4 ms·

Somehow MBAs, our champions of capitalism, completely forgot that capitalism only really works for society when free market competition takes place. This is wh

by izacus 2mo ago

Somehow MBAs, our champions of capitalism, completely forgot that capitalism only really works for society when free market competition takes place. This is what's attractive about the "Mittlestand" - having a wide variety of companies competing in the same market so they push each other to improve services. 21st century consolidation is a direct opposite of that.

vrganj 2mo ago
But consolidation is the inherent end game of capitalism. It's almost as if it was full of contradictions that will always result in crises and a bad way to organize a society...
- ahartmetz 2mo ago
  Some of these contradictions can be fixed well enough by government intervention to make capitalism the best known system. It used to work pretty well for several decades.
  - vrganj 2mo ago
    Several decades being 1.8 decades since the last major crisis?
    - ahartmetz 2mo ago
      I mean something like 1930-1975 in the US and 1950-1990 in Germany.
      - vrganj 2mo ago
        Those decades of working capitalism in Germany were subsidized by cheap Gastarbeiter labor from Southern and Eastern Europe, and cheap Eastern Bloc manufactured goods on unfavorable terms. In the US, they were subsidized by overthrowing democracies across Latin America to keep the extraction flowing - key words being United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Chile, Operation Condor. The prosperity in Frankfurt and Detroit was always paid for elsewhere. The economic miracle was a miracle of exploitative extraction, a miracle only for the already privileged.
        ahartmetz 2mo ago
        Oh, please, stop this guilt cult nonsense. Economic progress (much of which is technological progress) is a positive-sum game for the most part, it doesn't require exploitation of this or that foreign ethnicity, and that was never a critical part of it after the East India Company or something. That exploitation has also been more important to make the rich richer than to make the poor richer, which is what "capitalism was working" is about. Countries have stopped relying on imports for national security reasons often enough in history and they did fine after a few years of adjustment. I mean, apart from the consequences of war.
        vrganj 2mo ago
        Tell that to Salvador Allende or Jacobo Árbenz.
        ahartmetz 2mo ago
        I am not denying that the West did bad things, merely that these were necessary conditions for Western prosperity.
- OroPla 2mo ago
  It's worth repeating, since so many people have different ideas about what capitalism is, but it's only having the means of production (factories, tools, employees, etc.) in private hand (as opposed to being owned by the government - a monopoly) with the purpose of making a profit (so you do not have to live paycheck to paycheck). None of that has consolidation (might as well call it monopoly) at the end game. But then again, we can't really have free market capitalism while also having state granted monopolies (IP laws). When you have a monopoly you can set the price, but in a free market supply and demand sets the price.
  - vrganj 2mo ago
    If the means of production are in private hand and private individuals acquire profit, they will inevitably use said profits to acquire more means of production, which will beget more profits, more means of production, etc etc. They will use those riches to buy out competitors, to bribe (or "lobby" in polite parlance) legislators to tilt the rules in their favor, until they have reached near-monopoly. The free market always means monopolization, this is precisely the core contradiction of capitalism. The perfect free market with fair competition only exists in ideological fantasy. To say what we have now isn't capitalism is nothing but a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is actually existing capitalism.
    - OroPla 2mo ago
      That's where legislation is supposed to step in to prevent monopolization, which currently is not happening sufficiently. The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse.
      - vrganj 2mo ago
        > The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse. Why? That's just an assertion with no backing. If the government is democratically elected, how is democratic control over resources worse than a few oligarchs acting autocratically? > which currently is not happening sufficiently. This is not by accident. This is due to the mechanisms described above, a direct result of capitalism. A few have been able to amass enough resources to use them to influence lawmakers and tilt the board in their favor. It's not an accident. It's what actually existing capitalism does.
- pantalaimon 2mo ago
  > It's almost as if it was full of contradictions that will always result in crises and a bad way to organize a society... We yet haven't found a better way

by izacus 2mo ago

vrganj 2mo ago

But consolidation is the inherent end game of capitalism. It's almost as if it was full of contradictions that will always result in crises and a bad way to organize a society...

ahartmetz 2mo ago
Some of these contradictions can be fixed well enough by government intervention to make capitalism the best known system. It used to work pretty well for several decades.
- vrganj 2mo ago
  Several decades being 1.8 decades since the last major crisis?
  - ahartmetz 2mo ago
    I mean something like 1930-1975 in the US and 1950-1990 in Germany.
    - vrganj 2mo ago
      Those decades of working capitalism in Germany were subsidized by cheap Gastarbeiter labor from Southern and Eastern Europe, and cheap Eastern Bloc manufactured goods on unfavorable terms. In the US, they were subsidized by overthrowing democracies across Latin America to keep the extraction flowing - key words being United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Chile, Operation Condor. The prosperity in Frankfurt and Detroit was always paid for elsewhere. The economic miracle was a miracle of exploitative extraction, a miracle only for the already privileged.
      - ahartmetz 2mo ago
        Oh, please, stop this guilt cult nonsense. Economic progress (much of which is technological progress) is a positive-sum game for the most part, it doesn't require exploitation of this or that foreign ethnicity, and that was never a critical part of it after the East India Company or something. That exploitation has also been more important to make the rich richer than to make the poor richer, which is what "capitalism was working" is about. Countries have stopped relying on imports for national security reasons often enough in history and they did fine after a few years of adjustment. I mean, apart from the consequences of war.
        vrganj 2mo ago
        Tell that to Salvador Allende or Jacobo Árbenz.
        ahartmetz 2mo ago
        I am not denying that the West did bad things, merely that these were necessary conditions for Western prosperity.
OroPla 2mo ago
It's worth repeating, since so many people have different ideas about what capitalism is, but it's only having the means of production (factories, tools, employees, etc.) in private hand (as opposed to being owned by the government - a monopoly) with the purpose of making a profit (so you do not have to live paycheck to paycheck). None of that has consolidation (might as well call it monopoly) at the end game. But then again, we can't really have free market capitalism while also having state granted monopolies (IP laws). When you have a monopoly you can set the price, but in a free market supply and demand sets the price.
- vrganj 2mo ago
  If the means of production are in private hand and private individuals acquire profit, they will inevitably use said profits to acquire more means of production, which will beget more profits, more means of production, etc etc. They will use those riches to buy out competitors, to bribe (or "lobby" in polite parlance) legislators to tilt the rules in their favor, until they have reached near-monopoly. The free market always means monopolization, this is precisely the core contradiction of capitalism. The perfect free market with fair competition only exists in ideological fantasy. To say what we have now isn't capitalism is nothing but a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is actually existing capitalism.
  - OroPla 2mo ago
    That's where legislation is supposed to step in to prevent monopolization, which currently is not happening sufficiently. The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse.
    - vrganj 2mo ago
      > The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse. Why? That's just an assertion with no backing. If the government is democratically elected, how is democratic control over resources worse than a few oligarchs acting autocratically? > which currently is not happening sufficiently. This is not by accident. This is due to the mechanisms described above, a direct result of capitalism. A few have been able to amass enough resources to use them to influence lawmakers and tilt the board in their favor. It's not an accident. It's what actually existing capitalism does.
pantalaimon 2mo ago
> It's almost as if it was full of contradictions that will always result in crises and a bad way to organize a society... We yet haven't found a better way