Competition forces companies to change

[The Rabbi]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

Like everything else you post, that is both wrong and ignorant.

 

[Socialist]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

Like everything else you post, that is both wrong and ignorant.

Seriously? Tell me more about laissez faire America and free market somalia.

 

[The Rabbi]

SD makes good points. Competition is the engine of efficiency in the US economy. Its does force companies to innovate. And encouraging competition is good for the economy in my opinion. The problem is that lassie faire capitalism involves lots of anti-competitive practices because of the elephant in the livingroom:

Business hates competition. They loath it. It cuts into their profits. They do everything they can to eliminate it. And this is nothing new.

From vertical integration to the rail road attempt at new 'net neutrality rules' to to price fixing to wage fixing to purchasing potential rivals to patent trolling to marketing instead of innovating.....business in a lassie faire capitalist system trends toward regional monopolies. Or at the very least, a stark reduction in competition locally. With a full socialist system trending toward a stark reduction in competition due to government monopolies.

The 'sweet spot' is regulated capitalism. Where the natural tendancy against competition that businesses exert is mitigated. And the greatest degree of competition is facilitated.

Regulated capitalism just leads to rampant exploitation of the third world when the capitalists can't exploit laborers in countries like America anymore..

It can. We've certainly seen that. But we've also seen the development of these 3rd world economies and attempts to institute stronger regulation to protect workers than existed before we got there.

Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English
I'm skeptical, yes, improvements have happened, but only when strong labor organization occurs, yet, we continually see capitalists shifting around to where the cheapest labor is found, the least regulations..

Competition also helps workers because whenever there are more workers than work wages and work conditions improve. We see that when the economy is good.

How many people live in poverty worldwide? Where is the majority of production done? When apple/android compete to get better phones, what happens to the workers producing them?

No idea but the vast majority do not live under Capitalism.
The workers get paid better wages as competition for the services increases.
You're not very good at this, are you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

Like everything else you post, that is both wrong and ignorant.

Seriously? Tell me more about laissez faire America and free market somalia.

Whaty would you like to know? Check my sig line for further info.

 

[Socialist]

Regulated capitalism just leads to rampant exploitation of the third world when the capitalists can't exploit laborers in countries like America anymore..

It can. We've certainly seen that. But we've also seen the development of these 3rd world economies and attempts to institute stronger regulation to protect workers than existed before we got there.

Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English
I'm skeptical, yes, improvements have happened, but only when strong labor organization occurs, yet, we continually see capitalists shifting around to where the cheapest labor is found, the least regulations..

Competition also helps workers because whenever there are more workers than work wages and work conditions improve. We see that when the economy is good.

How many people live in poverty worldwide? Where is the majority of production done? When apple/android compete to get better phones, what happens to the workers producing them?

No idea but the vast majority do not live under Capitalism.
The workers get paid better wages as competition for the services increases.
You're not very good at this, are you?

Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism honey. Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, historically, wages have only increases with strong labor unionization and activity, along with state intervention, so try again. China is following state capitalism, so don't try to pull that card.

 

[Socialist]

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

Like everything else you post, that is both wrong and ignorant.

Seriously? Tell me more about laissez faire America and free market somalia.

Whaty would you like to know? Check my sig line for further info.

Oh, I know all about it, it was a "free market" that led to monopolization, control of the state, and horrid conditions for workers. You clearly don't though.

 

[The Rabbi]

It can. We've certainly seen that. But we've also seen the development of these 3rd world economies and attempts to institute stronger regulation to protect workers than existed before we got there.

Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English
I'm skeptical, yes, improvements have happened, but only when strong labor organization occurs, yet, we continually see capitalists shifting around to where the cheapest labor is found, the least regulations..

Competition also helps workers because whenever there are more workers than work wages and work conditions improve. We see that when the economy is good.

How many people live in poverty worldwide? Where is the majority of production done? When apple/android compete to get better phones, what happens to the workers producing them?

No idea but the vast majority do not live under Capitalism.
The workers get paid better wages as competition for the services increases.
You're not very good at this, are you?

Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism honey. Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, historically, wages have only increases with strong labor unionization and activity, along with state intervention, so try again. China is following state capitalism, so don't try to pull that card.

