What are the minimum prerequisites for Capitalism to be possible? - page 4.

blablahblah

hero member

Activity: 775

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on January 07, 2013, 03:11:52 PM

Quote from: blablahblah on January 07, 2013, 01:28:32 PM

I engage in lots of Capitalist activity -- I buy food and stuff. I earn money by providing a service to my employer... General things like that. I never said Capitalism was all bad.

Well, in that case, you can answer your own question, simply by recalling how you yourself learned it.

Well maybe it's not really Capitalism? I could analyse my own experiences without any discussion, make some conclusions and stick to them, but then there's no feedback, no quality control, no fresh ideas...

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 07, 2013, 01:51:19 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 12:51:36 PM

...
Then you're not using logic. Scarcity is not a requirement for desire. I desire knowledge, yet knowledge is not scarce.

I also like knowledge, but it seems that I can never have it all. As an analogy for rights, would that mean our 'ability' to have rights is somehow constrained? I see the difference but how is it relevant?

By addressing him, you are saying he "owns" his argument. You are also "owning" your fingers and mind to formulate the argument. Arguing against self-ownership always self detonate in this way.

If you could slow down for a second... I'm trying to get to the bottom of this 'Capitalism' thing from first principles. The Lemming humans (from the OP) are being bombarded with new ideas:
Ownership? What's that?
Property? What's that?

Did the concepts exist before anyone "put pen to paper" or made sounds to describe them for the first time? Can a 'concept' be a law of nature? Or were the concepts created by people? They couldn't create themselves -- that would be paradoxical.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 07:07:38 PM

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

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.

bonker

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 502

Quote from: Rassah on January 07, 2013, 03:17:38 PM

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 01:27:02 PM

Why would the world require anti-monopoly legisaltion if monopolies weren't a problem?
It's a reasonable path for any business sector leader to simply buy up smaller competition
whenever it arises. It could then make deals with other sector leaders to maintain a status-quo.
At present ,any monopoly is broken up by legislation and activity external to the Capitalist system.

Who broke up Microsoft and Internet Explorer? Government, or Chrome/Apple/switch to tablets and phones?
Who broke up Apple's near monopoly on smartphones? Government, or Google Android?
Who broke the monopoly of Kodak? Government, or digital cameras that Kodak didn't think were worth investing in?
Who broke the monopoly of IBM? Government? Or new "Personal Computers" hitting homes at a time when IBM thought only businesses had use for computers?
Even better, the government imposed monopoly of the postal service - if governments broke up monopolies, and the government is actually maintaining the USPS monopoly, you'd think it was invincible, yet...email.

In short, monopolies just don't last. Big reason for that is because they get settled in with what they know how to do best, and get killed by newer more efficient technologies they aren't able to adapt to.

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.

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

This is what exists today.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 01:27:02 PM

Why would the world require anti-monopoly legisaltion if monopolies weren't a problem?
It's a reasonable path for any business sector leader to simply buy up smaller competition
whenever it arises. It could then make deals with other sector leaders to maintain a status-quo.
At present ,any monopoly is broken up by legislation and activity external to the Capitalist system.

Who broke up Microsoft and Internet Explorer? Government, or Chrome/Apple/switch to tablets and phones?
Who broke up Apple's near monopoly on smartphones? Government, or Google Android?
Who broke the monopoly of Kodak? Government, or digital cameras that Kodak didn't think were worth investing in?
Who broke the monopoly of IBM? Government? Or new "Personal Computers" hitting homes at a time when IBM thought only businesses had use for computers?
Even better, the government imposed monopoly of the postal service - if governments broke up monopolies, and the government is actually maintaining the USPS monopoly, you'd think it was invincible, yet...email.

In short, monopolies just don't last. Big reason for that is because they get settled in with what they know how to do best, and get killed by newer more efficient technologies they aren't able to adapt to.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: blablahblah on January 07, 2013, 01:28:32 PM

I engage in lots of Capitalist activity -- I buy food and stuff. I earn money by providing a service to my employer... General things like that. I never said Capitalism was all bad.

