|
of all the threads on TL about monetary policy / economic discussion even at the zenith of the bank bailouts i think this is the worst one.
|
OP, are you assuming that there can't be a lot of regulation in a capitalistic system? I think that is wrong. Even the U.S., one of the less regulated systems, still has a great deal of regulation in every industry that tries to deal with the problems of monopoly and labor.
And the Asian capitalist countries (tigers) basically became thriving capitalistic markets because of government intervention and regulation. It's not enough to criticize capitalism as a theory, because no country even remotely purely capitalistic.
|
On January 28 2010 06:16 Slow Motion wrote:
OP, are you assuming that there can't be a lot of regulation in a capitalistic system? I think that is wrong. Even the U.S., one of the less regulated systems, still has a great deal of regulation in every industry that tries to deal with the problems of monopoly and labor.
And the Asian capitalist countries (tigers) basically became thriving capitalistic markets because of government intervention and regulation. It's not enough to criticize capitalism as a theory, because no country even remotely purely capitalistic.
I completely agree. I am advocating for more gov't intervention and regulation. That is all. The current trend in capitalism is away from gov't intervention and regulation, which I think is wrong.
|
United States4796 Posts
On January 28 2010 06:15 mahnini wrote:
of all the threads on TL about monetary policy / economic discussion even at the zenith of the bank bailouts i think this is the worst one.
My question is are there any good ones?
|
On January 28 2010 04:52 zeppelin wrote:
A capitalist will tell you that capitalism is the best system because people are rational actors.
Show them the sum total of human psychology research as counter-evidence to this claim (as well as the fact that marketing exists as a profession) and rather than admit they are wrong they will insist that those people do not deserve to succeed.
is it bad that i'm one of those people?
|
On January 28 2010 06:08 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 05:59 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 28 2010 05:50 Caller wrote:On January 28 2010 05:42 L wrote:On January 28 2010 05:36 Caller wrote:On January 28 2010 05:28 L wrote:On January 28 2010 05:19 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 28 2010 05:08 L wrote:However global prosperity and living standarts have improved a lot over the last 30 years thanks to globalization. How do you know they're because of globalization instead of far more powerful forces, like the green revolution or a vast number of technological advances? because it is globalization that brings technological advances and know-how to 3rd world countries. No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970. The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO. So your entire argument is that the system is unsustainable because corporations are greedy and take out more than is put into the "system." First of all, the only thing you've demonstrated is that the US government, which is not a capitalist enterprise, last time I checked, takes out money that isn't put back in. So your entire argument that it's the corporations fault is based off of the US government taking money out through taxes.
You can use the taxes as a substitute for any form of externality, or any form of non transactional cost. Even the material upkeep of the store would break the cycle. The point is there's no wealth being created in the cycle, but there's a transactional cost regardless. While this is true, L, his entire argument mentions nothing of externality, nor does it mention something about transactional costs either. It simply talks about taxes. If you're insisting that transactional costs are a flaw, though, then by that argument no market system can ever be good because your outputs will never be 100% from your inputs. It's like the idea of a Carnot engine in chemistry-you will never have 100% efficiency with your heat engines because of the second law of thermodynamics and how entropy works. The transactional cost represents the difference of inputs to outputs. I also like it when the OP proceeds to ignore my post and go to the next one. That's not really true, because even if you don't have 100% efficiency, you can always have something other than a closed system; if you create wealth, then it can be destroyed by inefficiencies, but the onus would be on creating more wealth. If we take manufacturing to be the prototypical example of a clear value added process, we can see that MAKING STUFF GIVES YOU MONEY. If, however, the only thing you do is cyclically trade around retail goods, you simply run out over time. The idea behind his statement is that the near complete collapse of manufacturing has stopped the input of wealth into the system, which is now spinning around in service industries being shaved down slowly. This would certainly be the case if we looked at just the United States. But you have to look at the world as a whole, not just one country. If wealth were to be shaved down because the only industries in a country would be service industries, then several small countries would likely have collapsed economically by now. We should probably ask the question "what is wealth?" before we can get into this sort of argument. My argument is that wealth is how much someone values something, and tends to be subjective for an individual but objective for the aggregate. Therefore, one could argue that the services that are provided to people through service industries are providing "intangible, illiquid" wealth to people purchasing their services. So while they may not be getting any monetary benefit from acquiring it, they are still spending the money to gain utility-but I digress regarding utility. We could see a chain of money like this, however: raw resources --> manufacturing--> distribution each of these need money for their work, which they can acquire through loans or equity. This comes from financial institutions. To support these financial institutions are other institutions, and profit from all these companies goes to financial institutions so they can loan out more money, etc. This is a very flimsy representation and is probably full of holes but I'm operating on two hours of sleep so my argumentation style is pretty crappy today. See, that's where I have a problem with how "wealth" is assessed in America today. While there is a certain utility value in consumption, it's a very very small amount for what's paid. That's why there is this stark delineation between consumption and investment. Investment is spending resources to improve one's ability to produce. Consumption is spending resources for the sake of pleasure. While it can be argued that consumption in a way is just a cost of production because people need to be happy/content/healthy etc to produce, there is a limit to how much consumption is actually necessary. In today's material culture, consumerism has gotten way out of hand. People do not need 5 generations of Ipods in as many years. Please tell me you're not trying to quantify utility value with respect to money. That's like the number one DO NOT DO THIS thing in microeconomics 101. And your argument has changed from "capitalism is evil" to "consumerism is wasteful." While the latter may very possibly be true, the two are distinct issues.
