The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[Kosh]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Most 'liberals' aren't going for socialism. But regulated capitalism. As capitalism has flaws of its own: a tendancy toward unfair trading practices, wild abuses of the environment, and instability.

Unfair business practices could manifest as businesses working together to fix prices, monopolies, insider trading, etc.. All explicitly serve the self interest of the individual or individuals committing such practices. But not the public doing business with them. And this is hardly something new, having been recognized for a very long time.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Adam Smith

Businesses hate competition. It cuts into their profits. So they do everything in their power to eliminate it. The very engine of capitalism, business, works to eliminate the primary advantage of capitalism: efficiency. When capitalism is regulated to prevent such unfair practices, you maximize this efficiency.

The second flaw of capitalism is its brutal outcome on the environment. Taking all the pandas, spotted owls and humpback whales off the table, capitalism is hell on the water we drink and the air we breathe. As people act of our self interest, not collective interest. If its beneficial to them to say, pollute a river downstream to save money, they will. As the water upstream where they live isn't contaminated. And they save money.

That it fucks the town downstream isn't their problem. That's self interest in action.

And we're seeing that influence effect China as it becomes more capitalistic:

Most of the workers start coming down with respitory illnesses after about 2 years.

That's in the city of Harbin, where the small particle pollution is 40 times what is considered unhealthy. Things in Beijing aren't much better:

And while this water may be beautiful......I wouldn't want to drink it

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this damage and prevent self interest from poisoning the public.

The last great flaw of capitalism is its instability. Its prone to wild expansions followed by crippling contractions. inflation, followed by deflation. With each boom and bust cycle wasting enormous resources and causing havoc on the lives of those working for a living.

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this instability, shortening the contractions and extending the expansions. Since the implementation of the Fed, we've seen half the years in depression or recession than we saw before it. Regulated capitalism also creates a social safety net that helps mitigate the harm to individuals and families as they weather the economic downturns.

With all of these reasons why most 'liberals' support regulated capitalism. When properly managed, its the most efficient system of economy we've yet produced. But like fire, it will burn the shit out of you if left uncontrolled.

Wrong! The far left wants government to control every aspect of your life, you know the examples you just posted..

Which is why you vote far left without question or hesitation..

Also a far left drone (like you) pretending to be a "Liberal" should offend every true "Liberal" out there.

The far left wants to eliminate government, the far right is authoritarian and wants to control everything and everyone.

Regulated capitalism is what we have, and what capitalists want to see go away. Without regulations, who or what would save capitalism from the capitalists?

And that's the great flaw of libertarianism, right there. It has an almost child like understanding of power. While recognizing that too much power in one place can be abused, it limits its application of this knowledge to government.

Concentrations of private power and all the abuse it can bring are ignored. Either in denying its existence or insisting that such abuses aren't the place of government to fix. And yet with all the gloves off and private power left with no restrictions......horrendous abuses are not only possible, but inevitable.

Libertarianism can't resolve or even address it. Any plausible system of government must.

Yet the examples used by this far left drone are from CHINA!!!

To the far left they see communist CHINA as capitalism..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Banksters are the worker's best friend. They keep their money safe, and even pay interest (<1%) and loan other peoples money out too. Yet, how much do they charch for credit? 12,15,18 and more percent! Isn't capitalism great, for Banksters and the investment class. Not so much for small businesses and individuals those who rarely turn one dollar in 12, 15, 18 and more.

^ Has absolutely zero private sector experience

Really? How do you know? Well, you don't know much, and in this case you demonstrate what a fool you are. I don't need to own a bank, or work in a bank to have experience with banks and mortgage brokers (which I why I use a credit union and buy property's with the aid of a mortgage banker I know and trust).

Anyone who has bought property knows the profit built into the documents they sign, priced way beyond their actual value. Anyone who has bought a car, knows the closer will try to sell add ons making the cost 5 to 10 percent higher than the original price.
When such items are refused, the car will not be available for a couple of days so they can remove, for example, the four bolts holding on the $350 mud flaps.

I know because we both know you don't know dick about the private sector. You're making shit up, just repeating stupid Marxist phrases and ideas.

Banksters? Seriously?

No moron, I'm not parroting Marx or anyone else. If I use a quote from someone else, I put it in quote marks and provide a link to the source. Unlike idiots and fools like you, who call anyone who criticizes capitalism a Communist, a conclusion built on a bed of ignorance and framed by bigotry.

