[gruffydd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-13784467

[stormymonday_2011]

gruffydd, on 15 June 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-13784467

So Cecil agrees with Lenin that the Capitalists will weave the rope with which they were to be hung.

Who would have thought he was a Marxist

[cica]

stormymonday_2011, on 15 June 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

So Cecil agrees with Lenin that the Capitalists will weave the rope with which they were to be hung.

Who would have thought he was a Marxist

Yeah but these capitalists are more like dictators.

[interestrateripoff]

cica, on 15 June 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

Yeah but these capitalists are more like dictators.

Once you accumulate enough capital you will behave like a dictator, in many respects to get that amount of wealth you will need the traits of a dictator. Once you have got the wealth you won't be parted with it easily and you will do everything possible to maintain it, ie you will no longer play by the rules.

[georgia o'keeffe]

cica, on 15 June 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

Yeah but these capitalists are more like dictators.

yes but thats like saying these socialists are like dictators, it is the inevitable end point of both, the only difference being it takes a bit longer for capitalists to assume enough power to dictate which makes it superior in my view

This post has been edited by georgia o'keeffe: 15 June 2011 - 06:00 PM

[interestrateripoff]

georgia o, on 15 June 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

yes but thats like saying these socialists are like dictators, it is the inevitable end point of both, the only difference being it takes a bit longer for capitalists to assume enough power to dictate which makes it superior in my view

Not sure I agree with that, you can accumulate wealth very quickly if you are permitted.

[wonderpup]

Maybe the truth is that the neo liberals simply failed to follow through their own ideas far enough- because surely in a system driven by self interest it eventually becomes in the self interest of some to corrupt that very system?

Dig deep enough into the psyche of the most hardened free market ideologue and you will discover a core of strange morality- an almost child like assumption that no matter how much power a participant gains through the market, he will always refrain from using that power to manipulate the market.

A curiously optimistic assumption from the Ayn Rand school of misanthropy- their own theory predicts that the winners would leverage their power to bend and pervert the rules in their favour- yet they failed to see this.

[Injin]

wonderpup, on 15 June 2011 - 07:17 PM, said:

Maybe the truth is that the neo liberals simply failed to follow through their own ideas far enough- because surely in a system driven by self interest it eventually becomes in the self interest of some to corrupt that very system?

Dig deep enough into the psyche of the most hardened free market ideologue and you will discover a core of strange morality- an almost child like assumption that no matter how much power a participant gains through the market, he will always refrain from using that power to manipulate the market.

A curiously optimistic assumption from the Ayn Rand school of misanthropy- their own theory predicts that the winners would leverage their power to bend and pervert the rules in their favour- yet they failed to see this.

Hey, we did say you can't have a state if you want a free market.

[interestrateripoff]

Injin, on 15 June 2011 - 07:31 PM, said:

Hey, we did say you can't have a state if you want a free market.

You can't have a free market with monopolies either.

Ultimately you need some form of balances/checks. The problem is sociopaths will always seek to take advantage.

[Injin]

interestrateripoff, on 15 June 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

You can't have a free market with monopolies either.

Ultimately you need some form of balances/checks. The problem is sociopaths will always seek to take advantage.

Which is why you can't have a monopoly of violence.

Or as it is known, a state.

[cica]

I genuinely want to hear people's thoughts on this...

I really don't buy this argument that capitalism leads to monopolies of power over us.

By capitalism I mean people (organised groups of people) can participate in the market only if they can provide something customers demand. Absolutely no special privileges and re-look at stuff like limited liabilities.

Let's suppose that system gets voted in and it's put in some constitution. Now let's say some politicians are bought and they are able to fiddle their taxes, the very fact that the politician has this power in the first place would be a deviation from capitalism in my opinion.

That's not capitalism, that's people NOT practicing capitalism. And if you say that the politics will ALWAYS get corrupted then that's a problem with politics not capitalism itself.

We need a system that reduces corruption. That would be one where people are empowered by their customers and not by people with access to more wealth than anyone, governments. It's clear where the corruption lies and it isn't in capitalism. They aren't the concentration of power.