My argument was never capitalism is evil. It was that deregulation of markets leads to evil. Way to miss the point.
I am not trying to quantify utility value with money. Again, you really seem to lack reading comprehension. I'm not saying this as an insult. I'm saying this to try to communicate why I think you're making weird points that don't relate.
|
On January 28 2010 06:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 06:16 Slow Motion wrote:
OP, are you assuming that there can't be a lot of regulation in a capitalistic system? I think that is wrong. Even the U.S., one of the less regulated systems, still has a great deal of regulation in every industry that tries to deal with the problems of monopoly and labor.
And the Asian capitalist countries (tigers) basically became thriving capitalistic markets because of government intervention and regulation. It's not enough to criticize capitalism as a theory, because no country even remotely purely capitalistic. I completely agree. I am advocating for more gov't intervention and regulation. That is all. The current trend in capitalism is away from gov't intervention and regulation, which I think is wrong.
What? The current trend in capitalism is TOWARDS government intervention and regulation. Have you not noticed the recent revival of Keynesian economics?
|
Not very provocative for this forum tbh, so many liberals here. You are preaching to the choir.
|
On January 28 2010 06:09 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 05:54 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 28 2010 05:42 L wrote:On January 28 2010 05:36 Caller wrote:On January 28 2010 05:28 L wrote:On January 28 2010 05:19 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 28 2010 05:08 L wrote:However global prosperity and living standarts have improved a lot over the last 30 years thanks to globalization. How do you know they're because of globalization instead of far more powerful forces, like the green revolution or a vast number of technological advances? because it is globalization that brings technological advances and know-how to 3rd world countries. No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970. The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO. So your entire argument is that the system is unsustainable because corporations are greedy and take out more than is put into the "system." First of all, the only thing you've demonstrated is that the US government, which is not a capitalist enterprise, last time I checked, takes out money that isn't put back in. So your entire argument that it's the corporations fault is based off of the US government taking money out through taxes.
You can use the taxes as a substitute for any form of externality, or any form of non transactional cost. Even the material upkeep of the store would break the cycle. The point is there's no wealth being created in the cycle, but there's a transactional cost regardless. While this is true, L, his entire argument mentions nothing of externality, nor does it mention something about transactional costs either. It simply talks about taxes. If you're insisting that transactional costs are a flaw, though, then by that argument no market system can ever be good because your outputs will never be 100% from your inputs. It's like the idea of a Carnot engine in chemistry-you will never have 100% efficiency with your heat engines because of the second law of thermodynamics and how entropy works. The transactional cost represents the difference of inputs to outputs. I also like it when the OP proceeds to ignore my post and go to the next one. That's not really true, because even if you don't have 100% efficiency, you can always have something other than a closed system; if you create wealth, then it can be destroyed by inefficiencies, but the onus would be on creating more wealth. If we take manufacturing to be the prototypical example of a clear value added process, we can see that MAKING STUFF GIVES YOU MONEY. If, however, the only thing you do is cyclically trade around retail goods, you simply run out over time. The idea behind his statement is that the near complete collapse of manufacturing has stopped the input of wealth into the system, which is now spinning around in service industries being shaved down slowly. On January 28 2010 05:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 28 2010 05:28 L wrote:
No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970.
The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO.
