American Bias Toward Capitalism

[Paladin]

Platypus,

On a different thread, contends that:
But it's not just bias toward capitalism. It's bias toward a very particular kind of capitalism, whose proponents often ignore or even undermine some of the very things (e.g. competition) that make capitalism successful. That is definitely plain old bias, not based in reason despite laissez-faire types' fondness for trying to misappropriate that word for themselves by using it incessantly regardless of whether it's appropriate.


Any comments?

[Paladin]

Example --- my cable company will not allow me to cancel CNN while at the same time keeping FOXNEWS.

Shouldn't competition stop protecting the clinton news network from actual competition?

[Jray573]

I always thought it was the Communist News Network :p

I think a good example would be the existence of both Fox and CNN, along with all the other mainstream news networks. I'm not sure what he is talking about when he is saying we don't have competition. I don't see any major monopolies and especially an abuse of one. I think our capitalism is working just fine. In fact, it is working so well that we are even improving the lifestyles of third world countries at rates that greatly compete with our modern unions. It is expanding to Europe in our clothing lines and fast food businesses, and third world companies as production factories. I would think ours is more successful then any other in history.

I would like to see this argument a little more extensively though. There isn't much of one there. It just seems like a wrong statement.

[Paladin]

Give Playpus time to find the thread and make his own argument.

I have tried to get the thread going, as a service to him, but I am not really an advocate of his position, and perhpas cannot state it as clearly as he might.

[Platypus]

Originally posted by Jray573
I'm not sure what he is talking about when he is saying we don't have competition.

I said no such thing.

I don't see any major monopolies and especially an abuse of one.

Why is that, do you think? Is it because industry is self-regulating? I suggest you check your history on Standard Oil (which we've discussed before), US Steel, the sugar and tobacco trusts, the railroad barons, etc. We don't have abusive monopolies precisely because our society as a whole has not fallen for the laissez-derober line.

I think our capitalism is working just fine.

Indeed it is. Again, that is because it is not the rat-eat-rat kind of capitalism that so many seem to advocate.

[Paladin]

Platypus, i have to say that your ideas are not very controversial.

i think everyone agrees with you.
Perhaps this idea for a separate thread was a bad idea.

[Jray573]

hahaha :p ok. I thought you were saying American Capitalism wasn't working. I agree with you if you say it is doing great.

[Platypus]

Originally posted by Paladin
Platypus, i have to say that your ideas are not very controversial.

i think everyone agrees with you.

I think we should wait until libertypundit, ljromanoff, Voice of Treason, NimNim, or gopman weigh in. I have had heated discussion with all of them and others about these very issues in the past, since the day I joined this forum. I don't understand why such basic common sense is matter for controversy, but it has proven to be so.

[rjamortega]

Originally posted by Platypus
...Again, that is because it is not the rat-eat-rat kind of capitalism that so many seem to advocate.
Well perhaps this is a point of contention. I don't think mainstream pro-capitalists are looking for a return to "rat-eat-rat" capitalism. I would just like to see business freed up somewhat more than it is now. Of course there is need for laws and "some" regulation. Balance!

[Mike1977]

Originally posted by Platypus
I think we should wait until libertypundit, ljromanoff, Voice of Treason, NimNim, or gopman weigh in. I have had heated discussion with all of them and others about these very issues in the past, since the day I joined this forum. I don't understand why such basic common sense is matter for controversy, but it has proven to be so.

One question for you:

If you think capitalism is working just fine does that mean you are ok with businesses moving overseas due to (among other things) over regulation?

[cpwill]

eventually it will balance out, as workers overseas become in higher demand, they will begin to become more valuable, charge higher wages, etc.

does that mean that it's best (right now) for america?
no, it is not.

however, long run it will be best for everyone.

so i am torn between the long term overall good, and the rightnow good for my own.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Platypus
Why is that, do you think? Is it because industry is self-regulating? I suggest you check your history on Standard Oil (which we've discussed before), US Steel, the sugar and tobacco trusts, the railroad barons, etc. We don't have abusive monopolies precisely because our society as a whole has not fallen for the laissez-derober line.


I guess I'll chime in here....

On the other end of the spectrum - you will find that where ever there was an abusive monopoly it was the result of government regulation. I have only done research on the railroad monopolies - which were a result of government intervention. I can only speculate at this point with respect to the other instances, but I would be willing to put money on it.

This is the problem - when you allow government to regulate business, it creates a "black market", if you will, that allows lobbying and law manipulation to benefit a particular business - which is the only way an abusive monopoly can be created.
The other dimension to this problem, which isn't necessarily obvious, is that it violates the intended structure of government/business/and consumer. Consumers buy from businesses, government protects the consumers. When government regulates business, the customer gets bypassed and destroys the whole supply/demand system (because businesses can go around the customers).

[Platypus]

Originally posted by NimNim
On the other end of the spectrum - you will find that where ever there was an abusive monopoly it was the result of government regulation. I have only done research on the railroad monopolies - which were a result of government intervention. I can only speculate at this point with respect to the other instances, but I would be willing to put money on it.