Communism is a theory whose time has long passed. Much like the Republican Party, a political movement cannot last long when what is promised is never produced.

Our economic system needs reform, not replacement. All of us need to recognize that the greater threat to our political and social structure is not Communism, it is the movement to make our mixed economy into one with less and less oversight, and concentrating more and more of the wealth into the hands of the few.

We are a Plutocracy in the making (given the millionaires in Congress, many argue we have already become one, and as more efforts are made to shrink government (drown it in a bathtub) and thereby create a private sector which polices itself. A system of governance capable of becoming as dystopian as any produced by the Communist Regimes.

One thing even a moron like CrusaderFrank might fathom, the more we allow the private sector to act without restraint, the greater the discontent of the masses. As the expectation of the many rise, and the results fail to produce what is promised, we can expect the far left to rise once again and make demands less reasonable then those being asked for today (a living wage, a raise to the minimum wage, affordable health care, affordable college for the kids, and a safety net for the future).

In America, the private sector never acts "without restraint" We have courts.

What you meant to say is you want the Federal Government to be in charge of all human activity

 

[Iceweasel]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Most 'liberals' aren't going for socialism. But regulated capitalism. As capitalism has flaws of its own: a tendancy toward unfair trading practices, wild abuses of the environment, and instability.

Unfair business practices could manifest as businesses working together to fix prices, monopolies, insider trading, etc.. All explicitly serve the self interest of the individual or individuals committing such practices. But not the public doing business with them. And this is hardly something new, having been recognized for a very long time.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Adam Smith

Businesses hate competition. It cuts into their profits. So they do everything in their power to eliminate it. The very engine of capitalism, business, works to eliminate the primary advantage of capitalism: efficiency. When capitalism is regulated to prevent such unfair practices, you maximize this efficiency.

The second flaw of capitalism is its brutal outcome on the environment. Taking all the pandas, spotted owls and humpback whales off the table, capitalism is hell on the water we drink and the air we breathe. As people act of our self interest, not collective interest. If its beneficial to them to say, pollute a river downstream to save money, they will. As the water upstream where they live isn't contaminated. And they save money.

That it fucks the town downstream isn't their problem. That's self interest in action.

And we're seeing that influence effect China as it becomes more capitalistic:

With all of these reasons why most 'liberals' support regulated capitalism. When properly managed, its the most efficient system of economy we've yet produced. But like fire, it will burn the shit out of you if left uncontrolled.

You're full of shit. Businesses strive for efficiency. Owners lay awake at night thinking about it. And many competitors are friendly with one another and don't want to scoop up all the action and expand to accommodate it.

You stupid liberals have no understanding of capitalism. Most of you seem barely employable. You post a communist countries pollution as evidence that capitalism is bad? WTF? Businesses aren't running the country, the commies are. If people die so be it, the state is what matters.

And what capitalist opposes all regulation? It can't exist in anarchy. The problem is stifling overbearing over regulation. Like putting coal mining out of business when it's a good and useful energy source with clean emissions these days.

You're just another left wing propagandizing hack.

 

[Iceweasel]

And that's the great flaw of libertarianism, right there. It has an almost child like understanding of power. While recognizing that too much power in one place can be abused, it limits its application of this knowledge to government.

Concentrations of private power and all the abuse it can bring are ignored. Either in denying its existence or insisting that such abuses aren't the place of government to fix. And yet with all the gloves off and private power left with no restrictions......horrendous abuses are not only possible, but inevitable.

Libertarianism can't resolve or even address it. Any plausible system of government must.

Libertarians are fascists? Who knew? Golly, do you have a web site so we can learn more?

The biggest threat is concentration of power by government. That's why the founders gave us the second amendment, when tyranny starts the people can perform a "reset".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And what capitalist opposes all regulation? It can't exist in anarchy.

You got that part correct. Tell me, do you know what it's called when you pass the costs of doing business, say pollution, onto society at large and why that's a serious downside of capitalism?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Libertarians are fascists? Who knew?

Libertarians are selfish infants.

 

[Skylar]

You're full of shit. Businesses strive for efficiency. Owners lay awake at night thinking about it.

