Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes) - page 23.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:55:26 AM

Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream)

You know why it's a pipedream?

First off, because nobody can understand and anticipate the needs of all the consumers. This is known as the economic calculation problem. Secondly, let's assume you manage to find an omniscient person to do the dictating. Is there any guarantee he would be benevolent? Finally, let's assume you had a benevolent, all-knowing dictator to run things. He'd have to be immortal, too, because there's even less chance that his successor would be either all-knowing, or benevolent.

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 12:00:01 PM

Quote from: myrkul on May 21, 2013, 11:53:18 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:44:57 AM

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable. If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing Cheesy

It's good that you put a laughing smiley after that, because otherwise I might have thought you were serious... and therefore a moron.

I am serious. As i said before, be polite, otherwise: fuck you Cheesy

Monopolies are never guided by public needs. Even the ones that say they are, are running solely on self-interest alone. And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward.

In socialism, monopolies serve public good. By definition. Let's at least raise the bar a notch & stop spewing cliches.

neutrinox

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

1MCKW9AkWj3aopC1aPegcZEf2fYNrhUQVf

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:55:26 AM

Not my point. My point is this: Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream) instead of maximize its profits (uncut capitalism). Do i need to explain how? (i will, i just type slow Cheesy

)

I disagree with that. A government run monopoly has very little incentive to improve its service. They have no competition so they can run the monopoly with minimum effort. Customers have no way of protesting with their wallet, since the monopoly is the only source of that service in the country.

For the consumer, competition is always best. That is also the reason why having only one political party tends to lead to bad bad things..

crumbcake

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on May 21, 2013, 11:53:18 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:44:57 AM

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable. If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing Cheesy

It's good that you put a laughing smiley after that, because otherwise I might have thought you were serious... and therefore a moron.

I am serious. As i said before, be polite, otherwise: fuck you Cheesy

Monopolies are never guided by public needs. Even the ones that say they are, are running solely on self-interest alone. And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward.

In socialism, monopolies serve public good. By definition. Let's at least raise the bar a notch & stop spewing cliches.
edit: "And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward. " Goofy & unsubstantiated, but i'll give you some bullets of monopoly being efficient:

No wasted money/energy for advertising
No redundant tooling costs for identical products
no redundant/identical products
streamlined planning/transport/delivery ... ...

Want more? Cheesy

crumbcake

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: neutrinox on May 21, 2013, 11:50:53 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:48:14 AM

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable. If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing. TL;DR monopolies are not intrinsically bad, only bad in the framework of capitalism.

Yes I agree with you. A monopoly is great for the company. It's bad only for the consumer.

Not my point. My point is this: Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream) instead of maximize its profits (uncut capitalism). Do i need to explain how? (i will, i just type slow Cheesy

)

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:44:57 AM

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable. If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing Cheesy

It's good that you put a laughing smiley after that, because otherwise I might have thought you were serious... and therefore a moron.

Monopolies are never guided by public needs. Even the ones that say they are, are running solely on self-interest alone. And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward.

neutrinox

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

1MCKW9AkWj3aopC1aPegcZEf2fYNrhUQVf

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:48:14 AM

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable. If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing. TL;DR monopolies are not intrinsically bad, only bad in the framework of capitalism.

Yes I agree with you. A monopoly is great for the company. It's bad only for the consumer.

I'm a bit confused crumbcake, what is your position on this debate? Are you defending or attacking capitalism?

crumbcake

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: neutrinox on May 21, 2013, 11:44:38 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:39:38 AM

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing." If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead. Cheesy

Well no matter if the monopoly is made of a private company or state, it usually IS a bad thing for the consumer.

You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable. If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing. TL;DR monopolies are not intrinsically bad, only bad in the framework of capitalism.

edit: could elaborate if this isn't obvious on its face.

crumbcake

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: neutrinox on May 21, 2013, 11:44:38 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:39:38 AM

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing." If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead. Cheesy

Well no matter if the monopoly is made of a private company or state, it usually IS a bad thing for the consumer.

See edit in post above Cheesy

edit: will delete this post if not used in replies -- sorry.

crumbcake

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:39:38 AM

Quote from: myrkul on May 21, 2013, 11:34:05 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:24:06 AM

To answer you, i'd have to go with a specific country. I know Russian history ... well, sort-of, and would be comfortable using it in this context. As far as monopoly (in its negative sense, as you're using it) goes, it's only possible in a capitalist system, agreed?

