Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Kneeling at the alter of capitalism

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
I just looked through the thread on RBS being the costliest bailout ever and thought back to this article on Freedom and Capitalism. I initially felt it was link bait (generating internet traffic for its own sake) but came away unable to counter the basic statements held there in. That abundance cancels capitalism, free markets don't truly exist and capitalism is an idea in concept only. Capitalism is supposed to thrive on healthy competition yet corporations tend towards monopoly destroying that competition and ending the capitalist idea. Can you guys rebuff the main points in the article and defend the prevailing economic system of our time?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pure capitalism doesn't exist and never can. At the very least they'll always need to be some state sector - if only to regulate contracts and decide on disputes.

    What we have now is a mixed market economy (very mixed as around 45% of UK spend is state), though for short hand people inaccurately call it shorthands.

    As for dealing with his point about monopolies I struggle to think of many real world examples of monopolies, perhaps Windows (ignoring Mac and Linux) or google (ignoring Yahoo etc). Whilst companies may try and gobble up the competitors and raise the price of goods, that just attracts new competitors into the market and flabby beast just gets mown down, look at the British car industry.

    Which brings me onto my second point what monopolies there are tend to be state - try raising your own private army and see where it gets you. Whilst state controlled BT was a monopoly, it was only with privatisation that other providers were allowed, same for the gas and electricity markets.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pure capitalism doesn't exist and never can. At the very least they'll always need to be some state sector - if only to regulate contracts and decide on disputes.

    What we have now is a mixed market economy (very mixed as around 45% of UK spend is state), though for short hand people inaccurately call it shorthands.

    As for dealing with his point about monopolies I struggle to think of many real world examples of monopolies, perhaps Windows (ignoring Mac and Linux) or google (ignoring Yahoo etc). Whilst companies may try and gobble up the competitors and raise the price of goods, that just attracts new competitors into the market and flabby beast just gets mown down, look at the British car industry.

    Which brings me onto my second point what monopolies there are tend to be state - try raising your own private army and see where it gets you. Whilst state controlled BT was a monopoly, it was only with privatisation that other providers were allowed, same for the gas and electricity markets.

    Few monopololies!
    Where do you live?
    A cup of coffee in a family cafe ...unlikely ...starbucks yes ...burgers ...say no more.
    Want a bag of nails and a plank ...that'd be BnQ then.
    Try setting up a butchers shop ...a hardware shop ...a shoe shop ...near impossible but perfectly normal ambitions when I was a kid.
    wHAT CAN A BUDDING YOUNG BIZ MINDED PERSON SET UP THESE DAYS FOR HIS FUTURE ...FOR HIS CHILDREN TO TAKE ON LATER IN LIFE ...MORE OR LESS NOTHING.
    yOU'VE BEEN HAD BY THE BULLSHIT MACHINE.
    yOU'VE BEEN BOOGLARISED.
    OoPs CaPs lOcK.
    yOu aint free anymore ...your owned ...your even trained for being owned.
    Welcome to the machine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure where you shop Mr Roll, but I can find all of those in my local town, if I wanted to. Just less likely to be in prime positions on the High Street...

    Have to say I agree with Flash on this but would recommend that people read "The Shock Doctrine" for an insight into what unregulated capitalism looks like.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I'm not sure where you shop Mr Roll, but I can find all of those in my local town, if I wanted to. Just less likely to be in prime positions on the High Street...

    Have to say I agree with Flash on this but would recommend that people read "The Shock Doctrine" for an insight into what unregulated capitalism looks like.

    I can find them to but ...they are dissapearing rapiudly.
    Youn must see ...wherever you live ...the cloning of town centres.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Youn must see ...wherever you live ...the cloning of town centres.

    To an extent, yes. I have seen significant change in my lifetime, just as you have.

    This is only because people choose not to use their local shops, local providers and think that a big name means better service/value etc.

    The fools ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What interested me in the article were the ideas about abundance and capitalism being mutually exclusive, if you have a a super abundance of a comodity you cannot monetise it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    To an extent, yes. I have seen significant change in my lifetime, just as you have.

    This is only because people choose not to use their local shops, local providers and think that a big name means better service/value etc.

    The fools ;)

    It's conveniance ...everything under one roof and easy parking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A major psychological factor towards big chains is that humans are naturally risk averse. People will shop where they know what they are getting rather than risk getting something they don't know / below their expectations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    A major psychological factor towards big chains is that humans are naturally risk averse. People will shop where they know what they are getting rather than risk getting something they don't know / below their expectations.

    Are humans risk adverse? I'd say the history of humanity would suggest the opposite.

    And if true how does it account for people stopping shopping at corner shops to start with? if they were risk adverse they wouldn't have started shopping at tescos
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's more that people get stuck in a routine, rather than deliberately choosing the big names like tesco and starbucks. I do buy things like bread and apples from sainsbury's but it's more because it's next to the bus stop. Before I moved house the bus stop was nearer to smaller, family owned shops so I bought things from there. I buy meat from the same butcher my mother went to, because I'm just used to walking to it. I meet my friends for coffee in the same place (not starbucks) unless we want to try somewhere different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's conveniance ...everything under one roof and easy parking.

    Clearly... that and places like Greengrocers only offer local things cheap. When buying things like tins, pasta/rice and frozen stuff they charge through the roof.

    Anyway where else can you get things like out of season Blueberries from Argentina?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Economies of scale. Pure and simple.

    People want nice stuff and don't want to pay the earth for it.

    If you want all your fancy stuff from nice independent retailers staffed by an army of Mrs Gogginses, then be prepared to pay for it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Economies of scale. Pure and simple.

    People want nice stuff and don't want to pay the earth for it.

    If you want all your fancy stuff from nice independent retailers staffed by an army of Mrs Gogginses, then be prepared to pay for it.

    Have you read the article? Try to stay on topic, capitalism is in question hear and its ability to meet the needs of 'consumers' or human beings as mentioned in the article. If you intend to defend capitalism explain the effects of competition, government intervention and abundance on its pricing mechanism. Please read the article first.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is abundance ruining the price mechanism a criticism of capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system the point of which is to distribute scarce resources. That's why we don't pay for air.

    All economic theory and evidence would suggest markets do not graviate towards monopoly. Most markets range from oligopoly to monopolistic. Real monopoly is rare/unhead of unless a government creates it through force.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's why we don't pay for air.
    In China when the population used mostly coal for cooking and heating pollution was so bad special 'oxygen' bars were opened. They gave purified air to their clients. The fact still remains that abundance destroys capitalism utterly, in a condition where energy, food, water and shelter are available to all who wish to take resposibility for their own lives you cannot monetise any of these items. Democracy is just a posh word for mob rule, China is itself a capitalist dictatorship. Capitalism cannot provide abundance or 'consumer welfare' because it seeks to destroy those very things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Capitalism doesn't seek to do anything - it's an economic system. I'm afraid you're not making any sense whatsoever...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you read the article? Try to stay on topic, capitalism is in question hear and its ability to meet the needs of 'consumers' or human beings as mentioned in the article. If you intend to defend capitalism explain the effects of competition, government intervention and abundance on its pricing mechanism. Please read the article first.

    Get up on the wrong side of bed did we? Or merely wanted to use what you learned in patronising school?
Sign In or Register to comment.