Businesses strive for efficiency most fully when they have to compete. Which is why businesses so despise competition. It reduces their profits dramatically, forcing them to innovate and reduce costs.

Given the opportunity to implement anti-competitive practices, most businesses will gladly price fix, swallow up their competition, put their competition out of business or otherwise reduce competition.

Exactly as Adam Smith described.

In an environment where such anti-competitive practices are mitigated by say, regulation preventing them, we get all the 'owners laying awake at night thinking about efficiency' you described. In an environment where such anti-competitive practices are allowed to flourish, business owners can sleep better knowing that they can charge more and provide less.

Regulated capitalism maintains the highest degree of competition. And its the competition that motivates the efficiency.

In addition, regulated capitalism mitigating the devastating environmental effects of capitalism, and its inherent instability.

You stupid liberals have no understanding of capitalism.

On the contrary, we have a fuller and more nuanced understanding of capitalism than you do. As competition is the impetus of efficiency. With businesses seeking to eliminate competition to maximize profits. And if successful in such elimination, they remove their greatest motivator for efficiency and innovation; competition.

If you disagree, explain why.

 

[Skylar]

Libertarians are fascists? Who knew?

Libertarians are selfish infants.

They're limited by two great failures: an inability or unwillingness to address the abuses of private power. And a childlishly binary perception of consent and coercion.

Where is someone is starving, with their family starving...an employer can do pretty much anything to them as long as they agree to it in exchange for a wage. The wild exploitation such a system encourages and carefully protects has turned off even many former libertarians.

 

[Iceweasel]

On the contrary, we have a fuller and more nuanced understanding of capitalism than you do. As competition is the impetus of efficiency. With businesses seeking to eliminate competition to maximize profits. And if successful in such elimination, they remove their greatest motivator for efficiency and innovation; competition.

If you disagree, explain why.

I disagree because I don't rely on some whacky ass theory from somebody else. I've been a business owner for 28+ years and have served mostly other businesses. Nobody I know hates competition, nobody wants to do it all. Sometimes the best thing you can do is send a pain in the ass customer to a competitor!

Capitalism is competitive by definition. There's no such thing as capitalism without competition. The only way you can have a non competitive market is if the government intervenes and you have socialism, fascism or communism.

Another thing your Adam Smith idol apparently overlooked is that capitalists buy shit too. We like getting the most bang for our buck when we buy somebody else's goods or services.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Most 'liberals' aren't going for socialism. But regulated capitalism. As capitalism has flaws of its own: a tendancy toward unfair trading practices, wild abuses of the environment, and instability.

Unfair business practices could manifest as businesses working together to fix prices, monopolies, insider trading, etc.. All explicitly serve the self interest of the individual or individuals committing such practices. But not the public doing business with them. And this is hardly something new, having been recognized for a very long time.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Adam Smith

Businesses hate competition. It cuts into their profits. So they do everything in their power to eliminate it. The very engine of capitalism, business, works to eliminate the primary advantage of capitalism: efficiency. When capitalism is regulated to prevent such unfair practices, you maximize this efficiency.

The second flaw of capitalism is its brutal outcome on the environment. Taking all the pandas, spotted owls and humpback whales off the table, capitalism is hell on the water we drink and the air we breathe. As people act of our self interest, not collective interest. If its beneficial to them to say, pollute a river downstream to save money, they will. As the water upstream where they live isn't contaminated. And they save money.

That it fucks the town downstream isn't their problem. That's self interest in action.

And we're seeing that influence effect China as it becomes more capitalistic:

Most of the workers start coming down with respitory illnesses after about 2 years.

That's in the city of Harbin, where the small particle pollution is 40 times what is considered unhealthy. Things in Beijing aren't much better:

And while this water may be beautiful......I wouldn't want to drink it

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this damage and prevent self interest from poisoning the public.

The last great flaw of capitalism is its instability. Its prone to wild expansions followed by crippling contractions. inflation, followed by deflation. With each boom and bust cycle wasting enormous resources and causing havoc on the lives of those working for a living.

Regulated capitalism helps mitigate this instability, shortening the contractions and extending the expansions. Since the implementation of the Fed, we've seen half the years in depression or recession than we saw before it. Regulated capitalism also creates a social safety net that helps mitigate the harm to individuals and families as they weather the economic downturns.