No, not agreed. Monopoly, in any sense, simply means one agency doing all the business in one particular industry. When you have a monopoly on Security, you'll have other companies coming to that monopoly to borrow it's use of force to set up their own monopolies. The monopoly on Security calls itself a State, and the borrowed force legislation.

In fact, Socialism is just one big monopoly, with it doing all the business. (except, of course, the black market)

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing." If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead. Cheesy

edit: You understand that in capitalism, monopolies are not bad just because they're monopolies, but because, being guided by self-interest alone, they become socially undesirable. If these same monopolies are guided by public needs, their fine-honed efficiency becomes a wonderful thing Cheesy

neutrinox

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

1MCKW9AkWj3aopC1aPegcZEf2fYNrhUQVf

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:39:38 AM

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing." If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead. Cheesy

Well no matter if the monopoly is made of a private company or state, it usually IS a bad thing for the consumer.

crumbcake

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on May 21, 2013, 11:34:05 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:24:06 AM

To answer you, i'd have to go with a specific country. I know Russian history ... well, sort-of, and would be comfortable using it in this context. As far as monopoly (in its negative sense, as you're using it) goes, it's only possible in a capitalist system, agreed?

No, not agreed. Monopoly, in any sense, simply means one agency doing all the business in one particular industry. When you have a monopoly on Security, you'll have other companies coming to that monopoly to borrow it's use of force to set up their own monopolies. The monopoly on Security calls itself a State, and the borrowed force legislation.

In fact, Socialism is just one big monopoly, with it doing all the business. (except, of course, the black market)

I assumed you were using the word "monopoly" with its customary negative connotations, as in a "bad thing." If you wish to use it to mean something benign, as in "in human body, brain tends to monopolize all the thinking," go right ahead. Cheesy

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:24:06 AM

To answer you, i'd have to go with a specific country. I know Russian history ... well, sort-of, and would be comfortable using it in this context. As far as monopoly (in its negative sense, as you're using it) goes, it's only possible in a capitalist system, agreed?

No, not agreed. Monopoly, in any sense, simply means one agency doing all the business in one particular industry. When you have a monopoly on Security, you'll have other companies coming to that monopoly to borrow it's use of force to set up their own monopolies. The monopoly on Security calls itself a State, and the borrowed force legislation.

In fact, Socialism is just one big monopoly, with it doing all the business. (except, of course, the black market)

crumbcake

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: neutrinox on May 21, 2013, 11:25:50 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 10:54:45 AM

edit: As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions: What are you basing this on?

Isn't it quite obvious: just about every socialist country there has been trough out history. The Soviet Union, east European countries, DDR, Cuba, Mao's China... And of course the lovely North Korea for a nice current example. Let me ask you the opposite: where has socialism or communism ever worked to create a country that is better off than capitalist countries?

Socialism has *never* worked. The nascent socialist states, as predicted by Marx, have failed. Throughout history. It was stupid to to assume sheep can survive surrounded by wolves.
Your point?
edit: As far as living conditions in pre-revolutionary Russia ... brutal.

neutrinox

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

1MCKW9AkWj3aopC1aPegcZEf2fYNrhUQVf

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 10:54:45 AM

edit: As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions: What are you basing this on?

Isn't it quite obvious: just about every socialist country there has been trough out history. The Soviet Union, east European countries, DDR, Cuba, Mao's China... And of course the lovely North Korea for a nice current example. Let me ask you the opposite: where has socialism or communism ever worked to create a country that is better off than capitalist countries?

crumbcake

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on May 21, 2013, 11:17:19 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 11:13:00 AM

Quote from: myrkul on May 21, 2013, 10:58:58 AM

Quote from: crumbcake on May 21, 2013, 10:54:45 AM

As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions: What are you basing this on?

Remember those "few abortive exceptions"? Yeah, those.

Well, two problems with using those as examples -- the obvious being "abortive." The other problem's equally obvious to me, though perhaps not to you: Life had to suck really bad for people to take up arms.

Well, considering that they were abortive precisely because they produced such awful living conditions, I wouldn't call that a problem with those examples. And to the other, life sucked for them enough to take up arms not because of capitalism, but because of monopoly. Look at the societies that preceded those violent revolts. You'll not find much capitalism.

To answer you, i'd have to go with a specific country. I know Russian history ... well, sort-of, and would be comfortable using it in this context. As far as monopoly (in its negative sense, as you're using it) goes, it's only possible in a capitalist system, agreed?
edit: "You'll not find much capitalism." Huh? What would you find?

Topic: Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes) - page 23. (Read 12620 times)