NationStates

Servantium wrote:

Genivar wrote:Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably become Corporatism.

No it wouldn't. Government intervention is what causes corporatism; not what prevents it.

Yes, and one of the things governments can do to protect corporations is making private property sacrosanct.

Maurepas wrote:

Servantium wrote:U.S. Steel's monopoly status is a direct result of government intervention in the economy. Therefore it is not an example of a capitalistic monopoly.

I call bullshit on that. Andrew Carnegie received no help from the US Government, in fact, said government went so far as to bring an Anti-Trust suit against him.

The federal government attempted to use federal antitrust laws to break up U.S. Steel in 1911, but that effort ultimately failed. Time and competitors have, however, accomplished nearly the same thing. In its first full year of operation, U.S. Steel made 67 percent of all the steel produced in the United States. It now produces less than 10 percent.
The Corporation, as it was known on Wall Street,[3] always distinguished itself to investors by virtue of its size, rather than for its efficiency or creativeness during its heyday. In 1901, it controlled two-thirds of steel production.[3] Because of heavy debts taken on at the company's formation — Carnegie insisted on being paid in gold bonds for his stake — and fears of antitrust litigation, U.S. Steel moved cautiously. Competitors often innovated faster, especially Bethlehem Steel, run by U.S. Steel's former first president, Charles M. Schwab. U.S. Steel's share of the expanding market slipped to 50 percent by 1911.

Servantium wrote:

Servantium wrote:I didn't say they helped him directly. I said that his monopoly is a direct result of interventionism.

I'm currently searching for literature to substantiate this claim, but I'm working with dial-up internet, so things are slow.

Ya hah, found some. This relates to Andrew Carnegie because his product (steel) was used in the production of all of these subsidized industries such as the railways and steamboats. Couple that with the high tariffs that all but eliminated international competition and you've got a monopoly that is anything but natural.

Pretty much because "natural" monopolies don't exist.

Sibirsky wrote:

Servantium wrote:Ya hah, found some. This relates to Andrew Carnegie because his product (steel) was used in the production of all of these subsidized industries such as the railways and steamboats. Couple that with the high tariffs that all but eliminated international competition and you've got a monopoly that is anything but natural.

Pretty much because "natural" monopolies don't exist.

You could argue that the criminal underworld, due to taking no government oversight into account, is in effect free market when it comes to peddling nasty goods and services. And while Mexico and its multitude of drug cartels backs up your point, what about the Sicilian Mafia? A largely anarchist and tribe-based structure that tends to be united as a whole, forming a monopoly of violence and crime on Sicily? They've been that way for well over a century now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_M ... dal_Sicily

If you read that it's a very interesting comparison to anarchist-capitalist theory. I think Sicily is a good example of the dangers of an anarcho-capitalist society. A natural monopoly that has lasted since the creation of capitalism on the island to the present, through fascist purges and modern police crack downs. I doubt Sicily will ever be rid of them, or an anarcho-capitalist society their equivalents.

Glorious Homeland wrote:You could argue that the criminal underworld, due to taking no government oversight into account, is in effect free market when it comes to peddling nasty goods and services. And while Mexico and its multitude of drug cartels backs up your point, what about the Sicilian Mafia? A largely anarchist and tribe-based structure that tends to be united as a whole, forming a monopoly of violence and crime on Sicily? They've been that way for well over a century now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_M ... dal_Sicily

If you read that it's a very interesting comparison to anarchist-capitalist theory. I think Sicily is a good example of the dangers of an anarcho-capitalist society. A natural monopoly that has lasted since the creation of capitalism on the island to the present, through fascist purges and modern police crack downs. I doubt Sicily will ever be rid of them, or an anarcho-capitalist society their equivalents.

This point is why I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. Without government there is no realistic was to prevent the initiation of force against your competitors to drive them out of business instead of being limited to non-criminal activity.

One could argue that this constitutes a violation of the free market, but I don't think it is given that the government isn't telling businesses what they can and can't do. It's only bringing justice upon those that violate the rights of others.

Now that our numbers are rabidly rising, Capitalism, as efficient and productive it can be, is also extremely dangerous to our survival, due to our ability to create abundance, and to our desire of wanting everything, and more. Thus, i see socialism as a better option, for now.