Monopolies are far harder to create/maintain than people think unless government get involved. Look at Microsoft, they have had enormous help from the government enforcing their copyrights yet they are under severe pressure right now.

[stormymonday_2011]

cica, on 15 June 2011 - 10:51 PM, said:

I genuinely want to hear people's thoughts on this...

I really don't buy this argument that capitalism leads to monopolies of power over us.

By capitalism I mean people (organised groups of people) can participate in the market only if they can provide something customers demand. Absolutely no special privileges and re-look at stuff like limited liabilities.

Let's suppose that system gets voted in and it's put in some constitution. Now let's say some politicians are bought and they are able to fiddle their taxes, the very fact that the politician has this power in the first place would be a deviation from capitalism in my opinion.

That's not capitalism, that's people NOT practicing capitalism. And if you say that the politics will ALWAYS get corrupted then that's a problem with politics not capitalism itself.

We need a system that reduces corruption. That would be one where people are empowered by their customers and not by people with access to more wealth than anyone, governments. It's clear where the corruption lies and it isn't in capitalism. They aren't the concentration of power.

Monopolies are far harder to create/maintain than people think unless government get involved. Look at Microsoft, they have had enormous help from the government enforcing their copyrights yet they are under severe pressure right now.

Agreed.

Monopolies and government have historically gone hand in hand as the law is inevitably required to enforce the monopoly.

This has been going on since the medieval period when the Lord compelled the peasants to grind their corn at his mill.

[erranta]

From 15 June 2011 - 05:59 PM:

<br />yes but thats like saying these socialists are like dictators, it is the inevitable end point of both, the only difference being it takes a bit longer for capitalists to assume enough power to dictate which makes it  superior in my view<br />

Once you make enough to live comfortably from the rest of your society - you should be forcibly retired from business life.

The decent ones (not the psycho power+greed gekko mongers) will probably help/advise others in rest of their spare time become unpaid Politico expert

It also 'caps' Capitalism in a social way and will divide up ancient land-grabbers thefts from the UK poor and previous donations to monks/the church which was also a land grab fest for the UK's wealthiest families

The monks donated lands supported the UK poorest with an early benefits system providing food, work, medicals, healthcare, roof over head/bed (booze) cash etc even though tyrannicals of Rome stuck their claws in and thieved more than their share.

Hmmm Tyre-Tyranny

This post has been edited by erranta: 16 June 2011 - 12:12 AM

[Riedquat]

stormymonday_2011, on 15 June 2011 - 11:39 PM, said:

Agreed.

Monopolies and government have historically gone hand in hand as the law is inevitably required to enforce the monopoly.

This has been going on since the medieval period when the Lord compelled the peasants to grind their corn at his mill.

How did they end up as peasants, and how do you have complete freedom that won't simply end up with them becoming peasants again to whoever is lucky enough to grab the resources first and ruthless enough to defend them?

[wonderpup]

Quote

Hey, we did say you can't have a state if you want a free market.

Doesn't really address the problem though. No state is required to destabalise the free market- it contains the seed of it's own destruction

In any system where self interest is the driver, that same self interest will eventually lead to gaming of that system by those most skilled in manipualting it, or gain the most power over it.

There seems to be this rather starry eyed view that all agents operating in a free market are somehow in favour of a free market- is that really true?

The truth is it's only the weak who favour free markets- the strong have something else in mind- they seek to dominate- they want monopoly.

So the last thing these agents want is to compete with their rivals- what they want to is destroy their rivals- take them out. And in order to do that they will leverage their market power by doing what Tesco did to the high street.

So even if no state were on hand to do their bidding the outcome would be the same- the successful would destroy their competitors- even if this meant the kind of anti-competitive practices we see now like dumping, price fixing, limit pricing ect. All manner of collusion and skuduggery can take place at purely commercial level that require no state violence to implement- and indeed many of these practices would flourish in the absence of the state oversight we currently have.

What the somewhat romantic advocates of free markets seem to overlook is that the last thing a successful player wants is a free market- the moment they gain the advantage they will seek to undermine that free market to enhance their dominance - an outcome entirely consistent with their own self interest.

This post has been edited by wonderpup: 16 June 2011 - 12:37 AM