If you read my post again you will notice that I spoke about technological advances and know-how not the green revolution. Some people might spend money to educate people in 3rd world countries just because they are awesome persons, but corporations that operate factories also have to educate and bring know-how to their personnel in order to function properly. The green revolution is the largest example of a sharing of technological advances and know-how. It occured pre globalization and has probably saved billions from starvation. You need to do more than say that globalization has existed while the standard of living has increased. You need to isolate globalization. Yup ,100% L. Thank you for communicating that more eloquently than I did. The point of my Gamestop analogy was not to show off the precise mechanics of economics, it was merely to illustrate in a very simple way for people NOT acquainted with economics, that the value-added process has been destroyed in America. what value-added process? do you know what that means? you're talking about taxes and how taxes somehow make everyone poor and unsustainable. are you serious? your manipulation of numbers is astounding i don't know how you went from paying taxes to Show nested quote +The middle and lower classes cannot live much longer with these types of conditions. This is why there is a constant drain of money OUT of the middle and lower classes and INTO the upper classes. but either you're a super mega genius or you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm a super mega genius. The entire point was to illustrate that there was no point in that cycle that any value was ever added.
You're crying because you don't see where any value was added in that process. So, I accomplished my job. Wewt.
I'm not saying taxes make everyone poor and unsustainable. I'm saying capital leaves the retail industry in the form of taxes and salaries to corporate execs. If the Main Street labor market is dependent on growth in the retail industry, then it's a very shaky foundation, seeing as retail has these constant siphons to pull money out of the industry. AKA growth in the retail sector is unsustainable.
Normally, this would be curtailed by the interplay between the manufacture sector and the retail sector playing off each other. The more sales retail has, the more orders for the manufacture sector, back and forth etc. That's how growth emerges in both sectors.
But now the manufacturing sector has been exported to foreign nations. This symbiotic dynamic has been broken. There is nothing but a constant flight of capital away from Main Street. It's really a simple concept, but you're so busy trying to get indignant over my imprecise economics that you choose to bluster and screech instead of see the actual point. It's an analogy. It's not a precise model of exactly what's going on in the entire US economy with every single tax law and channel of capital flow being described. If I wanted to write that, I'd go get a PhD in economics as I'd have pretty much done all the work with none of the benefit.
|
On January 28 2010 04:32 StorkHwaiting wrote:It's a provocative title I know. But it's exactly what I want to debate. FIERCELY. To start things off I'd like to open with the latest address by President Sarkozy of France: Globalization Got Out of ControlNow, the way I see it, what's currently taught in economics and finance classes in America is this concept of globalization, free market, capitalism, and less taxes/regulation = increased economic prosperity. I want to go ahead and say that's crap. First, one of the central tenets of modern capitalism is this concept that the "free" market leads to benefit for everyone.
This is wrong. Please choose the correct definition of Capitalism if you're going to discuss it.
|
On January 28 2010 06:25 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 06:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 28 2010 06:16 Slow Motion wrote:
OP, are you assuming that there can't be a lot of regulation in a capitalistic system? I think that is wrong. Even the U.S., one of the less regulated systems, still has a great deal of regulation in every industry that tries to deal with the problems of monopoly and labor.
And the Asian capitalist countries (tigers) basically became thriving capitalistic markets because of government intervention and regulation. It's not enough to criticize capitalism as a theory, because no country even remotely purely capitalistic. I completely agree. I am advocating for more gov't intervention and regulation. That is all. The current trend in capitalism is away from gov't intervention and regulation, which I think is wrong. What? The current trend in capitalism is TOWARDS government intervention and regulation. Have you not noticed the recent revival of Keynesian economics?
It's not a current trend. So far, it's mostly been a reactionary response to the economic crisis and a way to placate populist uproar. I'm trying to advocate that people should NOT write it off as a populist appeal, etc, and that there are very real reasons for why this economic collapse happened and why globalization/deregulation has failed the people.
You can look back through this thread alone to see people are still advocating that there was nothing inherently wrong with deregulation, free market principles, etc.
This is not a critique of capitalism. It is a critique of the current interpretation of capitalism that has been all the rage for the past 30 years. It's amazing to me how many people forget the rhetoric that was being spouted by proponents of free trade only two years ago.
|
On January 28 2010 06:12 Caller wrote:
I'm done with this thread. It's basically a shorter version of the Shock Doctrine with no facts or evidence, cherrypicked or not. When you claim you want to debate something and then proceed to claim that your arguments are watered down for general consumption, you clearly are looking only to entice people that are like ron paul fans or w/e that tend to be more easily-picked apart views when it comes to economical issues.
I read the OP, then my mind immediately jumped to this and saw that somebody else had written it already.
On January 28 2010 06:25 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 06:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 28 2010 06:16 Slow Motion wrote:
OP, are you assuming that there can't be a lot of regulation in a capitalistic system? I think that is wrong. Even the U.S., one of the less regulated systems, still has a great deal of regulation in every industry that tries to deal with the problems of monopoly and labor.
