4 ms·

What if we replaced capitalism with a focus on consumer choice, competition, and free markets? I'm being a bit flippant with that question, because supposedly

What if we replaced capitalism with a focus on consumer choice, competition, and free markets? I'm being a bit flippant with that question, because supposedly capitalism is all about consumer choice, competition between companies, and free markets. But I often feel that people who defend "capitalism" vigorously will turn around and say "meh" when shown a market with little consumer choice and little competition. Their blood pressure will go up 20 points while defending capitalism, but they barely blink an eye at a market without competition. How often do consumers have only 2, or fewer, choices? So much for customer choice, so much for competition. I want to see a political cartoon that shows 2 panels, the first is "the free market ideal" with a bustling market filled carts selling food and goods, the next panel is "the free market reality" showing a bunch of tired people waiting in line for one of two computer terminals, and both computer terminals are operated by the same guy and one of the is broken. We need to stop talking about capitalism vs Marxism and instead talk about consumer choice and competition between companies. Are we happy with the amount of consumer choice we have? Are companies competing by trying to offer the best goods and services they can, or are they exploiting consumers and making profits by moving money around and rent seeking? We need to talk about IP laws and what makes a free market "free". We need more talk about the underlying principles and less talk about politically charged buzzwords. I've tried to capture all this before in a question I ask: What does it mean when the things that (supposedly) happen in a healthy capitalist society aren't happening?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
This might be because lawmakers equate 'capitalism' with 'big business', and thus are in favor of large mergers. If you try to discuss splitting a company, or denying a merger, you are called a communist for standing in the way of business. The concept of 'competition' in capitalism is somewhat lost now.
- orwin 3y ago
  It's because capitalism isn't about competition or free market? It's about extracting rent on capital, hence the name?
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Guess, are we talking about capitalism as some strict academic definition? or the gestalt in the minds of the right? Think most people do include markets and competition as core to capitalism. But, other core features are, private ownership, and that labor doesn't own the production. And not spelled out, but it does often lead to rent extraction. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back... • competition, through firms’ freedom to enter and exit markets, maximizes social welfare, that is, the joint welfare of both producers and consumers; • a market mechanism that determines prices in a decentralized manner through interactions between buyers and sellers—prices, in return, allocate resources, which naturally seek the highest reward, not only for goods and services but for wages as well;
    - orwin 3y ago
      > Think most people do include markets and competition as core to capitalism. I would argue that this is liberalism, and a smidge older than capitalism. I think you can have multiple kind of capitalism, the old-school, robber-baron that you get in Mexico, Brasil, Russia; the liberal capitalism you get on the west (mixed with more or less socialism), and the weird semi-authoritarian capitalism that you get in China, Vietnam (mixed with more or less socialism too). Probably other exists. Only the liberal one in my mind has free market and competition as a core, its always a secondary effect of participating in the global economy for the others. At least it's my opinion at the moment, i'm not knowledgeable enough, so if you disgree, please do and explain, i want to learn.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        I agree with all that you are saying. If we started digging into details of each possible shade of 'capitalisms', we find a sliding scale of what features are most dominant. There are some that aren't as focused on 'competition' and 'markets'. I'd say that in all of your examples, they are there, just not as dominant, or somehow 'narrowly managed'. So we'd be arguing over the scale of each feature in each example. Not really right or wrong. I agree, it is mostly the global market that forces this on some countries with less competition.
- _0ffh 3y ago
  Getting rid of government is the solution. They sell it to you as a protection against big business, but in reality it's the tool big business uses to stave off free markets and consumer choice.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    That is the typical Libertarian Fantasy/Fallacy. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. They are created and regulated. They need contract law, and enforcement. The argument to get rid of government is really an argument for anarchy, to go back to having war-lords. Do you really want Amazon coming around with enforcers asking for payment. And since there is no Money (since gov is gone) they take your goat and give you a chicken back for change.
    - _0ffh 3y ago
      Lol, there was commerce without government regulation for the longest time and international commerce is still largely regulated by private arbitration courts (e.g. https://fee.org/articles/the-law-merchant-and-international-trade/ https://fee.org/articles/the-law-merchant-and-international-...). There was money well before there was centralized government in nearly all moderately developed places. You should really try to know the first thing before you pull such claims out of wherever. If you think government is anything but a ploy to get to your money, you got duped.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        "You should really try to know the first thing before you pull such claims out of wherever." Sigh. Another armchair economist trying to extrapolate history. You are re-defining all societies in terms of our modern idea of government to push some libertarian view. Yes, you are correct, societies had money before there was a modern elected government with 3 branches. That doesn't mean there weren't rules, there weren't concepts like enforcement of contracts, like debt and how to 'sue' over recovering debt'. You can't go back in history to when we were tribal, say 'look we didn't need a government', and then extrapolate that to todays world and promote anarchy. Money before 'central government'? Central to what? My tribe? You are just re-defining what a government is. You are going back to when we were exchanging shiny bits of shell. Something for your birthday https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290 https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