With all of these reasons why most 'liberals' support regulated capitalism. When properly managed, its the most efficient system of economy we've yet produced. But like fire, it will burn the shit out of you if left uncontrolled.

Wrong! The far left wants government to control every aspect of your life, you know the examples you just posted..

Which is why you vote far left without question or hesitation..

Also a far left drone (like you) pretending to be a "Liberal" should offend every true "Liberal" out there.

The far left wants to eliminate government, the far right is authoritarian and wants to control everything and everyone.

Regulated capitalism is what we have, and what capitalists want to see go away. Without regulations, who or what would save capitalism from the capitalists?

More far left propaganda not based on reality..

[sarcasm alert!!!!] Well, another well thought out, critically examined, intelligent post by Kosh.

 

[Iceweasel]

They're limited by two great failures: an inability or unwillingness to address the abuses of private power. And a childlishly binary perception of consent and coercion.

Where is someone is starving, with their family starving...an employer can do pretty much anything to them as long as they agree to it in exchange for a wage. The wild exploitation such a system encourages and carefully protects has turned off even many former libertarians.

You're on drugs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

On the contrary, we have a fuller and more nuanced understanding of capitalism than you do. As competition is the impetus of efficiency. With businesses seeking to eliminate competition to maximize profits. And if successful in such elimination, they remove their greatest motivator for efficiency and innovation; competition.

If you disagree, explain why.

I disagree because I don't rely on some whacky ass theory from somebody else. I've been a business owner for 28+ years and have served mostly other businesses. Nobody I know hates competition, nobody wants to do it all. Sometimes the best thing you can do is send a pain in the ass customer to a competitor!

Capitalism is competitive by definition. There's no such thing as capitalism without competition. The only way you can have a non competitive market is if the government intervenes and you have socialism, fascism or communism.

Another thing your Adam Smith idol apparently overlooked is that capitalists buy shit too. We like getting the most bang for our buck when we buy somebody else's goods or services.

You seem to have forgotten cartels, insider traders, price fixing, bait and switch, and a host of other frauds, misrepresentations and cheesy sales personnel.

BTW, government employees buy goods and services too.

 

[Iceweasel]

On the contrary, we have a fuller and more nuanced understanding of capitalism than you do. As competition is the impetus of efficiency. With businesses seeking to eliminate competition to maximize profits. And if successful in such elimination, they remove their greatest motivator for efficiency and innovation; competition.

If you disagree, explain why.

I disagree because I don't rely on some whacky ass theory from somebody else. I've been a business owner for 28+ years and have served mostly other businesses. Nobody I know hates competition, nobody wants to do it all. Sometimes the best thing you can do is send a pain in the ass customer to a competitor!

Capitalism is competitive by definition. There's no such thing as capitalism without competition. The only way you can have a non competitive market is if the government intervenes and you have socialism, fascism or communism.

Another thing your Adam Smith idol apparently overlooked is that capitalists buy shit too. We like getting the most bang for our buck when we buy somebody else's goods or services.

You seem to have forgotten cartels, insider traders, price fixing, bait and switch, and a host of other frauds, misrepresentations and cheesy sales personnel.

BTW, government employee buy goods and services too.

No one suggested doing away with laws. I've said the opposite, capitalism needs them to function properly. If we have no laws you can just shoot the fucker that cheater you.

Yes, I am aware that government spends our money. WAY too much of it.

 

[Skylar]

And that's the great flaw of libertarianism, right there. It has an almost child like understanding of power. While recognizing that too much power in one place can be abused, it limits its application of this knowledge to government.

Concentrations of private power and all the abuse it can bring are ignored. Either in denying its existence or insisting that such abuses aren't the place of government to fix. And yet with all the gloves off and private power left with no restrictions......horrendous abuses are not only possible, but inevitable.

Libertarianism can't resolve or even address it. Any plausible system of government must.

Libertarians are fascists? Who knew? Golly, do you have a web site so we can learn more?

When you can quote me saying that, feel free. Until then, you're quoting yourself.

If you wish to quote me, I'll give you even more material to work with: concentrations of power can and will be abused. Any concentration of power. Private power, if unrestrained, will be abused. Libertarians offer a court for redress, but with three enormous problems:

1) The damage is already done:

If we're talking about environmental damage, the river is already poisoned. The air is already polluted. The public is already harmed. Insisting that we can do nothing to prevent the poisoning, or the pollution save to fine the polluter after the fact is ludicrously stupid. As it reduces the poisoning of the public to a business decision, where the cost of killing people is weighed against the benefits of saving money doing it.

In any rational system if the harm can be prevented, it should be. Regulations preventing the poisoning of the river are a much better solution than financial payments to the families of the dead and injured afterward. Its more effecient, effective, costs less, and has a lower cost in human lives. Its also faster.

2) The court is 'pay to play'.

With the loser paying the bills of the winner. Which stacks the deck against those with the fewest resources to an almost ludicrous degree. While empowering those who already have power. The issue of compensation for damages is immediately limited by the risk of seeking them. So you can have a system were individuals are genuinely harmed, but would be unable or unwilling to seek compensation due to the expense or devastation to their families should they lose.

Such a system encourages even more abuse.

3) They limit judgments to actual damages:

With judgments limited to actual damages, it may be financially viable to hurt people as part of your business model. Where the cost of the people you maim, injure or kill is less than than the cost savings of the harmful practice. Punative damages limit this motivation, as it discourages the act of harm itself instead of reducing intentional harm to a cost/benefit analysis.

......

And all of the above assumes, with the greatest of naivete, that despite the enormous concentrations of private power, that such power will *only* be used within the confines of the law. That there won't be undue influence, influence peddling, corruption, or all the other predictable outcomes of private power. Which, of course, there will be. And this corruption is virtually unchecked as well. As there is no effective apparatus to combat it.

Which means that over time a 'libertarian system' will become more susceptible to the influence and control of individuals of private power. And by definition, less and less a 'libertarian system'. And more an oligarchy.
Not only won't libertarianism produce the results in assumes.......libertarianism faults are so egregious, its flaws so fatal, that as a system libertarianism is unsustainable.

It will move either toward more centralized government power to combat the obvious abuses of private power. Or it will move toward oligarchy as corruption of government concentrations power in the hands of those with private power.

And feel free to quote me.

 

[Skylar]

On the contrary, we have a fuller and more nuanced understanding of capitalism than you do. As competition is the impetus of efficiency. With businesses seeking to eliminate competition to maximize profits. And if successful in such elimination, they remove their greatest motivator for efficiency and innovation; competition.

If you disagree, explain why.

I disagree because I don't rely on some whacky ass theory from somebody else. I've been a business owner for 28+ years and have served mostly other businesses. Nobody I know hates competition, nobody wants to do it all. Sometimes the best thing you can do is send a pain in the ass customer to a competitor!

Non-competative practices need not take the exclusive form of monopoly. It could be a company merger, where two competitors join forces to eliminate the need to compete with each other. Or existing businesses remain independent, but collaborate to price fix in order to maintain higher profit margins. Or a larger business forcing a small out of the market by selling below cost until the smaller business goes bankrupt. Or a business can limit access to a market by potential competition by denying key resources such as oil, or rail roads or toll roads. Or a business uses insider information to make money, information that isn't available to the general public.

Such practices happen all the time, even with regulation. Without regulation, such practices are rampant. Even Adam Smith understood this.

Capitalism is competitive by definition. There's no such thing as capitalism without competition. The only way you can have a non competitive market is if the government intervenes and you have socialism, fascism or communism.

Then what is capitalism rampant with anti-competative practices? You can pretend that no such practices are possible. But history is rife with them.

Another thing your Adam Smith idol apparently overlooked is that capitalists buy shit too. We like getting the most bang for our buck when we buy somebody else's goods or services.

So now Adam Smith is a liberal?

 

[Iceweasel]

And that's the great flaw of libertarianism, right there. It has an almost child like understanding of power. While recognizing that too much power in one place can be abused, it limits its application of this knowledge to government.

Concentrations of private power and all the abuse it can bring are ignored. Either in denying its existence or insisting that such abuses aren't the place of government to fix. And yet with all the gloves off and private power left with no restrictions......horrendous abuses are not only possible, but inevitable.

Libertarianism can't resolve or even address it. Any plausible system of government must.

Libertarians are fascists? Who knew? Golly, do you have a web site so we can learn more?

When you can quote me saying that, feel free. Until then, you're quoting yourself.

If you wish to quote me, I'll give you even more material to work with: concentrations of power can and will be abused. Any concentration of power. Private power, if unrestrained, will be abused. Libertarians offer a court for redress, but with three enormous problems:

1) The damage is already done:

If we're talking about environmental damage, the river is already poisoned. The air is already polluted. The public is already harmed. Insisting that we can do nothing to prevent the poisoning, or the pollution save to fine the polluter after the fact is ludicrously stupid. As it reduces the poisoning of the public to a business decision, where the cost of killing people is weighed against the benefits of saving money doing it.

In any rational system if the harm can be prevented, it should be. Regulations preventing the poisoning of the river are a much better solution than financial payments to the families of the dead and injured afterward. Its more effecient, effective, costs less, and has a lower cost in human lives. Its also faster.

2) The court is 'pay to play'.

With the loser paying the bills of the winner. Which stacks the deck against those with the fewest resources to an almost ludicrous degree. While empowering those who already have power. The issue of compensation for damages is immediately limited by the risk of seeking them. So you can have a system were individuals are genuinely harmed, but would be unable or unwilling to seek compensation due to the expense or devastation to their families should they lose.

Such a system encourages even more abuse.

3) They limit judgments to actual damages:

With judgments limited to actual damages, it may be financially viable to hurt people as part of your business model. Where the cost of the people you maim, injure or kill is less than than the cost savings of the harmful practice. Punative damages limit this motivation, as it discourages the act of harm itself instead of reducing intentional harm to a cost/benefit analysis.

......

And all of the above assumes, with the greatest of naivete, that despite the enormous concentrations of private power, that such power will *only* be used within the confines of the law. That there won't be undue influence, influence peddling, corruption, or all the other predictable outcomes of private power. Which, of course, there will be. And this corruption is virtually unchecked as well. As there is no effective apparatus to combat it.

Which means that over time a 'libertarian system' will become more susceptible to the influence and control of individuals of private power. And by definition, less and less a 'libertarian system'. And more an oligarchy.
Not only won't libertarianism produce the results in assumes.......libertarianism faults are so egregious, its flaws so fatal, that as a system libertarianism is unsustainable.

It will move either toward more centralized government power to combat the obvious abuses of private power. Or it will move toward oligarchy as corruption of government concentrations power in the hands of those with private power.

And feel free to quote me.

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal. Apparently you don't know what a libertarian is. What is a libertarian system? Fiscal conservativism works every time it's tried. The centralized government and private power is fascism and I've never heard of a libertarian advocate it. You apparently need to build strawmen to kick around.

What's unsustainable is socialism. We see proof everywhere we see it. If you take power away from the people and make them wards of the state you are left with empty shells that do what they must, not what they could.

 

[Iceweasel]

On the contrary, we have a fuller and more nuanced understanding of capitalism than you do. As competition is the impetus of efficiency. With businesses seeking to eliminate competition to maximize profits. And if successful in such elimination, they remove their greatest motivator for efficiency and innovation; competition.

If you disagree, explain why.

I disagree because I don't rely on some whacky ass theory from somebody else. I've been a business owner for 28+ years and have served mostly other businesses. Nobody I know hates competition, nobody wants to do it all. Sometimes the best thing you can do is send a pain in the ass customer to a competitor!

Non-competative practices need not take the exclusive form of monopoly. It could be a company merger, where two competitors join forces to eliminate the need to compete with each other. Or existing businesses remain independent, but collaborate to price fix in order to maintain higher profit margins. Or a business can limit access to a market by potential competition by denying key resources such as oil, or rail roads or toll roads. Or a business uses insider information to make money, information that isn't available to the general public.

Such practices happen all the time, even with regulation. Without regulation, such practices are rampant. Even Adam Smith understood this.

Capitalism is competitive by definition. There's no such thing as capitalism without competition. The only way you can have a non competitive market is if the government intervenes and you have socialism, fascism or communism.

Then what is capitalism rampant with anti-competative practices? You can pretend that no such practices are possible. But history is rife with them.

Another thing your Adam Smith idol apparently overlooked is that capitalists buy shit too. We like getting the most bang for our buck when we buy somebody else's goods or services.

So now Adam Smith is a liberal?

Are you quoting yourself. I don't even know if you represented his views right, I said I base my opinions on real world observations. How long have you been in business, you didn't say. I haven't pretended anything, you like to make shit up. I said capitalism needs laws to function properly. One of those laws would be not not have the power or blessings of the state to put competitors out of business.

 

[Skylar]

And that's the great flaw of libertarianism, right there. It has an almost child like understanding of power. While recognizing that too much power in one place can be abused, it limits its application of this knowledge to government.

Concentrations of private power and all the abuse it can bring are ignored. Either in denying its existence or insisting that such abuses aren't the place of government to fix. And yet with all the gloves off and private power left with no restrictions......horrendous abuses are not only possible, but inevitable.

Libertarianism can't resolve or even address it. Any plausible system of government must.

Libertarians are fascists? Who knew? Golly, do you have a web site so we can learn more?

When you can quote me saying that, feel free. Until then, you're quoting yourself.

If you wish to quote me, I'll give you even more material to work with: concentrations of power can and will be abused. Any concentration of power. Private power, if unrestrained, will be abused. Libertarians offer a court for redress, but with three enormous problems:

1) The damage is already done:

If we're talking about environmental damage, the river is already poisoned. The air is already polluted. The public is already harmed. Insisting that we can do nothing to prevent the poisoning, or the pollution save to fine the polluter after the fact is ludicrously stupid. As it reduces the poisoning of the public to a business decision, where the cost of killing people is weighed against the benefits of saving money doing it.

In any rational system if the harm can be prevented, it should be. Regulations preventing the poisoning of the river are a much better solution than financial payments to the families of the dead and injured afterward. Its more effecient, effective, costs less, and has a lower cost in human lives. Its also faster.

2) The court is 'pay to play'.

With the loser paying the bills of the winner. Which stacks the deck against those with the fewest resources to an almost ludicrous degree. While empowering those who already have power. The issue of compensation for damages is immediately limited by the risk of seeking them. So you can have a system were individuals are genuinely harmed, but would be unable or unwilling to seek compensation due to the expense or devastation to their families should they lose.

Such a system encourages even more abuse.

3) They limit judgments to actual damages:

With judgments limited to actual damages, it may be financially viable to hurt people as part of your business model. Where the cost of the people you maim, injure or kill is less than than the cost savings of the harmful practice. Punative damages limit this motivation, as it discourages the act of harm itself instead of reducing intentional harm to a cost/benefit analysis.

......

And all of the above assumes, with the greatest of naivete, that despite the enormous concentrations of private power, that such power will *only* be used within the confines of the law. That there won't be undue influence, influence peddling, corruption, or all the other predictable outcomes of private power. Which, of course, there will be. And this corruption is virtually unchecked as well. As there is no effective apparatus to combat it.

Which means that over time a 'libertarian system' will become more susceptible to the influence and control of individuals of private power. And by definition, less and less a 'libertarian system'. And more an oligarchy.
Not only won't libertarianism produce the results in assumes.......libertarianism faults are so egregious, its flaws so fatal, that as a system libertarianism is unsustainable.

It will move either toward more centralized government power to combat the obvious abuses of private power. Or it will move toward oligarchy as corruption of government concentrations power in the hands of those with private power.

And feel free to quote me.

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal.

Explain how being 'socially liberal' is relevant? Lets say you support gay marriage and abortion. How is that relevant to any point I've raised above?

 

[Edgetho]

 

[Kosh]

On the contrary, we have a fuller and more nuanced understanding of capitalism than you do. As competition is the impetus of efficiency. With businesses seeking to eliminate competition to maximize profits. And if successful in such elimination, they remove their greatest motivator for efficiency and innovation; competition.

If you disagree, explain why.

I disagree because I don't rely on some whacky ass theory from somebody else. I've been a business owner for 28+ years and have served mostly other businesses. Nobody I know hates competition, nobody wants to do it all. Sometimes the best thing you can do is send a pain in the ass customer to a competitor!

Capitalism is competitive by definition. There's no such thing as capitalism without competition. The only way you can have a non competitive market is if the government intervenes and you have socialism, fascism or communism.

Another thing your Adam Smith idol apparently overlooked is that capitalists buy shit too. We like getting the most bang for our buck when we buy somebody else's goods or services.

You seem to have forgotten cartels, insider traders, price fixing, bait and switch, and a host of other frauds, misrepresentations and cheesy sales personnel.

BTW, government employee buy goods and services too.

The far left just described Obamacare!