Well, in that case, you can answer your own question, simply by recalling how you yourself learned it.

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: xxjs on January 07, 2013, 02:14:45 PM

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 07, 2013, 01:42:16 PM

Quote from: xxjs on January 07, 2013, 01:37:46 PM

Having read "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" lately, and newer works on the evolution therory, it seems to me that freedom from violence it not something natural. At least genes seem to be rather indifferent to other genes' welfare! Consequently capitalism can not be totally natural, as we would like it to be. I have a vague idea of a resulotion to this. Is there a standard answer?

Why is "natural" the goal? Can we not evolve past a state of nature?

Plus many of the evolutionary texts talk a lot more about co-operation between species in order for both to survive. You have about a 7:1 ratio of bacteria to human cells in your body. The bacteria need you to survive, and you need the bacteria to survive (at least long and healthy).

Natural because we want no or minimal rules (that are not built into humans) and no or minimal police. We want it naturally peaceful. We want laissez-faire.

Modern evolution theory is not consistent with your comment on the bacteria in the body. Altruism is only possible between relatives, except that the fact that brains exist could blur the picture. Ref mr Dawkins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

I am not making the claim that all natural creatures are in a symbiotic relationship of one of the various types, but even predatory relationships can be beneficial for both "species" as without the predator, the prey may overpopulate and run out of food in an environment. Many species generally live in some sort of equilibrium with their environment in the long run, or they just screw themselves. Regardless, this is digressing from the original topic.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: MoonShadow on January 07, 2013, 02:38:06 PM

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 07, 2013, 01:42:16 PM

You have about a 7:1 ratio of bacteria to human cells in your body.

I realize that this is not particularly critical to your point, but I'm calling bullshit on this claim. Perhaps you wrote the ratio backwards? References please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome#Bacteria

Fourth paragraph. Wikipedia states 10:1.

Edit: Notice this is in number. Due to the small size of bacteria, the ratio for mass is quite different.

Very well, I withdraw my objections.

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: MoonShadow on January 07, 2013, 02:38:06 PM

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 07, 2013, 01:42:16 PM

You have about a 7:1 ratio of bacteria to human cells in your body.

I realize that this is not particularly critical to your point, but I'm calling bullshit on this claim. Perhaps you wrote the ratio backwards? References please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome#Bacteria

Fourth paragraph. Wikipedia states 10:1.

Edit: Notice this is in number. Due to the small size of bacteria, the ratio for mass is quite different.

+1

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 07, 2013, 01:42:16 PM

You have about a 7:1 ratio of bacteria to human cells in your body.

I realize that this is not particularly critical to your point, but I'm calling bullshit on this claim. Perhaps you wrote the ratio backwards? References please.

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 01:55:47 PM

No, not any. There exists a monopoly on the industries of defense and justice which is not broken up.

Not to mention the money. That is until Bitcoin

xxjs

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 07, 2013, 01:42:16 PM

Quote from: xxjs on January 07, 2013, 01:37:46 PM

Having read "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" lately, and newer works on the evolution therory, it seems to me that freedom from violence it not something natural. At least genes seem to be rather indifferent to other genes' welfare! Consequently capitalism can not be totally natural, as we would like it to be. I have a vague idea of a resulotion to this. Is there a standard answer?

Why is "natural" the goal? Can we not evolve past a state of nature?

Plus many of the evolutionary texts talk a lot more about co-operation between species in order for both to survive. You have about a 7:1 ratio of bacteria to human cells in your body. The bacteria need you to survive, and you need the bacteria to survive (at least long and healthy).

Natural because we want no or minimal rules (that are not built into humans) and no or minimal police. We want it naturally peaceful. We want laissez-faire.

Modern evolution theory is not consistent with your comment on the bacteria in the body. Altruism is only possible between relatives, except that the fact that brains exist could blur the picture. Ref mr Dawkins.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: blablahblah on January 07, 2013, 01:28:32 PM

There seems to be a sort-of collision between the need for pain and the need for things to be voluntary. What's your view on that?