This might be because lawmakers equate 'capitalism' with 'big business', and thus are in favor of large mergers. If you try to discuss splitting a company, or denying a merger, you are called a communist for standing in the way of business. The concept of 'competition' in capitalism is somewhat lost now.

orwin 3y ago
It's because capitalism isn't about competition or free market? It's about extracting rent on capital, hence the name?
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Guess, are we talking about capitalism as some strict academic definition? or the gestalt in the minds of the right? Think most people do include markets and competition as core to capitalism. But, other core features are, private ownership, and that labor doesn't own the production. And not spelled out, but it does often lead to rent extraction. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back... • competition, through firms’ freedom to enter and exit markets, maximizes social welfare, that is, the joint welfare of both producers and consumers; • a market mechanism that determines prices in a decentralized manner through interactions between buyers and sellers—prices, in return, allocate resources, which naturally seek the highest reward, not only for goods and services but for wages as well;
  - orwin 3y ago
    > Think most people do include markets and competition as core to capitalism. I would argue that this is liberalism, and a smidge older than capitalism. I think you can have multiple kind of capitalism, the old-school, robber-baron that you get in Mexico, Brasil, Russia; the liberal capitalism you get on the west (mixed with more or less socialism), and the weird semi-authoritarian capitalism that you get in China, Vietnam (mixed with more or less socialism too). Probably other exists. Only the liberal one in my mind has free market and competition as a core, its always a secondary effect of participating in the global economy for the others. At least it's my opinion at the moment, i'm not knowledgeable enough, so if you disgree, please do and explain, i want to learn.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      I agree with all that you are saying. If we started digging into details of each possible shade of 'capitalisms', we find a sliding scale of what features are most dominant. There are some that aren't as focused on 'competition' and 'markets'. I'd say that in all of your examples, they are there, just not as dominant, or somehow 'narrowly managed'. So we'd be arguing over the scale of each feature in each example. Not really right or wrong. I agree, it is mostly the global market that forces this on some countries with less competition.
_0ffh 3y ago
Getting rid of government is the solution. They sell it to you as a protection against big business, but in reality it's the tool big business uses to stave off free markets and consumer choice.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  That is the typical Libertarian Fantasy/Fallacy. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. They are created and regulated. They need contract law, and enforcement. The argument to get rid of government is really an argument for anarchy, to go back to having war-lords. Do you really want Amazon coming around with enforcers asking for payment. And since there is no Money (since gov is gone) they take your goat and give you a chicken back for change.
  - _0ffh 3y ago
    Lol, there was commerce without government regulation for the longest time and international commerce is still largely regulated by private arbitration courts (e.g. https://fee.org/articles/the-law-merchant-and-international-trade/ https://fee.org/articles/the-law-merchant-and-international-...). There was money well before there was centralized government in nearly all moderately developed places. You should really try to know the first thing before you pull such claims out of wherever. If you think government is anything but a ploy to get to your money, you got duped.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      "You should really try to know the first thing before you pull such claims out of wherever." Sigh. Another armchair economist trying to extrapolate history. You are re-defining all societies in terms of our modern idea of government to push some libertarian view. Yes, you are correct, societies had money before there was a modern elected government with 3 branches. That doesn't mean there weren't rules, there weren't concepts like enforcement of contracts, like debt and how to 'sue' over recovering debt'. You can't go back in history to when we were tribal, say 'look we didn't need a government', and then extrapolate that to todays world and promote anarchy. Money before 'central government'? Central to what? My tribe? You are just re-defining what a government is. You are going back to when we were exchanging shiny bits of shell. Something for your birthday https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290 https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290