Ron Paul - A Tale of Two Speeches

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

However, since you lack any economic undertanding, lets try business administration.

Voila, the porter curve:

http://www.economy-point.org/u/u-curve.html

See, small companies can actually do quite well as long as they specialize in areas where large corporation cannot squash them with their economies of scale and are too bureaucratic to allow for fast and customized business decisions.

Unfortunately that also means that your economic theory is flawed to say the least, as far as it exists that is.

102

You don’t want to be a collectivist? Fine. Go out in the woods and live off the land by yourself.

Neither is capitalism.

[quote]Free market = capitalism

It’s that simple. You can revert back to what Marx says all you want, but it won’t change the definition.[/quote]

No, it’s not that simple. This is a matter of basic definitions, which you are unable to understand. Capitalism in no way requires a free market, as the libertarians remind us (when they point out that the United States does not have a free market).

From dictionary.com - Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with what Marx said. This is what the dictionary says, for crying out loud. Congratulations, in order to defend your idiotic blathering, you’re now arguing against the dictionary and commonly accepted definitions, as well as widely known historical examples.

103

I could also have chosen farming/food products, clothing, automotive, electronics, and other companies, but I assumed you could do some extrapolation yourself.

You’re trying to limbo under the point, which is that most areas of the economy are such that sheer size is an advantage. You’re the only person in the world still trying to argue against concentration of capital.

104

[quote]orion wrote:
However, since you lack any economic undertanding, lets try business administration.

Voila, the porter curve:

http://www.economy-point.org/u/u-curve.html

See, small companies can actually do quite well as long as they specialize in areas where large corporation cannot squash them with their economies of scale and are too bureaucratic to allow for fast and customized business decisions.

Unfortunately that also means that your economic theory is flawed to say the least, as far as it exists that is. [/quote]

Congratulations, in order to show that I “lack economic understanding,” you have fall back on a strawman argument. I never said that “large businesses always drive small businesses out of the market,” yet that is what you are arguing against, and the only way you can be correct is if that is what I said. Even if your point were relevant, you’re saying “OK, disregard half of the economy, and you’re wrong.” Well, OK, but that’s not really what we were talking about.

I guess logic is something else you need help with.

105

Ryan, what is your premise?

And since we lack your superior abilities with logic can you please tell us the relevant conclusions we are supposed to come to?

thanks.

106

This particular argument is actually pretty trivial. I’m not quite sure why they’ve seized on it like they have, except probably they’re desperate to show that I’m wrong.

Someone initially complained about a little girl not being able to run her lemonade stand. All I said was, “It’s somewhat ironic that you’re complaining about that, since capitalism destroys many small businesses.” This is true, and there was no Grand Meaning behind the observation. It wasn’t even a criticism, just an observation, like I said. However, they quickly pointed out that there are still many small businesses, which could not be the case if “capitalism destroyed all small businesses.” I then pointed out that this was true, but it was not at all what I argued.

107

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Dustin wrote:No, we are all not collectivist. Speak for yourself.[/quote]

I have a feeling you have some assbackwards concept of collectivism as well.

You’re right, socialism will take car of everything!!!oneone!!

[quote]Free market = capitalism

It’s that simple. You can revert back to what Marx says all you want, but it won’t change the definition.[/quote]

[quote]
No, it’s not that simple. This is a matter of basic definitions, which you are unable to understand. Capitalism in no way requires a free market, as the libertarians remind us (when they point out that the United States does not have a free market).[/quote]

Taken from the same webpage you cited:

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

108

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m not quite sure why they’ve seized on it like they have, except probably they’re desperate to show that I’m wrong.[/quote]

You must have espn, or something. That was my goal the whole time.

109

What you argued was incorrect.

You misapply actions to the market and you keep confusing yourself. Capitalism does not “destroy businesses”. Capitalism provides the necessary mechanism to make sure bad businesses are removed from the market so that the more efficient companies can remain and have access to properly priced resources – capital, labor, real estate.

When capitalism is not allowed to work we get government intervention granting bailouts to bad businesses.

In fact, we argue the opposite of you. It is not capitalism what kills business but rather intervention in the markets, in general. This describes socialism, communism, fascism, and the nature of the state in general.

110

Not really, but you do, and I was having a little fun at your expense. I apologize.

So, a statement that would be completely acceptable if it praised capitalism is now completely unacceptable since it implicitly endorses socialism? Double standard much?

[quote]Taken from the same webpage you cited:

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
[/quote]

Well! then I guess we’re just wasting our time! Since the US isn’t capitalist (or, for that matter, any other country that has ever existed), and they’re obviously not fascist or socialist, we’re talking about some weird alternate system that nobody else has yet discovered. What do you call it?

In attempting to deny reality, you run into all kinds of problems, but I guess you would know.

111

Only when interpreted through the Bizarro lens of libertarianism.

You’re the one who confuses yourself by inventing all these different things by which to deflect criticism of capitalism.

