3 ms·

Monopolistic oligopolies, which every Late Capitalist state has moved towards, are just another form of central planning. Real world markets, not the fictional

Monopolistic oligopolies, which every Late Capitalist state has moved towards, are just another form of central planning. Real world markets, not the fictional ones of Hayek's rhetoric, devolve into ineffecient authoritarian distribution systems just like the collectivist systems he so despised.

nickik 10y ago
First of all, monopolistic oligopolies is not a actual term used in economics, that's just political New Speak. Its kind of funny, in economics we talk about how oligopolies will move prices up. So if all our 'real world markets' are 'monopolistic oligopolies' why are they not moving up? In the majority of markets and globally speaking this simply is not the case. Medical market in the US right now is a 80 year shit-show of epic proportion on all levels of government. In the markets that are related but far less controlled like different kind of eye surgery or all kind of plastic surgery we simply don't see the same pattern, in fact, there prices are falling. P.S: Also the term 'Late Capitalist' sound like you not only believe that history moves in stages, but also that you know when one stage will end.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  The great thing about the practice of economics in the U.S. is that its just political ideology masquerading as a science. So the degree to which my language conforms to the practitioners of a pseudoscience is irrelevant. >Its kind of funny, in economics we talk about how oligopolies will move prices up. So if all our 'real world markets' are 'monopolistic oligopolies' why are they not moving up? In the majority of markets and globally speaking this simply is not the case Because the models themselves are fictional games, with little relation to the realities of global history or politics. >Also the term 'Late Capitalist' sound like you not only believe that history moves in stages, but also that you know when one stage will end. Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me.
  - thehardsphere 10y ago
    > Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me. I'm still waiting for Lenin to hang me with the rope I sold him.
    - nickik 10y ago
      JPMorgen invested in a fund that was invested in all companies that did well when there was social unrest. Pretty close. Fun story, not sure if they made a profit.
  - nickik 10y ago
    > So the degree to which my language conforms to the practitioners of a pseudoscience is irrelevant. You can call things what you like as long as you admit that most prices don't go up most of the time. > Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me. Sure. Like when Marx said that workers will become poorer and poorer? How about the time when he predicted socialist revolutions in capitalist countries and the only place the happened were poor farm based countries? When Marx predicted that the amount of firms would decrees but turn into monopoly, and now 200 years later we have more firms then ever before. Marx economic works has been completely rejected by all modern economics. This was not because of some sort of hate for Marxism. He was actually quite a economics star at his time. Only once people started to pointed out the flaws in his system and he had no answer did the economics profession turn against him.
    - alphonsegaston 10y ago
      Marx's economics are the basis for almost all functioning social democracies, which score higher on just about how every quality of life indicator than the United States. Hilariously, Hayek predicted that they would devolve into serfdom, which is what is actually happening in the country that hemmed closer to his ideology. Just look at the gig economy. The tech industry is actually a quite good example of the collapse towards monopolies. Venture Capitalists siphon up innovation created by underpaid labor using the guise of entrepreneurship, funneling ever greater wealth and control into a dwindling number of corporate giants. Small firms that do survive sell services to them. And I don't even really have to make this argument, as it is the express ideology of people like Thiel. The failure of socialism to develop in more advanced economies is the result of a violent, rightist empire that toppled any governments that moved democratically too far in this direction. Take Chile, for example... Marxist economics have been intentionally discredited by US institutions to serve their political ends. That much is true. But there are plenty of modern Marxists economists in European and Asian institutions. The bought and paid for US economists in their cozy corporate think tanks are not the totality of economic thought.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >Also the term 'Late Capitalist' sound like you not only believe that history moves in stages, but also that you know when one stage will end. I believe history does move in stages, each stage being set mainly by the relationship of various groups to their means of sustenance, i.e the means of production. In the times of slavery, would consider the relationship of the slave to his means of sustenance and the master with his relationship. It is the same analysis we do in feudal periods with the serf and lord. And again it is the analysis we do today - what is the relationship of the proletariat to sustenance? The answer is wage labour on private property. What is the relationship of the bourgeoisie to sustenance? They are sustained by bourgeois inter-relations and trades of capital.
  - nickik 10y ago
    I don't want to repeat all the arguments that point out how bad all this stuff is. Many scholars have pointed out all the reason why this idea is wrong or incomplete. Marx ideas were based on his limited knowledge of history that was available at his time and was in no way generalist. Marxist historians have since tried to rewrite much history to comply with these ideas, but happy they have mostly failed and historians have moved on.

