4 ms·

Oh yes. Food production is now dependent on a handful of companies supplying to the major supermarkets. This became apparent recently in the UK when hummus was

by dpwm 9y ago

Oh yes. Food production is now dependent on a handful of companies supplying to the major supermarkets. This became apparent recently in the UK when hummus was contaminated with a yet unnamed contaminant that gave it a metallic taste. Most supermarkets were affected and had empty shelves. [0] Milk is another example: supermarkets have used milk as a loss leader to entice people to shop with them for their weekly shop. Now farmers are being squeezed. The bigger ones can invest in more automation, the poorer ones cannot. What happens when food production is concentrated in the hands of fewer companies? What happens when a supermarket chain decides that they can bring increased efficiency to food production and farming by controlling from end to end. Isn't that what Amazon has done with deliveries and Amazon Logistics? Immediately there's an efficiency improvements and the cost of bread can decrease. Competitors go out of business. But we're now dependant on one source for bread. What method do they use to decide how much bread to produce? This video presents an idealised version of capitalism and attacks a straw-man of central planning. Crucially, it does not mention that during times of war, when resources are scarce, that all that the video celebrates gets abandoned and something that looks suspiciously like central planning gets adopted. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/25/humour-bypass-as-houmous-runs-dry https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/25/humour-bypa...

bko 9y ago
I would argue that integrated markets and mutually beneficial trade are a big reason countries don't go to war. Markets are wonderfully adaptable, much more so that central planning. Don't have to source right now but I read that Japan had supplied most of the US rubber before ww2. After the war broke out and trading stopped, there was a big incentive to develop a synthetic rubber, which was accomplished very quickly.
- dpwm 9y ago
  It is therefore a curiosity that the most free-market obsessed leaders appear to be those most likely to pursue conflict. How do you prevent monopolies? Ideas that lead to wealth decay or redistribution seem to be an anathema in modern capitalist societies. Regulation apparently stifles the market. How does the monopoly avoid overproduction? Lean methodologies? [edit] Edited too much out to the point where it seems curt. I'm interested in free-market proponents' views on monopolies. Also, forgot to mention I found the info about synthetic rubber to be particularly interesting -- Wikipedia has more info including posters. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber#World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber#World_War_I...
  - bko 9y ago
    > It is therefore a curiosity that the most free-market obsessed leaders appear to be those most likely to pursue conflict. Source? List of ongoing armed conflicts [0]. Very little in relatively free-market areas such as the US and Europe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#/media/File:Ongoing_conflicts_around_the_world.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
    - macawfish 9y ago
      The U.S. and other leading colonial governments have interfered in foreign governments for decades. Source: Noam Chomsky.
      - bko 9y ago
        Okay, compared to non-market economies that have been bastions of civil liberties?
- kiba 9y ago
  The US would have tremendous incentive to develop synthetic rubber because of the war anyway, markets or not.
ouid 9y ago
an unnamed contaminant?
nickik 9y ago
You mention lots of what ifs, but the reality is this, in the most capitalist countries it almost never happenes that there is not bread. Even if these large companies control much, if they had problems the huge demand would mean lots of other people would have a huge insentive to get into the market. There are lots of other companies who have the fundamental tools to get into that market (logistics, financial, connections to sellers) and so on. Cenral planning is not a straw man, it has been one of the most powerful ideas in the 20 Century that had a huge amount of peole behind it, from top ecnomist to top politicans not to mention a huge intelligentsia. Yes the modern left does not buy these ideas holesale but the principle problem is the same, their criticism derives from the same underlaying assumtions. > Crucially, it does not mention that during times of war, when resources are scarce, that all that the video celebrates gets abandoned and something that looks suspiciously like central planning gets adopted. Its only partly correct that during war everything is central planned, the most effective war time economy were served by a efficent market in the background. However you are somewhat correct, the problem is just that they are different problems. In a free society usually the goal is that everybody can live their lives according to their own wishes. Markets are great for that. In a free society that goes into a total war all people demand survival above all and focusing on that demand can constrain consumtion and focus almsot everything on one goal. So yes, if your only goal in society is to produce bread, then having a war style economy to focus everything on that one goal, markets will lose. However if you want to be a free society where people determen their own goals, markets are what you need and want.

by dpwm 9y ago

bko 9y ago

I would argue that integrated markets and mutually beneficial trade are a big reason countries don't go to war. Markets are wonderfully adaptable, much more so that central planning. Don't have to source right now but I read that Japan had supplied most of the US rubber before ww2. After the war broke out and trading stopped, there was a big incentive to develop a synthetic rubber, which was accomplished very quickly.

dpwm 9y ago
It is therefore a curiosity that the most free-market obsessed leaders appear to be those most likely to pursue conflict. How do you prevent monopolies? Ideas that lead to wealth decay or redistribution seem to be an anathema in modern capitalist societies. Regulation apparently stifles the market. How does the monopoly avoid overproduction? Lean methodologies? [edit] Edited too much out to the point where it seems curt. I'm interested in free-market proponents' views on monopolies. Also, forgot to mention I found the info about synthetic rubber to be particularly interesting -- Wikipedia has more info including posters. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber#World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber#World_War_I...
- bko 9y ago
  > It is therefore a curiosity that the most free-market obsessed leaders appear to be those most likely to pursue conflict. Source? List of ongoing armed conflicts [0]. Very little in relatively free-market areas such as the US and Europe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#/media/File:Ongoing_conflicts_around_the_world.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
  - macawfish 9y ago
    The U.S. and other leading colonial governments have interfered in foreign governments for decades. Source: Noam Chomsky.
    - bko 9y ago
      Okay, compared to non-market economies that have been bastions of civil liberties?
kiba 9y ago
The US would have tremendous incentive to develop synthetic rubber because of the war anyway, markets or not.

ouid 9y ago

an unnamed contaminant?

nickik 9y ago

You mention lots of what ifs, but the reality is this, in the most capitalist countries it almost never happenes that there is not bread. Even if these large companies control much, if they had problems the huge demand would mean lots of other people would have a huge insentive to get into the market. There are lots of other companies who have the fundamental tools to get into that market (logistics, financial, connections to sellers) and so on. Cenral planning is not a straw man, it has been one of the most powerful ideas in the 20 Century that had a huge amount of peole behind it, from top ecnomist to top politicans not to mention a huge intelligentsia. Yes the modern left does not buy these ideas holesale but the principle problem is the same, their criticism derives from the same underlaying assumtions. > Crucially, it does not mention that during times of war, when resources are scarce, that all that the video celebrates gets abandoned and something that looks suspiciously like central planning gets adopted. Its only partly correct that during war everything is central planned, the most effective war time economy were served by a efficent market in the background. However you are somewhat correct, the problem is just that they are different problems. In a free society usually the goal is that everybody can live their lives according to their own wishes. Markets are great for that. In a free society that goes into a total war all people demand survival above all and focusing on that demand can constrain consumtion and focus almsot everything on one goal. So yes, if your only goal in society is to produce bread, then having a war style economy to focus everything on that one goal, markets will lose. However if you want to be a free society where people determen their own goals, markets are what you need and want.