.

Not if the monopolist/oligopolist has so much power concentrated that he is able to force other companies out of the market. Try to start up a software company and compete with Microsoft and Apple. Not if the start up costs are so high that attempting to compete with the monopolist would be futile. Not if the monopolist uses his super normal profit to create a vast advertising network. Adam Smith himself contended that companies have an incentive to collude in order to establish control of the market. Every single business in the country wants to be a monopoly and if left alone will do whatever they can to attempt to get one. Most will fail. Market forces and competition will still be present, but the incentive to form trusts and collude will be too strong without the fear of prosecution.

[The Black Forrest]

That's ludicrous. If the market is completely free and unfettered, and companies are allowed to operate without any regulation whatsoever monopolies will no doubt emerge. Oligopolies will begin colluding like mad. The free market isn't some magic being that fixes all of societies problems. The market fails. And it fails a lot. Lack of competition is a prominent example of a market failure. The invisible hand cannot alone stop a company from dominating a market. If the conditions exist it will happen. Monopolies can emerge for a variety of reasons. Patents, difficulty in entering an industry, buying out competitors, etc. And the economic consequences are overwhelmingly negative.

There is always another player to emerge and compete.

And the monopoly would destroy them or acquire them and kill what ever they had.

Your completely free market will only work if you start over from zero. Existing monopolies will make sure there isn't a serious threat. Especially with the evil government gone.....