Topic: What are the minimum prerequisites for Capitalism to be possible? - page 3. (Read 5524 times)

Or subversion thereof?! You seem to have stumbled upon a point where Capitalism might create a pressure for governments to come into existence and enact various laws. I suspect this might be anathema to some...

Property rights are encourged by capitalism because efficiencies in markets favor strong property rights within those markets.  It's no secret that governments across human history are practially influenced by the wealthiest among them, and whenever capitalism has been allowed to dominate, the wealthy include those who became wealthy using capitalist principles, whether they understood them as such or not.  While the individial capitalist might favor a monopoly power, his peers resist that for their own ends.  This balance of forces favors the legal establishment and enforcement of property rights.

What about being a functional part of Capitalism at play? Is that fair? I don't really see how the practice of trade might somehow cause property rights afterwards.

If my earlier reasoning holds,
TL;DR:

and it's pure Capitalism with no Socialist compromises, nothing to hold people back, then Bonkers could be right about monopolies being a natural equilibrium point.

I think it's an issue of semantics -- even an artist might have a monopoly on their special brand of artwork.

If the society at large does not recognize the property rights of a capitalist, then he will find a workaround to that limitation.  Thus, strong property rights could not be a requirement.

To me it seems plausible that without "property rights", which some people insist are essential for Capitalism to work, resource scarcity would work differently. Scarce resources might diffuse and spread evenly throughout society, a la: some sort of idealised Socialism. From a progress POV, this could be bad as there might be no pressure to innovate -- since everyone already has all the same stuff, it might not occur to anyone to try and create anything different. (Side note: they say that "travel broadens the mind" -- you get to discover all these new scarce things! )

Thus, property rights do seem like a driving force behind increasing relative scarcity. When some people own stuff, those resources become relatively more scarce for those who don't own them. The real world seems to consist of a chaotic assortment of millions of different things that are more or less scarce, depending on where people happen to live. Combined with the ideas of property and ownership, there is huge pressure to specialize in some particular field.

It also seems plausible that this specialisation is self-reinforcing, that there's some positive feedback loop going on. E.g.: you own some resource, it's abundant for you and scarce for others. Laziness and routine seems like human nature, so when people see an opportunity, e.g.: a natural talent that's easy for them but a nightmare for others, I guess they'll want to make the most of it, right? Absolute monopolies might be rare, but that's semantics. How about a general pressure towards monopolization?

I aslo qualified that by limiting that effect to those over 35.  Are you over 35?  Is so, I may have to push up my model.

My statement was that monopoly was an equilibrium state of capitalism. I'm not entirely sure what you expect when you want a detailed discussion of this. This a forum, not a journal.

What you say is true, the existence of a law does not prove it's necessity. But, considering economics as a rational science, it is evidence that monopoly is a danger.

My statement was that monopoly was an equilibrium state of capitalism. I'm not entirely sure what you expect when you want a detailed discussion of this. This a forum, not a journal.

On the contrary, it is that of someone living in the real world, confronted with someone espousing evil. If you truly try to see reality clearly, then understand this: capitalism is nothing more than the private ownership of goods and the voluntary trade of same.

I restate: the existence of a law does not prove it's necessity.

Don't simplify. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. Tell me in detail how voluntary trade and private ownership always results in monopoly.

Well, save for the fact that I myself was convinced by argumentation of at least some of the finer points,

All you have to do is provide a coherent and succinct counter arguement. That's all. No need for dramatics.

All you have to do is provide a coherent and succinct counter arguement. That's all. No need for dramatics.

Remember my post the other day, in another thread, wherein I laid bare the reality that most people who argue on obscure Internet forums are actually not capable of changing their minds, regardless of what evidence is presented?

Based on both your most recent conversations here, and your experience in general, would you say my assessment is generally correct or generally incorrect?

Oh, the irony!  The cognative dissonance must be bewildering.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.

I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.  

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial
 when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.    

I remember Microsoft being subjected to huge anti-trust action. It was smart enough to maintain a monopoly and, as such, was forced to let competition in.

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.