nickik 10y ago

First of all, monopolistic oligopolies is not a actual term used in economics, that's just political New Speak. Its kind of funny, in economics we talk about how oligopolies will move prices up. So if all our 'real world markets' are 'monopolistic oligopolies' why are they not moving up? In the majority of markets and globally speaking this simply is not the case. Medical market in the US right now is a 80 year shit-show of epic proportion on all levels of government. In the markets that are related but far less controlled like different kind of eye surgery or all kind of plastic surgery we simply don't see the same pattern, in fact, there prices are falling. P.S: Also the term 'Late Capitalist' sound like you not only believe that history moves in stages, but also that you know when one stage will end.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
The great thing about the practice of economics in the U.S. is that its just political ideology masquerading as a science. So the degree to which my language conforms to the practitioners of a pseudoscience is irrelevant. >Its kind of funny, in economics we talk about how oligopolies will move prices up. So if all our 'real world markets' are 'monopolistic oligopolies' why are they not moving up? In the majority of markets and globally speaking this simply is not the case Because the models themselves are fictional games, with little relation to the realities of global history or politics. >Also the term 'Late Capitalist' sound like you not only believe that history moves in stages, but also that you know when one stage will end. Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  > Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me. I'm still waiting for Lenin to hang me with the rope I sold him.
  - nickik 10y ago
    JPMorgen invested in a fund that was invested in all companies that did well when there was social unrest. Pretty close. Fun story, not sure if they made a profit.
- nickik 10y ago
  > So the degree to which my language conforms to the practitioners of a pseudoscience is irrelevant. You can call things what you like as long as you admit that most prices don't go up most of the time. > Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me. Sure. Like when Marx said that workers will become poorer and poorer? How about the time when he predicted socialist revolutions in capitalist countries and the only place the happened were poor farm based countries? When Marx predicted that the amount of firms would decrees but turn into monopoly, and now 200 years later we have more firms then ever before. Marx economic works has been completely rejected by all modern economics. This was not because of some sort of hate for Marxism. He was actually quite a economics star at his time. Only once people started to pointed out the flaws in his system and he had no answer did the economics profession turn against him.
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    Marx's economics are the basis for almost all functioning social democracies, which score higher on just about how every quality of life indicator than the United States. Hilariously, Hayek predicted that they would devolve into serfdom, which is what is actually happening in the country that hemmed closer to his ideology. Just look at the gig economy. The tech industry is actually a quite good example of the collapse towards monopolies. Venture Capitalists siphon up innovation created by underpaid labor using the guise of entrepreneurship, funneling ever greater wealth and control into a dwindling number of corporate giants. Small firms that do survive sell services to them. And I don't even really have to make this argument, as it is the express ideology of people like Thiel. The failure of socialism to develop in more advanced economies is the result of a violent, rightist empire that toppled any governments that moved democratically too far in this direction. Take Chile, for example... Marxist economics have been intentionally discredited by US institutions to serve their political ends. That much is true. But there are plenty of modern Marxists economists in European and Asian institutions. The bought and paid for US economists in their cozy corporate think tanks are not the totality of economic thought.
ue_ 10y ago
>Also the term 'Late Capitalist' sound like you not only believe that history moves in stages, but also that you know when one stage will end. I believe history does move in stages, each stage being set mainly by the relationship of various groups to their means of sustenance, i.e the means of production. In the times of slavery, would consider the relationship of the slave to his means of sustenance and the master with his relationship. It is the same analysis we do in feudal periods with the serf and lord. And again it is the analysis we do today - what is the relationship of the proletariat to sustenance? The answer is wage labour on private property. What is the relationship of the bourgeoisie to sustenance? They are sustained by bourgeois inter-relations and trades of capital.
- nickik 10y ago
  I don't want to repeat all the arguments that point out how bad all this stuff is. Many scholars have pointed out all the reason why this idea is wrong or incomplete. Marx ideas were based on his limited knowledge of history that was available at his time and was in no way generalist. Marxist historians have since tried to rewrite much history to comply with these ideas, but happy they have mostly failed and historians have moved on.