There's no need for pain. Pain only enters the equation when someone tries to make something not voluntary.

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 01:27:02 PM

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 01:17:56 PM

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 01:13:19 PM

But doesn't Capitalism always decay into monopoly?

No. Why, and more importantly, how, would it?

Why would the world require anti-monopoly legisaltion if monopolies weren't a problem?

You assume that because it exists, it is necessary. Standard Oil, long held up as the poster child of why such legislation is required, had, at it's peak, only 88% of the market. By the time the legislation was introduced, it had dropped to 64%. And in the meantime, heating oil prices dropped drastically. I don't see how that's a problem.

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 01:27:02 PM

It's a reasonable path for any business sector leader to simply buy up smaller competition
whenever it arises. It could then make deals with other sector leaders to maintain a status-quo.

But it's not necessarily a reasonable path to accept a buy-out from a larger company. Actually, the most reasonable path is to accept the buy-out, and then start another competing company. And as for cabals, why would you expect greedy businessmen not to screw over their cabal mates in an attempt to get more money?

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 01:27:02 PM

At present ,any monopoly is broken up by legislation and activity external to the Capitalist system.

No, not any. There exists a monopoly on the industries of defense and justice which is not broken up.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: blablahblah on January 07, 2013, 08:46:01 AM

For the sake of argument, let's assume that human beings are like programmable Lemmings that don't really know anything. They've recently climbed down from the trees and are faced with resource scarcity for the first time ever. Thus, Capitalism does not already exist, it needs to be somehow created... If people want it to exist, that is.

I guess "resource scarcity" might be one prerequisite. If everything is abundant and easily available, there's no real need for trade, is there?

And I guess the idea of Capitalism and wanting Capitalism to exist might be other requirements. The humans might proclaim in Modern English: "hey, let's trade stuff!"

What other requirements are there, if any? And why might they be needed?

There are no requirements. The common understanding of what capitalism actually is, is false. Capitalism is both a political ideology and a description of a set of natural laws, that together, give rise to an economic order that is emergent among any human population. The ideological version of Capitalism is more of a religion than an economic system, and I won't address that here beyond saying that it's not really capitalism at all.
Capitalism doesn't require that the laws of a given society honor the natural laws that produced capitalism, and this really has never fully happened at any point, nor in any nation, since at least the Age of Judges in old testament Israel. That is not required. If the natural order is supressed, by law or otherwise, capitalism will still express itself in onther ways; usually in black markets & contraband trade. There were capitalists in the former USSR and communist China the entire time.

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 12:51:36 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 11:03:27 AM

Strong property rights,

Fine, let's go with your definition of rights as being 'inherent' rather than "ascribed by society". I notice you didn't just say 'rights', you put qualifiers in front which implies that "strong property" rights are a special subset of all rights. This implies that there could be other types of rights as well.

If you think about it, all rights are property rights. You own yourself,

That seems like a belief. For the sake of argument, let's say I don't have any choice in the matter, how do I prove that you or I own ourselves? When we die, we don't know what happens to 'us', but we do know what happens to our bodies and it seems that the ownership is not transferred. So, how is the 'ownership' distinguishable from just being or even borrowing the body into existence?

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 12:51:36 PM

...

Quote from: ?? on ??

I recall that various rights mostly sounded pretty appealing to me -- things that I strongly desire. Logic tells me that they must be pretty scarce (at least for me). Otherwise why would I desire them so much?

Then you're not using logic. Scarcity is not a requirement for desire. I desire knowledge, yet knowledge is not scarce.

I also like knowledge, but it seems that I can never have it all. As an analogy for rights, would that mean our 'ability' to have rights is somehow constrained? I see the difference but how is it relevant?

By addressing him, you are saying he "owns" his argument. You are also "owning" your fingers and mind to formulate the argument. Arguing against self-ownership always self detonate in this way.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 01:27:02 PM

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 01:17:56 PM

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 01:13:19 PM

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 12:26:39 PM

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 12:08:22 PM

Keeping something as unstable as Capitalism afloat requires a hidden scaffolding of authoritrianism/feudalism.