Private ownership of the means of production is ONE element of capitalism, nudnik.
Look at North Dakots over the last 5years. What happened to wages there? Were there unions suddenl y flooding the place? No.
China's economic picture improved when they jettisoned communism and a planned economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

Like everything else you post, that is both wrong and ignorant.

Seriously? Tell me more about laissez faire America and free market somalia.

Whaty would you like to know? Check my sig line for further info.

Oh, I know all about it, it was a "free market" that led to monopolization, control of the state, and horrid conditions for workers. You clearly don't though.

That is of courswe wrong.
Free market led in some cases to large companies that were technically "monopolies." But a funny thing happened when the Sherman Anti Trust aCt was passed: prices went up, not down, as the monopolies were broken up. Seems the big companies were afraid to raise prices because it would invite competition and so conspired to keep prices low. Lower prices for consumers. Those dirty capitalists!

 

[Socialist]

Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English
I'm skeptical, yes, improvements have happened, but only when strong labor organization occurs, yet, we continually see capitalists shifting around to where the cheapest labor is found, the least regulations..

Competition also helps workers because whenever there are more workers than work wages and work conditions improve. We see that when the economy is good.

How many people live in poverty worldwide? Where is the majority of production done? When apple/android compete to get better phones, what happens to the workers producing them?

No idea but the vast majority do not live under Capitalism.
The workers get paid better wages as competition for the services increases.
You're not very good at this, are you?

Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism honey. Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, historically, wages have only increases with strong labor unionization and activity, along with state intervention, so try again. China is following state capitalism, so don't try to pull that card.

Private ownership of the means of production is ONE element of capitalism, nudnik.
Look at North Dakots over the last 5years. What happened to wages there? Were there unions suddenl y flooding the place? No.
China's economic picture improved when they jettisoned communism and a planned economy.

North dakota has about 740,000 people, and one example is a truly pathetic measure of something. Economic picture for who? The rich?

 

[Socialist]

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

Like everything else you post, that is both wrong and ignorant.

Seriously? Tell me more about laissez faire America and free market somalia.

Whaty would you like to know? Check my sig line for further info.

Oh, I know all about it, it was a "free market" that led to monopolization, control of the state, and horrid conditions for workers. You clearly don't though.

That is of courswe wrong.
Free market led in some cases to large companies that were technically "monopolies." But a funny thing happened when the Sherman Anti Trust aCt was passed: prices went up, not down, as the monopolies were broken up. Seems the big companies were afraid to raise prices because it would invite competition and so conspired to keep prices low. Lower prices for consumers. Those dirty capitalists!

They were monopolies you idiot. Yes, yes, ignore the horrid wages, destruction of small businesses, etc, etc... Low prices always have a back story.. make sure to look at where that cheap shirt is made or that cheap phone

 

[The Rabbi]

Competition also helps workers because whenever there are more workers than work wages and work conditions improve. We see that when the economy is good.

How many people live in poverty worldwide? Where is the majority of production done? When apple/android compete to get better phones, what happens to the workers producing them?

No idea but the vast majority do not live under Capitalism.
The workers get paid better wages as competition for the services increases.
You're not very good at this, are you?

Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism honey. Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, historically, wages have only increases with strong labor unionization and activity, along with state intervention, so try again. China is following state capitalism, so don't try to pull that card.

Private ownership of the means of production is ONE element of capitalism, nudnik.
Look at North Dakots over the last 5years. What happened to wages there? Were there unions suddenl y flooding the place? No.
China's economic picture improved when they jettisoned communism and a planned economy.

North dakota has about 740,000 people, and one example is a truly pathetic measure of something. Economic picture for who? The rich?

It doesnt matter how many people ND has. That is irrelevant. Wages rose there because of demand for labor, not labor unions.
btw, have any idea what a skilled electrician makes today, as compared to 40 years ago? And that's without a union.
China has lifted literally billions of people out of poverty by jettisoning the very programs you want.
You arent very good at this, are you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Like everything else you post, that is both wrong and ignorant.

Seriously? Tell me more about laissez faire America and free market somalia.

Whaty would you like to know? Check my sig line for further info.

Oh, I know all about it, it was a "free market" that led to monopolization, control of the state, and horrid conditions for workers. You clearly don't though.