The only possible way in which I’m wrong is if you interpreted my word “destroy” in the literal sense. Maybe I should’ve used to different word, but the fact that you’re now splitting hairs with respect to word choice should clue you in to the fact that your argument is extremely weak. Whether you want to say they are “destroyed,” “driven out of business,” or what have you, they are rendered defunct and their capital is absorbed into another entity. Once again, I’m not even saying this is a bad thing.

That’s fine, but it’s not the argument.

Except for the banks, which were saved by intervention, but I digress…

So again, in order to be right, you have to give up the notion that competition improves capitalism. You’re caught in yet another contradiction. Which will it be?

112


…

113

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Except for the banks, which were saved by intervention, but I digress…

[/quote]

Banks are no different than crappy auto companies…let them fail if they can’t compete.

114

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Only when interpreted through the Bizarro lens of libertarianism.

You’re the one who confuses yourself by inventing all these different things by which to deflect criticism of capitalism.[/quote]

And as we’re already told you, you’re the only one who does not understand what capitalism is. It is merely a system of property exchange. It entails the notion of a free market based economy.

But here’s the rub: in so far as we can describe a market economy based on free trade we do not care what it is called.

All we care to see is if there is intervention in the market or not.

115

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
However, since you lack any economic undertanding, lets try business administration.

Voila, the porter curve:

http://www.economy-point.org/u/u-curve.html

See, small companies can actually do quite well as long as they specialize in areas where large corporation cannot squash them with their economies of scale and are too bureaucratic to allow for fast and customized business decisions.

Unfortunately that also means that your economic theory is flawed to say the least, as far as it exists that is. [/quote]

Congratulations, in order to show that I “lack economic understanding,” you have fall back on a strawman argument. I never said that “large businesses always drive small businesses out of the market,” yet that is what you are arguing against, and the only way you can be correct is if that is what I said. Even if your point were relevant, you’re saying “OK, disregard half of the economy, and you’re wrong.” Well, OK, but that’s not really what we were talking about.

I guess logic is something else you need help with.
[/quote]

You claimed that in capitalism small compoanies get crushed,

That was as stupid as claiming that in a world where elephants exist no ant could ever make it.

That is of course complete nonsense, in some areas size is an advantage and in others it isnt.

Your focusing on the areas where big companies do have an advantage and then claiming that for “half of the economy it still is so” makes no sense when yes of course, where big companies have a acompetitive advantages they will tend to get big.

In your world that might pass as an argument in mine it is a tautology.

116

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Ironically, capitalism destroys many small-scale operations like this.

[/quote]

How?

Legit curious as to how this happens, according to you.

Maybe small businesses go under because there is no market for the goods the business is attempting to sell. Maybe the business owner made bad business decisions. I just fail to see how capitalism destroys small businesses.[/quote]

Well, according to the admittedly obscure source of every single economics 101 textbook in the world, what makes capitalism so great is competition. Do you suppose that there are “weight classes” for this competition? Isn’t that a frequent complaint against Wal-Mart? That they come in and decimate local businesses?

In addition, some government regulations disproportionately burden small businesses, to the advantage of larger firms, of course.[/quote]

And yet, most businesses are small businesses.

Your idea that big businesses always have an advantage complete nonsense. In some areas they do, in others they dont.

[/quote]

Most businesses in the aerospace industry are not small businesses. Most businesses in the automotive industry are not small businesses. Most businesses in the pharamaceutical industry are not small businesses.[/quote]

So? You choose areas where sheer size is an advantage and then you wonder why you encounter large companies?

[/quote]

Lets not forget, even in the pharma industry there are a shit ton of small, startup companies that are vying for a piece of the pie. And the big companies tend to farm out a lot of their projects to smaller companies too.

117

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:And as we’re already told you, you’re the only one who does not understand what capitalism is. It is merely a system of property exchange. It entails the notion of a free market based economy.

But here’s the rub: in so far as we can describe a market economy based on free trade we do not care what it is called.

All we care to see is if there is intervention in the market or not.[/quote]

As long as you agree that a syndicalist economy is also capitalism, then fine. Then, I would be curious to know that the US economy is? You create lots of problems for yourself when you try to whittle down the definition of capitalism.

118

[quote]orion wrote:You claimed that in capitalism small compoanies get crushed,

That was as stupid as claiming that in a world where elephants exist no ant could ever make it.[/quote]

Doubling down on the straw man argument, eh? I guess it’s the best you can do in this instance. Any objective reader, however, will notice that I never said all small companies are crushed, which would be necessary for your tirade to be relevant, and that also small business do get crushed. Not in every instance or every industry though, which your critique again requires to be relevant, and which I never said.

So in other words, I agree with you, but what it does it have to do with what I said?

And yet you only consider the areas in which it is not to say, categorically, that I am wrong.

Of course it is a tautology, but it only becomes so when you attempt to apply it more broadly than it was intended. In other words, you’re just trying to argue. Which is fine, but it doesn’t make you coherent.

119

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Then, I would be curious to know that the US economy is? [/quote]

Easy. Corporatism. I’m pretty sure that’s been mentioned more than a few times to you already.

120

It’s…FASCIST!

Syndicates are synonymous to cartels in so far that they may be granted favors by government.

With respect to the free market there is nothing inherently wrong with syndicalism as long as they do not use coercion to do business.