5 ms·

This is the secret of capitalists. Monopoly for them, and market discipline for everyone else. "Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites" This is wh

by mempko 12y ago

This is the secret of capitalists. Monopoly for them, and market discipline for everyone else. "Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites" This is why State capitalism or something like fascism to them is the ideal. Any democracy is the most HORRIBLE thing. Because after all, there are only a few capitalists, and then there is everyone else...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
runaway 12y ago
I think the idea is that in a capitalist competition we should assume all actors are trying to monopolize the industry and really only follow laws to avoid harming their bottom line. The same way you'd design any system by assuming any user might be malicious. The way to manage this is to eliminate corruption and strictly scrutinize the relationships between businesses and gov't entities.
- mempko 12y ago
  oh to live in a world with which those relationships can't exist because the entities can't exist. But that might be too radical.
  - penprog 12y ago
    Sooo... you want a world without business or government entities? What?
    - coldtea 12y ago
      What "what"? This has been a standard aim for anarchists etc for ages...
    - mpyne 12y ago
      I think the thought seems to be that if we don't allow people to organize in any meaningful way (i.e. against the people) then the problem of organizations is solved. Never mind that said organizations would simply resort to setting up unofficial enforcement mechanisms, much like organized crime already does today. Other counter-examples aren't that hard to find either.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  The way to manage this is to eliminate corruption... This has proven difficult in many situations. Is there any reason to believe that it can be done in e.g. USA?
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    It can't, but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. A system that is less corrupt functions more smoothly than one that is more corrupt, even if there is still corruption. In the U.S, corruption takes the form of old-boy networks for financial access, exclusive business relationships, under-the-table deals that you'd rather not be made public, close relationships between business and politicians, alumni networks, etc. In many other countries, corruption takes the form of bribes needed to even start a business, hired goons that you have to pay off for protection, unreserved Party loyalty, and midnight executions of people who are deemed a threat. As a startup founder, I get annoyed at all the hoops I have to jump through that have little to do with building a good product, but realistically, I am risking comparatively little and there are ways to convince people that don't involve obsequiousness. Doing something disruptive in, say, sub-Saharan Africa or China or the Philippines often involves much more significant risks to life or property.
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    It, of course, can't be done practically speaking. That's one of the the basic failings of all the true free market capitalists (at least the ones who really believe in it and aren't just using the idea to manipulate others the way religions do with their 'flocks'). They have this naive understanding of human nature that believes such a system could exist without corruption when history shows again and again and again (and again...) that even if you start from a system relatively free of corruption, if there are not pre-existing checks and balances (eg. meaningful government regulations) that are constantly maintained the entities who "win" at the system invariably become corrupt in order to maintain the status quo that has worked out so well for them and they begin to tilt the system in their favor. Since they won (and thus have the most resources) they are in the perfect position to influence the system to bend to them, which they invariably eventually do if given the chance.
- Strang 12y ago
  Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. There is a lot of gray area between lobbying and corruption. And lobbying has a bad connotation, but people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives and advocate for legislative outcomes.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives A lack of lobbying wouldn't prevent anyone from speaking to their representatives. The negative connotations around lobbying come from things like: - Large campaign contributors getting more attention than constituents (even if their industry isn't in the state; See Orrin Hatch and Hollywood for an example). - Lobbyists being people that know the politicians, and therefore are being paid to use that trust. ... etc
- lazylizard 12y ago
  we're not clever enough to price all externalities.
tim333 12y ago
Not all capitalists. I'm not sure I can think of any actual ones for whom any democracy is the most horrible thing. Bit of a straw man argument perhaps?
freedom123 12y ago
The problem with his statements is you can't sort out when he is using a figure of speech to convey his point or he wants to be 100% understood as literal. Monopoly can be a figure of speech for "first to market". In the literal sense Monopoly cannot exist without government intervention - which is the antithesis of capitalism. Moreover, capitalism equates to freedom, a free market. This does equate to healthy competition. Competition that brings out the best in all men and a monopoly in the literal sense makes sure that never happens by force of government. By stating "competition doesn't work", "look at restaurants on NYC." Well that doesn't makes sense because if it didn't make sense then business men would not be making restaurants so something actually does make sense < I was shocked that both people agreed so easily to such a odd statement. Why would there be 16,000 restaurants if no one was making money. Then they go on to say "who would of known we needed some many online pet companies" Again what is the exact argument here, be 1st to market? zappos.com wasn't the 1st ecom shoe company - 1 billion dollars later...
anon808 12y ago
Capitalism simply means assets are owned by individuals and operated for profit. The implementation details depend on the individuals (and their values). Nothing about capitalism says anyone or thing needs to be exploited, cheated or monopolized.
- mindcrime 12y ago
  Thank you for presenting a reasonable and realistic viewpoint. Too much lately, anytime capitalism comes up on this site, we get a deluge of people just spouting left'ish wing propaganda and disparaging capitalism and capitalists.
  - anon808 12y ago
    I think the problem is that there are a lot of practicing capitalists that also happen to be massive assholes. It's not the capitalism that's the problem, it's the asshole part.
    - mindcrime 12y ago
      Agreed.
    - jleader 12y ago
      But the assholes insist that they're _required_ to be that way, by the rules of capitalism, and almost no one seems to argue with them (except those "spouting left'ish wing propaganda").
    - asdrubal 12y ago
      "don't hate the player, hate the game"? It shouldn't be so taboo to discuss flaws in the capitalist system.. The article itself is a very raw exposition of a characteristic of it that I imagine is understood by people on both ends of the political alignment spectrum as a damaging thing, not that it couldn't not be.. I think the discussion matters because reality matters.
    - lukifer 12y ago

by mempko 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

runaway 12y ago

I think the idea is that in a capitalist competition we should assume all actors are trying to monopolize the industry and really only follow laws to avoid harming their bottom line. The same way you'd design any system by assuming any user might be malicious. The way to manage this is to eliminate corruption and strictly scrutinize the relationships between businesses and gov't entities.