Also, i am surprised that there has been no mentions of Natural Capitalism in this thread yet. Has no one ever heard of it yet, or does it just suck that bad?

Mixed-leaning-capitalist is good.

The Laborcratic Union wrote:Now that our numbers are rabidly rising, Capitalism, as efficient and productive it can be, is also extremely dangerous to our survival, due to our ability to create abundance, and to our desire of wanting everything, and more. Thus, i see socialism as a better option, for now.

Also, i am surprised that there has been no mentions of Natural Capitalism in this thread yet. Has no one ever heard of it yet, or does it just suck that bad?

So because no one can have everything they want, everyone must have very little?

Servantium wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:You could argue that the criminal underworld, due to taking no government oversight into account, is in effect free market when it comes to peddling nasty goods and services. And while Mexico and its multitude of drug cartels backs up your point, what about the Sicilian Mafia? A largely anarchist and tribe-based structure that tends to be united as a whole, forming a monopoly of violence and crime on Sicily? They've been that way for well over a century now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_M ... dal_Sicily

If you read that it's a very interesting comparison to anarchist-capitalist theory. I think Sicily is a good example of the dangers of an anarcho-capitalist society. A natural monopoly that has lasted since the creation of capitalism on the island to the present, through fascist purges and modern police crack downs. I doubt Sicily will ever be rid of them, or an anarcho-capitalist society their equivalents.

This point is why I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. Without government there is no realistic was to prevent the initiation of force against your competitors to drive them out of business instead of being limited to non-criminal activity.

One could argue that this constitutes a violation of the free market, but I don't think it is given that the government isn't telling businesses what they can and can't do. It's only bringing justice upon those that violate the rights of others.

Minarchism. Night watchman state.

Sibirsky wrote:

Maurepas wrote:I call bullshit on that. Andrew Carnegie received no help from the US Government, in fact, said government went so far as to bring an Anti-Trust suit against him.

The federal government attempted to use federal antitrust laws to break up U.S. Steel in 1911, but that effort ultimately failed. Time and competitors have, however, accomplished nearly the same thing. In its first full year of operation, U.S. Steel made 67 percent of all the steel produced in the United States. It now produces less than 10 percent.
The Corporation, as it was known on Wall Street,[3] always distinguished itself to investors by virtue of its size, rather than for its efficiency or creativeness during its heyday. In 1901, it controlled two-thirds of steel production.[3] Because of heavy debts taken on at the company's formation — Carnegie insisted on being paid in gold bonds for his stake — and fears of antitrust litigation, U.S. Steel moved cautiously. Competitors often innovated faster, especially Bethlehem Steel, run by U.S. Steel's former first president, Charles M. Schwab. U.S. Steel's share of the expanding market slipped to 50 percent by 1911.

My point being, that that needs to be a legitimate fear, all the time. That way this can happen across the board, if Goldman Sacs feared being broken up into tiny pieces, rather than receiving bonuses and bailouts, we'd be in much better shape.

Georgism wrote:Mixed-leaning-capitalist is good.

Georgism added to my "Respected Leftist" list.

Sibirsky wrote:So because no one can have everything they want, everyone must have very little?

It's the only sensible position. I mean, I'm sure that it's just because you're American that you're capitalist. You'd think differently if you had lived in a socialist nation before.

...

Sibirsky wrote:

The Laborcratic Union wrote:Now that our numbers are rabidly rising, Capitalism, as efficient and productive it can be, is also extremely dangerous to our survival, due to our ability to create abundance, and to our desire of wanting everything, and more. Thus, i see socialism as a better option, for now.

Also, i am surprised that there has been no mentions of Natural Capitalism in this thread yet. Has no one ever heard of it yet, or does it just suck that bad?

So because no one can have everything they want, everyone must have very little?

We already have everything we want. Why should we keep manufacturing cars, even though we could just build a mass transportational system, which would render cars obsolete and save us a hell lot of resources and manpower?

Sibirsky wrote:Georgism added to my "Respected Leftist" list.

I'm only leftist to people like you

*Points at +4 economic score in his sig*

The Laborcratic Union wrote:We already have everything we want. Why should we keep manufacturing cars, even though we could just build a mass transportational system, which would render cars obsolete and save us a hell lot of resources and manpower?

