3 ms·
> Capitalism refers to the system of individuals pooling money together (capital) to start a venture that they couldn't if they acted separately. That's one as
by pdonis 3y ago
> Capitalism refers to the system of individuals pooling money together (capital) to start a venture that they couldn't if they acted separately.
That's one aspect of capitalism, yes. But in capitalism as it is currently practiced, most of the people who are accumulating capital aren't people that are trying to start new ventures. They are people that are already rich but think they aren't rich enough, who are unable to start new ventures themselves because they have no actual skills at providing valuable products or services, so instead they find some existing venture and siphon off all its wealth. (This pattern is not new, btw; it's the same way the "robber barons" in the late 19th century operated.)
> In a free marked that is absent of regulatory hurdles, it is far from guaranteed that costs would be affordable.
Nothing is ever "guaranteed". But the article under discussion makes it obvious that with regulations in place, not only are costs not affordable, but even the very existence of products meeting customer needs is not happening. A free market couldn't possibly do any worse.
> In a completely free market, devoid of regulation, wheelchair makers can get together and fix prices. Or buy each other.
This would only happen if it were economically more efficient for wheelchairs to be made by a monopoly. I strongly doubt that is the case. It's not the case for the vast majority of products and services. If it's not economically efficient, the monopoly (or price-fixing cartel) will simply be out-competed in a free market, because it will have no way of keeping other companies from producing at a lower cost.
Historically, virtually all monopolies have been the result of government interference. (The original meaning of the word "monopoly" was a royal grant of the exclusive privilege to sell a particular product or service.) Most large corporations today are not the size they are because that is the most economically efficient way to deliver their products or services, but because it's the best way to buy government favors.
- wesselbindt 3y ago> Historically, virtually all monopolies have been the result of government interference I'm with you on this. In general, the state (by definition) functions to protect the interests of the politically dominant class, which, under capitalism, is the owning class. From the haymarket massacre to Biden's strike breaking shenanigans, this is absolutely beyond dispute. The state will always facilitate monopolies. The only way to get rid of monopolies is for the workers to organize and overthrow the dictatorship of the owning class. Until that happens, it's all Disney, Amazon, and pseudo democracy.
- kazinator 3y ago> The only way to get rid of monopolies is for the workers to organize and overthrow the dictatorship of the owning class. It worked very well in Tsarist Russia, but that could have been a fluke.
- kazinator 3y ago> it will have no way of keeping other companies from producing at a lower cost. It could get chummy with them and fix prices. It could buy them.