That is of courswe wrong.
Free market led in some cases to large companies that were technically "monopolies." But a funny thing happened when the Sherman Anti Trust aCt was passed: prices went up, not down, as the monopolies were broken up. Seems the big companies were afraid to raise prices because it would invite competition and so conspired to keep prices low. Lower prices for consumers. Those dirty capitalists!

They were monopolies you idiot. Yes, yes, ignore the horrid wages, destruction of small businesses, etc, etc... Low prices always have a back story.. make sure to look at where that cheap shirt is made or that cheap phone

Monopolies indicate they should have raised prices to maximize profit. But they didnt.
The wages were good by the standards of the day. That's why they had a steady supply of people wanting those jobs.
Small businesses flourished during that time.
You arent very good at this, are you?

 

[Socialist]

How many people live in poverty worldwide? Where is the majority of production done? When apple/android compete to get better phones, what happens to the workers producing them?

No idea but the vast majority do not live under Capitalism.
The workers get paid better wages as competition for the services increases.
You're not very good at this, are you?

Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism honey. Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, historically, wages have only increases with strong labor unionization and activity, along with state intervention, so try again. China is following state capitalism, so don't try to pull that card.

Private ownership of the means of production is ONE element of capitalism, nudnik.
Look at North Dakots over the last 5years. What happened to wages there? Were there unions suddenl y flooding the place? No.
China's economic picture improved when they jettisoned communism and a planned economy.

North dakota has about 740,000 people, and one example is a truly pathetic measure of something. Economic picture for who? The rich?

It doesnt matter how many people ND has. That is irrelevant. Wages rose there because of demand for labor, not labor unions.
btw, have any idea what a skilled electrician makes today, as compared to 40 years ago? And that's without a union.
China has lifted literally billions of people out of poverty by jettisoning the very programs you want.
You arent very good at this, are you?

Billions? LOOOOOOOOL. Wages rose in one state of 740,000 people for certain workers and this is a measure you use to ignore all of the contributions of labor unions and the better conditions of other countries with strong labor participation.

 

[Socialist]

Seriously? Tell me more about laissez faire America and free market somalia.

Whaty would you like to know? Check my sig line for further info.

Oh, I know all about it, it was a "free market" that led to monopolization, control of the state, and horrid conditions for workers. You clearly don't though.

That is of courswe wrong.
Free market led in some cases to large companies that were technically "monopolies." But a funny thing happened when the Sherman Anti Trust aCt was passed: prices went up, not down, as the monopolies were broken up. Seems the big companies were afraid to raise prices because it would invite competition and so conspired to keep prices low. Lower prices for consumers. Those dirty capitalists!

They were monopolies you idiot. Yes, yes, ignore the horrid wages, destruction of small businesses, etc, etc... Low prices always have a back story.. make sure to look at where that cheap shirt is made or that cheap phone

Monopolies indicate they should have raised prices to maximize profit. But they didnt.
The wages were good by the standards of the day. That's why they had a steady supply of people wanting those jobs.
Small businesses flourished during that time.
You arent very good at this, are you?

Bullshit, a monopoly simply indicates a lack of competion or control of a particular thing, the profits were massive, come on now. Wages were good? Tell that to the industrial workers, the sweatshop workers, etc... Small businesses flourished? Back that shit up einstein.

 

[The Rabbi]

No idea but the vast majority do not live under Capitalism.
The workers get paid better wages as competition for the services increases.
You're not very good at this, are you?

Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism honey. Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, historically, wages have only increases with strong labor unionization and activity, along with state intervention, so try again. China is following state capitalism, so don't try to pull that card.

Private ownership of the means of production is ONE element of capitalism, nudnik.
Look at North Dakots over the last 5years. What happened to wages there? Were there unions suddenl y flooding the place? No.
China's economic picture improved when they jettisoned communism and a planned economy.

North dakota has about 740,000 people, and one example is a truly pathetic measure of something. Economic picture for who? The rich?

It doesnt matter how many people ND has. That is irrelevant. Wages rose there because of demand for labor, not labor unions.
btw, have any idea what a skilled electrician makes today, as compared to 40 years ago? And that's without a union.
China has lifted literally billions of people out of poverty by jettisoning the very programs you want.
You arent very good at this, are you?

Billions? LOOOOOOOOL. Wages rose in one state of 740,000 people for certain workers and this is a measure you use to ignore all of the contributions of labor unions and the better conditions of other countries with strong labor participation.