Because cars are awesome and women like them?

Maurepas wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:The federal government attempted to use federal antitrust laws to break up U.S. Steel in 1911, but that effort ultimately failed. Time and competitors have, however, accomplished nearly the same thing. In its first full year of operation, U.S. Steel made 67 percent of all the steel produced in the United States. It now produces less than 10 percent.
The Corporation, as it was known on Wall Street,[3] always distinguished itself to investors by virtue of its size, rather than for its efficiency or creativeness during its heyday. In 1901, it controlled two-thirds of steel production.[3] Because of heavy debts taken on at the company's formation — Carnegie insisted on being paid in gold bonds for his stake — and fears of antitrust litigation, U.S. Steel moved cautiously. Competitors often innovated faster, especially Bethlehem Steel, run by U.S. Steel's former first president, Charles M. Schwab. U.S. Steel's share of the expanding market slipped to 50 percent by 1911.

My point being, that that needs to be a legitimate fear, all the time. That way this can happen across the board, if Goldman Sacs feared being broken up into tiny pieces, rather than receiving bonuses and bailouts, we'd be in much better shape.

I prefer competition. If Goldman Sachs is afraid that Morgan Stanley will come out with new, and better financial products, they will strive to do the same.

Sibirsky wrote:Minarchism. Night watchman state.

I am a minarchist, yes. Although, I've never heard of it referred to as the "Night Watchman State." I rather like that title.

Georgism wrote:

The Laborcratic Union wrote:We already have everything we want. Why should we keep manufacturing cars, even though we could just build a mass transportational system, which would render cars obsolete and save us a hell lot of resources and manpower?

Because cars are awesome and women like them?

You victim of commercial propaganda, you!

The Laborcratic Union wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:So because no one can have everything they want, everyone must have very little?

We already have everything we want. Why should we keep manufacturing cars, even though we could just build a mass transportational system, which would render cars obsolete and save us a hell lot of resources and manpower?

No, we do not.

A mass transport system is inconvenient in certain cases. It will not go directly from my house, to my sister's house, to my grandmother's house, and then to my parents' house. It will not play the music I want.

Sibirsky wrote:

Maurepas wrote:My point being, that that needs to be a legitimate fear, all the time. That way this can happen across the board, if Goldman Sacs feared being broken up into tiny pieces, rather than receiving bonuses and bailouts, we'd be in much better shape.

I prefer competition. If Goldman Sachs is afraid that Morgan Stanley will come out with new, and better financial products, they will strive to do the same.

Yeah, the trick with that though is, if both of those guys are in it together, or one is bigger than the other and buys it out, also known as creating a monopoly, heh, it's that sort of thing that needs to be prevented.

Georgism wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Georgism added to my "Respected Leftist" list.

I'm only leftist to people like you

*Points at +4 economic score in his sig*

You're a whole 4 points to the left of me. Ergo leftist. You should concentrate on the "Respected" part. I don't hand those out too often.

New Nicksyllvania wrote:Feudalism

All that Mercantile rabble is quite disheartening with their lust for wealth and productivity. While Socialism is simple absurdity.

Only if I can have my own private army to patrol my lands, and conquer new ones.

Sibirsky wrote:

The Laborcratic Union wrote:
We already have everything we want. Why should we keep manufacturing cars, even though we could just build a mass transportational system, which would render cars obsolete and save us a hell lot of resources and manpower?

No, we do not.

A mass transport system is inconvenient in certain cases. It will not go directly from my house, to my sister's house, to my grandmother's house, and then to my parents' house. It will not play the music I want.

No, it wouldn't go directly to your sisters house. It would go near it, and then you could walk. It can't be that hard, can it?

The Laborcratic Union wrote:You victim of commercial propaganda, you!

Everyone's a victim of some kind of propaganda *shrugs*.

Even you.

Maurepas wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:I prefer competition. If Goldman Sachs is afraid that Morgan Stanley will come out with new, and better financial products, they will strive to do the same.

Yeah, the trick with that though is, if both of those guys are in it together, or one is bigger than the other and buys it out, also known as creating a monopoly, heh, it's that sort of thing that needs to be prevented.

Refer to

Servantium wrote: