It's not true that capital has political power? How exactly?
It's not true that the natural outcome of market competition are monopolies? How exactly?
It's not true that Socialism for the rich is capitalism because the rich are the ones who control the politics in capitalist society? How is that not true?
None of what you wrote is true. The person you're replying to is correct and you have a very rudimentary understanding of economic systems.
I can play the same game.
None go what you wrote is true. The person you're replying to is correct and you have a very rudimentary understanding of economic systems!!
Again, your understanding of capitalism is rudimentary and deeply flawed.
You didn't explain why?
I suggest you read more
I have read Herbert Spencer, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, William Stanley Jevons, David Ricardo, Carl Menger, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Keynes...
What else do you suggest for me to read? :)
I suggest for you to educate yourself more, clearly you have no substantial opinion aside from defending a death cult that is capitalism.
He doesn't have to. The system you are describing is not a free market capitalist system, and neither is the USA.
Adam Smith wrote against the notion of monopolies and rent seeking behaviour as anti capitalist behaviour, behaviour incompatible with capitalism.
Indeed the idea of bailing out share holder ultimately is also anything but capitalism, it may be where much of western economies are post 2008, but where ever this is, it is not Free Market Capitalism.
I think you two are talking two completely different things here and are both right within your topics. You are talking about ideal capitalism, which exists or can exist as much as ideal communism. It just doesn't.
But most "capitalists" are not dogmatic for the cause but are just greedy and try to grab what they can and give nothing back. These don't care if monopolies and buying political influence are anti capitalistic as long as it suits them.
Those have to be kept in check by political power to keep capitalism from imploding. But these checks diminish due to them buying more political influence.
And that is what he's talking about: The inevitability of real-world capitalism destroying itself if you let single entities become really successful.
And that is what he's talking about: The inevitability of real-world capitalism destroying itself if you let single entities become really successful.
You are correct.
It's funny in a way how capitalism can be so efficient at a times (in commodity production, increasing the productivity over time..), but yet it just can't save itself from itself.
Hm.. Some might say that we need to do some seizing of certain means of production...
And how exactly does "free market capitalism" prevent monopolies?
Even Adam Smith argued that markets do not work on their own without "morals", something needs to control them externally, be it the state or "morals", to prevent the forming of monopolies/oligopolies.
And what were the states trying to do in 1920s? To break up the monopolies.
What is the problem with that? Well capitalism does not exist in a vacuum detached from politics.
Capital has political power and as capital accumulates so does it's political power.
The end result is capital taking over the state (which is supposed to regulate the markets) and making rules that favor it.
After all, the capitalism is about the profit motive, not the free markets, and how do you maximize your profit? By monopolizing your position in the market and increasing the efficiency via vertical integration.
Markets can exists, and did exist, in other economic systems.
Exactly, you hit the nail on the head, yet didn't even realise. Markets require regulation, indeed Smith realised this, and advocated for it, it's a basic requirement of free market capitalism. Capital incorporates for a public use, and not in and of itself.
As for the capital having political control, that's just a result of the US lack of regulation, AKA lack of a free market. Easily rectified. No Capital, your money is not free speech.
Sure, in an ideal scenario politicians would not be bribed and lobbied. Maybe that can be enforced enough. But how to stop the capital from influencing the voters with the media and "news"? Doing a Murdoch?
My whole point was that some regulations are less enforceable than others. How to enforce something subjective like for example putting propaganda against taxes into Hollywood movies?
Sure, but would corporations then just stop or search for new ways to influence? I already said that I would accept the easy to enforce regulations for the sake of the argument, ignoring illegal means even.
In a system that rewards you when you have more money, how do you make bribery not viable? And if you somehow fix bribery, then how do you stop capital flooding propaganda? That's what the above is saying and you keep ignoring.
The answer is not found in "Capitalism" because people just gloss over that part. The exercise is left up to the viewer.
Exactly, you hit the nail on the head, yet didn't even realise. Markets require regulation, indeed Smith realised this, and advocated for it, it's a basic requirement of free market capitalism. Capital incorporates for a public use, and not in and of itself.
And how do you prevent capital from taking over the political system?
As for the capital having political control, that's just a result of the US lack of regulation, AKA lack of a free market. Easily rectified. No Capital, your money is not free speech.
The US did have regulations. The US did break up monopolies. But is stopped. Why? Because the capital managed to enforce it's political influence over the state despite the fact that state tried to enforce a "free market".
Also, how can it be a "free market" of it needs regulations? It is no longer "free" if it's regulated?
Free market does not mean a free for all without any controls, that is some modern bat shit interpretation that is is simply anti Free market capitalism.
I'm simply astounded that the very notion of regulations is seemingly beyond your comprehension. Restricting money from politics is something most economies on this planet manage to do just fine.
There is no such thing as True capitalism, it's a concept, largely attributed to the Scottish Economist Adam Smith, and he'd be appalled by what you people claim capitalism or a free market to be, and further appalled by whatever economic system the USA is operating.
Adam Smith's writing are freely avail online today, if you wish to learn something that is.
You had to add adjectives to move the goal post, they were discussing capitalism, full stop, no adjectives. But, anyway:
Indeed the idea of bailing out share holder ultimately is also anything but capitalism
One could argue it is capitalism, the capitalists/companies found a way to gain money. That's the whole point of capitalism, money money and infinite growth.
Stock market investors often dislike companies who don't show "infinite"/continued growth quarter after another.
I do agree that the act of bailing the evil capitalists in itself and having the government interfere is not inherently capitalistic, but from a capitalist POV it's still capitalism. It;s even better than their operating business model, free or almost free money that didn't cost them anything. What's the return % on that?!
"Free Market Capitalism"
In real life and in practice, capitalists don't want a free market. They've shown time and time again that they will monopolize, conspire, destroy the environment, deliberately cause death and injury to humans, lie, manipulate the law or law process, steal in some form or another, they'll do all that and more while still claiming "free market". It's really not.
The "capitalistic" US government itself will not let the market be free. There are laws and regulations, they will break up huge companies, and they will make companies "too big to fail".
For the nth time, absolutely none of what you wrote is true. You can't seem to comprehend that you've brainwashed yourself to believe something that is not true.
If you had actually read those authors, you would know this.
For the nth time, absolutely none of what you wrote is true. You can't seem to comprehend that you've brainwashed yourself to believe something that is not true.
For the nth time you have provided no arguments.
If you had actually read those authors, you would know this.
I am not interested in arguing. I am stating a fact - nothing you wrote is true and you don't understand the topic. From then on, it's your problem, not mine.
If you had actually read them, you'd know your ideas are incorrect.
I am not interested in arguing. I am stating a fact - nothing you wrote is true and you don't understand the topic. From then on, it's your problem, not mine.
Well..
Let me state a fact! You are wrong and you don't understand the topic!
From now on this is your problem not mine! :)
If you had actually read them, you'd know your ideas are incorrect.
Expect the fact that I did read them and what I read is perfectly inline with my ideas.
Sadly for you, the data on the ground clearly shows I'm correct and you're not.
Again empty statements.
Which data?
Shows what?
The data on the ground clearly shows that capital has an influence on politics and that monopolies/oligopolies are the natural outcome of market competition under profit incentive.
•
u/rintzscar 6h ago
None of what you wrote is true. The person you're replying to is correct and you have a very rudimentary understanding of economic systems.