If you want to do the research to substantiate that claim, to find the "smoking gun" of government involvement in what to all other appearances are purely private-sector phenomena, that would be great. Until then, yours is just another unsubstantiated claim from the laissez-derober contingent. The good old law of supply and demand says those are worth practically nothing.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Platypus
If you want to do the research to substantiate that claim, to find the "smoking gun" of government involvement in what to all other appearances are purely private-sector phenomena, that would be great. Until then, yours is just another unsubstantiated claim from the laissez-derober contingent. The good old law of supply and demand says those are worth practically nothing.

And on the other hand, I could just as easily point out that your
claim capitalism was the culprit was unsubstantiated.

Any "private sector phenomenon" that isn't abusive (e.g. doesn't use force to maintain monopoly) is due to superior products and individuals voting with their dollar to support it. If you don't like the monopoly - you simply quit buying their product. I find it
to be particularly troublesome that anti-laissez faire capitalists (really fascists or socialists) are willing to punish those who are
successfull in order to give benefit to those who aren't - which is nothing less than distribution of corporate wealth.

[Fasdf]

Originally posted by cpwill
eventually it will balance out, as workers overseas become in higher demand, they will begin to become more valuable, charge higher wages, etc.

does that mean that it's best (right now) for america?
no, it is not.

however, long run it will be best for everyone.

so i am torn between the long term overall good, and the rightnow good for my own.

You don't honestly believe overseas workers will demand higher wages do you? Our influences on their governments will make sure this doesn't happen, so that we are free to loot their countries. There's never a shortage of workers who work for peanuts.

[dumbuser]

Originally posted by Fasdf
You don't honestly believe overseas workers will demand higher wages do you? Our influences on their governments will make sure this doesn't happen, so that we are free to loot their countries. There's never a shortage of workers who work for peanuts.
Any proof to present along with this conspiracy theory?

Are you familiar with the fact (keyword=fact) that foreign companies on average pay higher salaries than local companies? Guess not. How does that fit into your theory?

Another thing. Working for a foreign company (assuming the foreign company is from first world, and work is done in a third world country) increases the chance to get acquainted with modern technology and working methods (compared to local companies), hence increasing ones value. How does that fit into your theory?

Not to mention that foreign companies create addditional jobs in the country hence decreasing unemployment and other social problems.

But it seems it's way easier to yell looting, exploitation than to actually think about the issue.

[Platypus]

Originally posted by NimNim
anti-laissez faire capitalists (really fascists or socialists)

No, not the same at all. Saying that they are only reveals your own ignorance and lack of perspective.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Platypus
No, not the same at all. Saying that they are only reveals your own ignorance and lack of perspective.

Woo hoo! I am now enlightened! Thank you platypus.

[Fasdf]

Are you familiar with the fact (keyword=fact) that foreign companies on average pay higher salaries than local companies? Guess not. How does that fit into your theory?

I guess thats why we have so much industry in america. I think we're talking about two different things.

Is the idea of little kids making shoes for less than a dollar a day a myth? It might be, and I might be nuts. Maybe you could elaborate?

[dumbuser]

Originally posted by Fasdf
I guess thats why we have so much industry in america. I think we're talking about two different things.

Is the idea of little kids making shoes for less than a dollar a day a myth? It might be, and I might be nuts. Maybe you could elaborate?
Elaborate what?
Did you notice the phrase "on average"? Guess not.
Try some of the studies from here http://www.google.com/search?q=foreign+direct+investment+wages+domestic&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 that should make it relatively clear for you

[ibelsd]

1. Monopolies are not bad.
2. Governmnet's role is to protect the individual from the use of force.
3. Businesses are only successful within a competitive environment, when they meet the needs of the consumer.

Explain, why do we need more regulations? Who is that protecting and at what cost?

[Fasdf]

Originally posted by ibelsd
1. Monopolies are not bad.

Woahhhhhhboy, where did you get that idea? How are they good? If one company has complete control of a product, they control the quality and price of it as well. What's stopping them from doubling the price and trashing the quality, when that's the only place to get the product?

As for dumbuser, I understand your point, and I did mention that I may have been wrong. Btw, am I the only person who thinks redirecting people to google is incredibly rude?

[ljromanoff]

Originally posted by Fasdf
Woahhhhhhboy, where did you get that idea? How are they good? If one company has complete control of a product, they control the quality and price of it as well. What's stopping them from doubling the price and trashing the quality, when that's the only place to get the product?


What is stopping them is the danger of attracting competition. Your concerns about high prices and/or low quality are valid, but they are not a certainty with a monopoly, although they may be more likely.

The monopolies that are particularly dangerous are those established by law, where competing companies are not allowed to exist at all.

Originally posted by Fasdf

Btw, am I the only person who thinks redirecting people to google is incredibly rude?

No, you aren't.