Sucks to be you:

The poverty rate in the world's most populous country fell by nearly three-quarters in the last six years, from 26% in 2007 to 7% by 2012, according to a different measure produced by Gallup.[4]

It is an example of demand for workers driving wages up. What about that do you not comprehend?

 

[The Rabbi]

Whaty would you like to know? Check my sig line for further info.

Oh, I know all about it, it was a "free market" that led to monopolization, control of the state, and horrid conditions for workers. You clearly don't though.

That is of courswe wrong.
Free market led in some cases to large companies that were technically "monopolies." But a funny thing happened when the Sherman Anti Trust aCt was passed: prices went up, not down, as the monopolies were broken up. Seems the big companies were afraid to raise prices because it would invite competition and so conspired to keep prices low. Lower prices for consumers. Those dirty capitalists!

They were monopolies you idiot. Yes, yes, ignore the horrid wages, destruction of small businesses, etc, etc... Low prices always have a back story.. make sure to look at where that cheap shirt is made or that cheap phone

Monopolies indicate they should have raised prices to maximize profit. But they didnt.
The wages were good by the standards of the day. That's why they had a steady supply of people wanting those jobs.
Small businesses flourished during that time.
You arent very good at this, are you?

Bullshit, a monopoly simply indicates a lack of competion or control of a particular thing, the profits were massive, come on now. Wages were good? Tell that to the industrial workers, the sweatshop workers, etc... Small businesses flourished? Back that shit up einstein.

You're failing very very badly here.
Monopolies are said to be bad because they produce higher than market prices. But in the case of the cartels in teh 1890s that didnt happen. They actually produiced the opposite. The consumer benefitted from those monopolies.
Again, if wages were sooo bad why were so many people willing to work there?
Small business of course flourished. You think everything was produced by a monopoly?

 

[Socialist]

Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism honey. Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, historically, wages have only increases with strong labor unionization and activity, along with state intervention, so try again. China is following state capitalism, so don't try to pull that card.

Private ownership of the means of production is ONE element of capitalism, nudnik.
Look at North Dakots over the last 5years. What happened to wages there? Were there unions suddenl y flooding the place? No.
China's economic picture improved when they jettisoned communism and a planned economy.

North dakota has about 740,000 people, and one example is a truly pathetic measure of something. Economic picture for who? The rich?

It doesnt matter how many people ND has. That is irrelevant. Wages rose there because of demand for labor, not labor unions.
btw, have any idea what a skilled electrician makes today, as compared to 40 years ago? And that's without a union.
China has lifted literally billions of people out of poverty by jettisoning the very programs you want.
You arent very good at this, are you?

Billions? LOOOOOOOOL. Wages rose in one state of 740,000 people for certain workers and this is a measure you use to ignore all of the contributions of labor unions and the better conditions of other countries with strong labor participation.

Sucks to be you:

The poverty rate in the world's most populous country fell by nearly three-quarters in the last six years, from 26% in 2007 to 7% by 2012, according to a different measure produced by Gallup.[4]

It is an example of demand for workers driving wages up. What about that do you not comprehend?

Doesn't suck to be me, you simply threw out the word billions, which is literally a crock of shit. Oh, guess what country poverty was also drastically reduced in? Venezuela, and the conditions of most workers in China is laughable, although, we must remember that I attest capitalism can reduce poverty, although we see capitalists shifting production when labor power gets to high in a particular country.
Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English

 

[The Rabbi]

Private ownership of the means of production is ONE element of capitalism, nudnik.
Look at North Dakots over the last 5years. What happened to wages there? Were there unions suddenl y flooding the place? No.
China's economic picture improved when they jettisoned communism and a planned economy.

North dakota has about 740,000 people, and one example is a truly pathetic measure of something. Economic picture for who? The rich?

It doesnt matter how many people ND has. That is irrelevant. Wages rose there because of demand for labor, not labor unions.
btw, have any idea what a skilled electrician makes today, as compared to 40 years ago? And that's without a union.
China has lifted literally billions of people out of poverty by jettisoning the very programs you want.
You arent very good at this, are you?

Billions? LOOOOOOOOL. Wages rose in one state of 740,000 people for certain workers and this is a measure you use to ignore all of the contributions of labor unions and the better conditions of other countries with strong labor participation.

