Sustainable Capitalism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:The classic answer would be that you sound like a socialist that claims that socialism has never failed because it has never been truly put in place.

Exactly. LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, you and your buddies are pretty good at avoiding actual discussion and focusing on semantics and other non-issues. The point was, whatever you want to call it, what you want was tried, and it failed.
[/quote]

See how I can argue your point because I understand it.

And yet I still believe in capitalism.

Why would that be?

22

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is all about removing the market from the equation. This is the big hand of government forcing us to switch energy sources among other things.[/quote]

With respect to energy policy, no, the market is not removed from the equation. However, a financial pressure can be applied which will change the point at which demand and supply intersect.

This in itself is neither good nor bad, not does it stop the market from operating.

You can resist consuming new sources of energy, but you may have to pay higher prices to do so. Basically, the efficiency of the market is maintained except that the policy goal is given a competitive advantage through some means.

Whether or not the policy should be attempted is the issue. Elimination of the market is absolute bullshit meant to invoke fear and trembling in nitwits who think that socialism, communism, or some other 'ism is being applied.

It is the job of the government to decide upon direction, policy, and try to find efficient and effective ways to achieve those goals. I know it doesn’t always work out that way, but it doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t try to effect policies at all.

23

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is all about removing the market from the equation. This is the big hand of government forcing us to switch energy sources among other things.

With respect to energy policy, no, the market is not removed from the equation. However, a financial pressure can be applied which will change the point at which demand and supply intersect.

This in itself is neither good nor bad, not does it stop the market from operating.
[/quote]

This is inherently bad because it makes the whole economy less effective, i.e. destroys wealth.

24

[quote]orion wrote:
This is inherently bad because it makes the whole economy less effective, i.e. destroys wealth.
[/quote]

Not true.

It shifts resources and wealth from one area to another.

At the same time, there can be very good strategic reasons, which the populace might very well agree to, to support the policy. Money is not the ONLY thing that matters.

For example, stopping the shipment of many billions of dollars overseas to purchase oil, instead pumping that money into the local economy, would have a tremendous positive impact on the US economy. Not only would the money not go to countries that may be enemies of the US, but the people in the US that earned the money would pay taxes on it, and that left over after taxes would drive consumption - resulting in income for other businesses and employees.

Once again, it is the job of the government to determine what policies are appropriate, perhaps through the vehicle of an election where various platforms are proposed.

The populace can decide if they wish to undertake the potential hardship of reallocating resources from the oil industry to other industries.

The reasons for such decisions are not limited to direct financial matters alone.

25

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
This is inherently bad because it makes the whole economy less effective, i.e. destroys wealth.

Not true.

It shifts resources and wealth from one area to another.

At the same time, there can be very good strategic reasons, which the populace might very well agree to, to support the policy. Money is not the ONLY thing that matters.

For example, stopping the shipment of many billions of dollars overseas to purchase, instead pumping into the local economy, would have a tremendous positive impact on the US economy. Not only would the money not go to countries that may be enemies of the US, but the people in the US that earned the money would pay taxes on it, and that left over after taxes would drive consumption - resulting in income for other businesses and employees.

Once again, it is the job of the government to determine what policies are appropriate, perhaps through the vehicle of an election where various platforms are proposed.

The populace can decide if they wish to undertake the potential hardship of reallocating resources from the oil industry to other industries.

The reasons for such decisions are not limited to direct financial matters alone.[/quote]

Well, way true.

Insert two paragraphs of wishful thinking here.

I could explain why way true , but if you had a basic grasp of economics you´d already know why and willful ignorance is a powerful force.

But I can give you the cliff notes:

People already spend their money exactly the way they want. That is, given a certain distribution of money, the utility maximizing outcome.

Once government interferes, the outcome is less then optimal, the system is less efficient, money is wasted.

Did you know that economics is not something you just have an opinion on, but that whole academic degrees exist in that subject?

26

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
This is inherently bad because it makes the whole economy less effective, i.e. destroys wealth.

Not true.

It shifts resources and wealth from one area to another.

At the same time, there can be very good strategic reasons, which the populace might very well agree to, to support the policy. Money is not the ONLY thing that matters.

For example, stopping the shipment of many billions of dollars overseas to purchase oil, instead pumping that money into the local economy, would have a tremendous positive impact on the US economy. Not only would the money not go to countries that may be enemies of the US, but the people in the US that earned the money would pay taxes on it, and that left over after taxes would drive consumption - resulting in income for other businesses and employees.

Once again, it is the job of the government to determine what policies are appropriate, perhaps through the vehicle of an election where various platforms are proposed.

The populace can decide if they wish to undertake the potential hardship of reallocating resources from the oil industry to other industries.

The reasons for such decisions are not limited to direct financial matters alone.[/quote]

It is not the job of the government to determine what policies are appropriate. It is the job of the government to protect property rights and defend against forein threats then get the fuck out of everyone’s business.