Some of the mechanisms required to prop-up the fascade of a free market:

1) Buckets of intricate anti-monopoly leglisaltion and hidden agreement.
2) Control of the press while presenting the illusion of press freedom
3) I could go on... basically Capitalisim is a sham

State capitalism, a.k.a. corpratism, a.k.a. fascism, is, yes.

None of what you said actually applies to capitalism.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

But doesn't Capitalism always decay into monopoly?

No. Why, and more importantly, how, would it?

Why would the world require anti-monopoly legisaltion if monopolies weren't a problem?

It's a reasonable path for any business sector leader to simply buy up smaller competition
whenever it arises. It could then make deals with other sector leaders to maintain a status-quo.

At present ,any monopoly is broken up by legislation and activity external to the Capitalist system.

Monopolies are usually (always?) a byproduct of favorable legislation in one way or another (ie a side effect of having a state to begin with). Here is a Murray Rothbard quote:

Quote

In the first place, the universal cartel, to be effective, would have to include owners of primary land; otherwise whatever gains they might have might be imputed to land. To put it in its strongest terms, then, could a universal cartel of all land and capital goods “exploit” laborers by systematically paying the latter less than their discounted marginal value products? Could not the members of the cartel agree to pay a very low sum to these workers? If that happened, however, there would be created great opportunities for entrepreneurs either to spring up outside the cartel or to break away from the cartel and profit by hiring workers for a higher wage. This competition would have the double effect of (a) breaking up the universal cartel and (b) tending again to yield to the laborers their marginal product. As long as competition is free, unhampered by governmental restrictions, no universal cartel could either exploit labor or remain universal for any length of time.

https://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10b.asp#_ftnref9

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: xxjs on January 07, 2013, 01:37:46 PM

Having read "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" lately, and newer works on the evolution therory, it seems to me that freedom from violence it not something natural. At least genes seem to be rather indifferent to other genes' welfare! Consequently capitalism can not be totally natural, as we would like it to be. I have a vague idea of a resulotion to this. Is there a standard answer?

Why is "natural" the goal? Can we not evolve past a state of nature?

Plus many of the evolutionary texts talk a lot more about co-operation between species in order for both to survive. You have about a 7:1 ratio of bacteria to human cells in your body. The bacteria need you to survive, and you need the bacteria to survive (at least long and healthy).

xxjs

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Having read "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" lately, and newer works on the evolution therory, it seems to me that freedom from violence it not something natural. At least genes seem to be rather indifferent to other genes' welfare! Consequently capitalism can not be totally natural, as we would like it to be. I have a vague idea of a resulotion to this. Is there a standard answer?

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quick note: in voluntary pain you can ask for it to stop at any time. Involuntary you ask to stop and it continues.

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: blablahblah on January 07, 2013, 01:28:32 PM

There seems to be a sort-of collision between the need for pain and the need for things to be voluntary. What's your view on that?

No problem. Voluntary pain in working out, sport, sex, and sparring are all legitimate. Pain is often a good thing. It tells your body valuable information. Without pain, people would do dangerous things or be bleeding and not even notice until they end up dying. Taking responsibility for your actions, even when they cause pain or shame can be valuable information and drive you to not go do it again and to fight for something better.

It is involuntary when I beat you and you didn't agree to that. It is voluntary when we agree to spar, or you like getting beat while if have sex and it is agreed. There is an obvious difference between involuntary and voluntary pain.

xxjs

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rassah on January 07, 2013, 01:09:15 PM

Question to the OP: How do you get by day-to-day without engaging in capitalism? Do you have everything given to you by the government, or have the government dictate to you what you must obtain, where, and what you must pay for it?

Without capitalism there would be no capital, just hand - to -mouth living, like am ant or a goat.

Topic: What are the minimum prerequisites for Capitalism to be possible? - page 4. (Read 5545 times)