mempko 12y ago
oh to live in a world with which those relationships can't exist because the entities can't exist. But that might be too radical.
- penprog 12y ago
  Sooo... you want a world without business or government entities? What?
  - coldtea 12y ago
    What "what"? This has been a standard aim for anarchists etc for ages...
  - mpyne 12y ago
    I think the thought seems to be that if we don't allow people to organize in any meaningful way (i.e. against the people) then the problem of organizations is solved. Never mind that said organizations would simply resort to setting up unofficial enforcement mechanisms, much like organized crime already does today. Other counter-examples aren't that hard to find either.
jessaustin 12y ago
The way to manage this is to eliminate corruption... This has proven difficult in many situations. Is there any reason to believe that it can be done in e.g. USA?
- nostrademons 12y ago
  It can't, but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. A system that is less corrupt functions more smoothly than one that is more corrupt, even if there is still corruption. In the U.S, corruption takes the form of old-boy networks for financial access, exclusive business relationships, under-the-table deals that you'd rather not be made public, close relationships between business and politicians, alumni networks, etc. In many other countries, corruption takes the form of bribes needed to even start a business, hired goons that you have to pay off for protection, unreserved Party loyalty, and midnight executions of people who are deemed a threat. As a startup founder, I get annoyed at all the hoops I have to jump through that have little to do with building a good product, but realistically, I am risking comparatively little and there are ways to convince people that don't involve obsequiousness. Doing something disruptive in, say, sub-Saharan Africa or China or the Philippines often involves much more significant risks to life or property.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  It, of course, can't be done practically speaking. That's one of the the basic failings of all the true free market capitalists (at least the ones who really believe in it and aren't just using the idea to manipulate others the way religions do with their 'flocks'). They have this naive understanding of human nature that believes such a system could exist without corruption when history shows again and again and again (and again...) that even if you start from a system relatively free of corruption, if there are not pre-existing checks and balances (eg. meaningful government regulations) that are constantly maintained the entities who "win" at the system invariably become corrupt in order to maintain the status quo that has worked out so well for them and they begin to tilt the system in their favor. Since they won (and thus have the most resources) they are in the perfect position to influence the system to bend to them, which they invariably eventually do if given the chance.
Strang 12y ago
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. There is a lot of gray area between lobbying and corruption. And lobbying has a bad connotation, but people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives and advocate for legislative outcomes.
- pyre 12y ago
  > people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives A lack of lobbying wouldn't prevent anyone from speaking to their representatives. The negative connotations around lobbying come from things like: - Large campaign contributors getting more attention than constituents (even if their industry isn't in the state; See Orrin Hatch and Hollywood for an example). - Lobbyists being people that know the politicians, and therefore are being paid to use that trust. ... etc
lazylizard 12y ago
we're not clever enough to price all externalities.

tim333 12y ago

Not all capitalists. I'm not sure I can think of any actual ones for whom any democracy is the most horrible thing. Bit of a straw man argument perhaps?

freedom123 12y ago

The problem with his statements is you can't sort out when he is using a figure of speech to convey his point or he wants to be 100% understood as literal. Monopoly can be a figure of speech for "first to market". In the literal sense Monopoly cannot exist without government intervention - which is the antithesis of capitalism. Moreover, capitalism equates to freedom, a free market. This does equate to healthy competition. Competition that brings out the best in all men and a monopoly in the literal sense makes sure that never happens by force of government. By stating "competition doesn't work", "look at restaurants on NYC." Well that doesn't makes sense because if it didn't make sense then business men would not be making restaurants so something actually does make sense < I was shocked that both people agreed so easily to such a odd statement. Why would there be 16,000 restaurants if no one was making money. Then they go on to say "who would of known we needed some many online pet companies" Again what is the exact argument here, be 1st to market? zappos.com wasn't the 1st ecom shoe company - 1 billion dollars later...

anon808 12y ago

Capitalism simply means assets are owned by individuals and operated for profit. The implementation details depend on the individuals (and their values). Nothing about capitalism says anyone or thing needs to be exploited, cheated or monopolized.

mindcrime 12y ago
Thank you for presenting a reasonable and realistic viewpoint. Too much lately, anytime capitalism comes up on this site, we get a deluge of people just spouting left'ish wing propaganda and disparaging capitalism and capitalists.
- anon808 12y ago
  I think the problem is that there are a lot of practicing capitalists that also happen to be massive assholes. It's not the capitalism that's the problem, it's the asshole part.
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    Agreed.
  - jleader 12y ago
    But the assholes insist that they're _required_ to be that way, by the rules of capitalism, and almost no one seems to argue with them (except those "spouting left'ish wing propaganda").
  - asdrubal 12y ago
    "don't hate the player, hate the game"? It shouldn't be so taboo to discuss flaws in the capitalist system.. The article itself is a very raw exposition of a characteristic of it that I imagine is understood by people on both ends of the political alignment spectrum as a damaging thing, not that it couldn't not be.. I think the discussion matters because reality matters.
  - lukifer 12y ago