Sucks to be you:

The poverty rate in the world's most populous country fell by nearly three-quarters in the last six years, from 26% in 2007 to 7% by 2012, according to a different measure produced by Gallup.[4]

It is an example of demand for workers driving wages up. What about that do you not comprehend?

Doesn't suck to be me, you simply threw out the word billions, which is literally a crock of shit. Oh, guess what country poverty was also drastically reduced in? Venezuela, and the conditions of most workers in China is laughable, although, we must remember that I attest capitalism can reduce poverty, although we see capitalists shifting production when labor power gets to high in a particular country.
Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English

Yeah poverty declined in Venezuela. That's why they're fighting over toilet paper in the stores.
You're a joke. Go away.

 

[Socialist]

Oh, I know all about it, it was a "free market" that led to monopolization, control of the state, and horrid conditions for workers. You clearly don't though.

That is of courswe wrong.
Free market led in some cases to large companies that were technically "monopolies." But a funny thing happened when the Sherman Anti Trust aCt was passed: prices went up, not down, as the monopolies were broken up. Seems the big companies were afraid to raise prices because it would invite competition and so conspired to keep prices low. Lower prices for consumers. Those dirty capitalists!

They were monopolies you idiot. Yes, yes, ignore the horrid wages, destruction of small businesses, etc, etc... Low prices always have a back story.. make sure to look at where that cheap shirt is made or that cheap phone

Monopolies indicate they should have raised prices to maximize profit. But they didnt.
The wages were good by the standards of the day. That's why they had a steady supply of people wanting those jobs.
Small businesses flourished during that time.
You arent very good at this, are you?

Bullshit, a monopoly simply indicates a lack of competion or control of a particular thing, the profits were massive, come on now. Wages were good? Tell that to the industrial workers, the sweatshop workers, etc... Small businesses flourished? Back that shit up einstein.

You're failing very very badly here.
Monopolies are said to be bad because they produce higher than market prices. But in the case of the cartels in teh 1890s that didnt happen. They actually produiced the opposite. The consumer benefitted from those monopolies.
Again, if wages were sooo bad why were so many people willing to work there?
Small business of course flourished. You think everything was produced by a monopoly?

If you keep saying the world failing, you're going deeper into your baseless rhethoric. The consumer "benefitting" means nothing to the conditions of the laborers, the environmental destruction, the rampant inequality, and such, first world anecdotes mean nothing to the grand scheme of things Wage slavery buddy. Work or lack basic needs, doesn't matter what the work is, a shitty factory working 60 hours a week? I need to feed my kids.. I want evidence small businesess flourished.

 

[Socialist]

North dakota has about 740,000 people, and one example is a truly pathetic measure of something. Economic picture for who? The rich?

It doesnt matter how many people ND has. That is irrelevant. Wages rose there because of demand for labor, not labor unions.
btw, have any idea what a skilled electrician makes today, as compared to 40 years ago? And that's without a union.
China has lifted literally billions of people out of poverty by jettisoning the very programs you want.
You arent very good at this, are you?

Billions? LOOOOOOOOL. Wages rose in one state of 740,000 people for certain workers and this is a measure you use to ignore all of the contributions of labor unions and the better conditions of other countries with strong labor participation.

Sucks to be you:

The poverty rate in the world's most populous country fell by nearly three-quarters in the last six years, from 26% in 2007 to 7% by 2012, according to a different measure produced by Gallup.[4]

It is an example of demand for workers driving wages up. What about that do you not comprehend?

Doesn't suck to be me, you simply threw out the word billions, which is literally a crock of shit. Oh, guess what country poverty was also drastically reduced in? Venezuela, and the conditions of most workers in China is laughable, although, we must remember that I attest capitalism can reduce poverty, although we see capitalists shifting production when labor power gets to high in a particular country.
Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English

Yeah poverty declined in Venezuela. That's why they're fighting over toilet paper in the stores.
You're a joke. Go away.

Venezuela Leads Region in Poverty Reduction in 2012 ECLAC Says The Americas Blog Blogs Publications The Center for Economic and Policy Research
It did decline after Hugo, if you disagree with that, you're denying accepted facts. The whole "toilet paper" bullshit is idiotic rhetoric, at this point, venezuela has addressed the problem, then again, ignore all of the achievments of venezuela.