There should be no policies that encourage or discourage wealth creation or destruction.

You speak of foreign oil. When people find it no longer profitable to purchase foreign oil and find alternative means then a capitalistic market will have an influx of investment to develop other profitable methods of energy production. Unfortunately with things existing like income tax and capital gains taxes and government policies then it takes away much of the incentive for this to happen thus driving up the price point at which oil becomes obsolete so to speak.

Just admit you are a socialist, your parents will still love you.

27

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We have never had free market capitalism in this country[/quote]

You’ll never have a free market that will last anywhere in the world.

If a company can manage attain monopoly status, it will. No more market.

If it can’t, it’ll team up with other large competitors to form an oligopoly. No more market. At best, a very inefficient one.

You need to prevent the market from competing itself out of existence. The best case will be a well regulated market. Note that that does not mean a lot of regulations; it means a few smart ones.

Assuming we call a “smartly regulated market” a “free market”, that still doesn’t mean that a free market is The Magical Solutoin to All of the World Problems. Why? Because markets are amoral. They hold no values. If your company, say, mines diamond in Africa, you (living here) might not give a shit that it pollutes the rivers, destroys the forests and kills off a lot of locals. It is not economically advantageous to care or to spend money to prevent these things - especially if you have competitors that also do not care. So here too, you’ll need rules and regulations to prevent free markets from producing immoral - but highly efficient, no doubt - situations. You need rules and regulations to force markets to value things that have, in and of themselves, no intrinsic value for that particular market.

A lasting pure free market is a myth.

28

[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We have never had free market capitalism in this country

You’ll never have a free market that will last anywhere in the world.

If a company can manage attain monopoly status, it will. No more market.

If it can’t, it’ll team up with other large competitors to form an oligopoly. No more market. At best, a very inefficient one.

You need to prevent the market from competing itself out of existence. The best case will be a well regulated market. Note that that does not mean a lot of regulations; it means a few smart ones.

Assuming we call a “smartly regulated market” a “free market”, that still doesn’t mean that a free market is The Magical Solutoin to All of the World Problems. Why? Because markets are amoral. They hold no values. If your company, say, mines diamond in Africa, you (living here) might not give a shit that it pollutes the rivers, destroys the forests and kills off a lot of locals. It is not economically advantageous to care or to spend money to prevent these things - especially if you have competitors that also do not care. So here too, you’ll need rules and regulations to prevent free markets from producing immoral - but highly efficient, no doubt - situations. You need rules and regulations to force markets to value things that have, in and of themselves, no intrinsic value for that particular market.

A lasting pure free market is a myth.
[/quote]

A monopoly or oligolopoly is no problem per se, because once they start abusing their influence in the market, they raise prises and it becomes profitable for other companies to enter their markets and challenge them.

To possibility of competition alone is enough to keep them honest.

29

[quote]pookie wrote:
If a company can manage attain monopoly status, it will. No more market.
[/quote]
Please tell me how a monopoly is possible in a free society without coercion?

In fact, monopolies are not possible without some form of coercion to beat out competition. Not only that, monopolies are not inherently bad and can only stay in business as along as they satisfy their customers. If they charge too high of a price their customers will leave them with their wants unsatisfied.

More than likely, however, the market will seek an alternative means to satisfy that end. For example, if there happened to be a monopoly in the auto industry maybe a cable car company comes into the market to satisfy transportation needs.

Consumers only value ends and businesses can only provide a means to that end. There can never be a true monopoly though.

30

Why has no one mentioned the Tragedy of the Commons yet (and the governments subsequent responsibility to internalize certain externalities)?

Also monopolies can absolutely form in a free market - when the Minimum Efficient Scale is large (IE Utility companies) or through collusion. Neither of these, left unregulated, is good for the market.

The government’s role to regulate the market is certainly smaller than what the current one has taken on - but it is also not nearly as miniscule as many of you seem to be arguing.

EDIT: Here’s a “monopoly” story.

Company A provides cable to everyone in New York. They Jack up their prices. A competitor, Company B, comes in and begins building infrastructure to compete with Company A.

Company A, scared of the competition. Lowers their prices, far lower than what Company B can afford, due to their large scale advantages (fixed cost per customer is way lower when volume is high). Company B goes out of Business. Company A raises prices and enjoys its monopoly again.

31

[quote]shookers wrote:
Why has no one mentioned the Tragedy of the Commons yet (and the governments subsequent responsibility to internalize certain externalities)?

Also monopolies can absolutely form in a free market - when the Minimum Efficient Scale is large (IE Utility companies) or through collusion. Neither of these, left unregulated, is good for the market.

The government’s role to regulate the market is certainly smaller than what the current one has taken on - but it is also not nearly as miniscule as many of you seem to be arguing.

EDIT: Here’s a “monopoly” story.

Company A provides cable to everyone in New York. They Jack up their prices. A competitor, Company B, comes in and begins building infrastructure to compete with Company A.

Company A, scared of the competition. Lowers their prices, far lower than what Company B can afford, due to their large scale advantages (fixed cost per customer is way lower when volume is high). Company B goes out of Business. Company A raises prices and enjoys its monopoly again.
[/quote]

Cable is not a monopoly. You can get a satellite dish.

32

Does anyone find it telling that 3 Canadians are arguing the ‘evils’ of capitalism and why government intrusion is neccesary?

33

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
shookers wrote:
Why has no one mentioned the Tragedy of the Commons yet (and the governments subsequent responsibility to internalize certain externalities)?

Also monopolies can absolutely form in a free market - when the Minimum Efficient Scale is large (IE Utility companies) or through collusion. Neither of these, left unregulated, is good for the market.

The government’s role to regulate the market is certainly smaller than what the current one has taken on - but it is also not nearly as miniscule as many of you seem to be arguing.

EDIT: Here’s a “monopoly” story.

Company A provides cable to everyone in New York. They Jack up their prices. A competitor, Company B, comes in and begins building infrastructure to compete with Company A.

Company A, scared of the competition. Lowers their prices, far lower than what Company B can afford, due to their large scale advantages (fixed cost per customer is way lower when volume is high). Company B goes out of Business. Company A raises prices and enjoys its monopoly again.

Cable is not a monopoly. You can get a satellite dish.[/quote]

Or you could watch tv via your cell phone.

Or on the Internet

Or go to the movies.

Or rent a movie.

Or have sex.

Or read a book.

34

[quote]shookers wrote:
Why has no one mentioned the Tragedy of the Commons yet (and the governments subsequent responsibility to internalize certain externalities)?

Also monopolies can absolutely form in a free market - when the Minimum Efficient Scale is large (IE Utility companies) or through collusion. Neither of these, left unregulated, is good for the market.

The government’s role to regulate the market is certainly smaller than what the current one has taken on - but it is also not nearly as miniscule as many of you seem to be arguing.

EDIT: Here’s a “monopoly” story.

Company A provides cable to everyone in New York. They Jack up their prices. A competitor, Company B, comes in and begins building infrastructure to compete with Company A.

Company A, scared of the competition. Lowers their prices, far lower than what Company B can afford, due to their large scale advantages (fixed cost per customer is way lower when volume is high). Company B goes out of Business. Company A raises prices and enjoys its monopoly again.
[/quote]

Or company B could provide a superior service and/or technology compared to company A from help of investors and steal business.

If you can’t beat the monopoly you either have an inferior product, customer service, and/or management.

35

…

Apparently my point fell on deaf ears. Change Cable company to a company that provides homes with water.

Everyone needs water, and the minimum efficient scale is far beyond what any city would ever need. Therefore a competitor would not be able to offer prices as cheaply as company A.

Honestly, open an Economics 101 Book and this is all there.

And Cremaster, at this point, it looks like our government is to the right of yours :), sucker.

36

[quote]orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Cable is not a monopoly. You can get a satellite dish.

Or you could watch tv via your cell phone.

Or on the Internet

Or go to the movies.

Or rent a movie.

Or have sex.

Or read a book.

[/quote]

Indeed, the market provides many solutions.

I was wondering your opinion, would you consider the title of this thread an oxymoron?

37

[quote]orion wrote:Well, way true.

Insert two paragraphs of wishful thinking here.

I could explain why way true , but if you had a basic grasp of economics you´d already know why and willful ignorance is a powerful force.

But I can give you the cliff notes:

People already spend their money exactly the way they want. That is, given a certain distribution of money, the utility maximizing outcome.

Once government interferes, the outcome is less then optimal, the system is less efficient, money is wasted.

Did you know that economics is not something you just have an opinion on, but that whole academic degrees exist in that subject?

[/quote]

What exactly are you arguing here?

38

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Cable is not a monopoly. You can get a satellite dish.

Or you could watch tv via your cell phone.

Or on the Internet

Or go to the movies.

Or rent a movie.

Or have sex.

Or read a book.

Indeed, the market provides many solutions.

I was wondering your opinion, would you consider the title of this thread an oxymoron?[/quote]

I’m not sure you’re refering to me but…

I think that capitalism is by definition sustainable - it will correct itself as necessary, assuming it is functioning properly.

I think Al Gore can go fuck himself and his treehugging friends. The Environment will correct itself, and if all else fails, the USA government can pull a NASA, invest a few billion and solve the “problem” through innovation.

39

interesting interview with Peter Schiff

40

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Cable is not a monopoly. You can get a satellite dish.

Or you could watch tv via your cell phone.

Or on the Internet

Or go to the movies.

Or rent a movie.

Or have sex.

Or read a book.

Indeed, the market provides many solutions.

I was wondering your opinion, would you consider the title of this thread an oxymoron?[/quote]

Why would I?

It could be that we, as a species are doomed either way, but so far I am going with the system that rewards risk taking and innovation.