And the Asian capitalist countries (tigers) basically became thriving capitalistic markets because of government intervention and regulation. It's not enough to criticize capitalism as a theory, because no country even remotely purely capitalistic. I completely agree. I am advocating for more gov't intervention and regulation. That is all. The current trend in capitalism is away from gov't intervention and regulation, which I think is wrong. What? The current trend in capitalism is TOWARDS government intervention and regulation. Have you not noticed the recent revival of Keynesian economics?
The recent revival of lipservice to Keynesian economics you mean?
|
It's still more towards Keynesian economics than it has ever been in the past few decades. The trend certainly isn't away from it.
|
On January 28 2010 05:19 L wrote:
I bet the majority of the readers of this site aren't old enough to realize just how different the wages are between now and 1970 because they weren't alive buying appliances and raising a family in the 1970s.
Rofl. You bet most of the readers of this site aren't so old that they were raising a family in the 1970's? No fucking shit? You don't need to be 60+ years old to look at statistics for wages in 1970 and statistics for wages now and make a comparison.
|
Btw StorkHwaiting i don't understand how people can disagree with you as you are stating the obvious.
Globalization raping the lower middle class in Western countries is common knowledge but it is funny to see all those guys with an eco degree in the thread raging because you are discussing an Economic issue lol.
Economy is as scientific as Sociology, History or Political science. I mean all those guys with Phd, Nobel prizes etc ... they weren't able to predict the crisis. I don't want to be mean but there many people ( Stiglitz, Greenspan etc ... ) who are way more qualified than anyone in this thread and guess what they were completly wrong.
So my advice for guys like Caller is to get off of their high horse because having an eco degree is like being C on Iccup and thinking that you are the shit whereas you are just a stupid copycat who has learnt a couple of build orders / eco models.
Be humble.
|
On January 28 2010 06:33 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 06:09 mahnini wrote:On January 28 2010 05:54 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 28 2010 05:42 L wrote:On January 28 2010 05:36 Caller wrote:On January 28 2010 05:28 L wrote:On January 28 2010 05:19 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 28 2010 05:08 L wrote:However global prosperity and living standarts have improved a lot over the last 30 years thanks to globalization. How do you know they're because of globalization instead of far more powerful forces, like the green revolution or a vast number of technological advances? because it is globalization that brings technological advances and know-how to 3rd world countries. No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970. The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO. So your entire argument is that the system is unsustainable because corporations are greedy and take out more than is put into the "system." First of all, the only thing you've demonstrated is that the US government, which is not a capitalist enterprise, last time I checked, takes out money that isn't put back in. So your entire argument that it's the corporations fault is based off of the US government taking money out through taxes.
You can use the taxes as a substitute for any form of externality, or any form of non transactional cost. Even the material upkeep of the store would break the cycle. The point is there's no wealth being created in the cycle, but there's a transactional cost regardless. While this is true, L, his entire argument mentions nothing of externality, nor does it mention something about transactional costs either. It simply talks about taxes. If you're insisting that transactional costs are a flaw, though, then by that argument no market system can ever be good because your outputs will never be 100% from your inputs. It's like the idea of a Carnot engine in chemistry-you will never have 100% efficiency with your heat engines because of the second law of thermodynamics and how entropy works. The transactional cost represents the difference of inputs to outputs. I also like it when the OP proceeds to ignore my post and go to the next one. That's not really true, because even if you don't have 100% efficiency, you can always have something other than a closed system; if you create wealth, then it can be destroyed by inefficiencies, but the onus would be on creating more wealth. If we take manufacturing to be the prototypical example of a clear value added process, we can see that MAKING STUFF GIVES YOU MONEY. If, however, the only thing you do is cyclically trade around retail goods, you simply run out over time. The idea behind his statement is that the near complete collapse of manufacturing has stopped the input of wealth into the system, which is now spinning around in service industries being shaved down slowly. On January 28 2010 05:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 28 2010 05:28 L wrote:
No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970.
The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO.
If you read my post again you will notice that I spoke about technological advances and know-how not the green revolution. Some people might spend money to educate people in 3rd world countries just because they are awesome persons, but corporations that operate factories also have to educate and bring know-how to their personnel in order to function properly. The green revolution is the largest example of a sharing of technological advances and know-how. It occured pre globalization and has probably saved billions from starvation. You need to do more than say that globalization has existed while the standard of living has increased. You need to isolate globalization. Yup ,100% L. Thank you for communicating that more eloquently than I did. The point of my Gamestop analogy was not to show off the precise mechanics of economics, it was merely to illustrate in a very simple way for people NOT acquainted with economics, that the value-added process has been destroyed in America. what value-added process? do you know what that means? you're talking about taxes and how taxes somehow make everyone poor and unsustainable. are you serious? your manipulation of numbers is astounding i don't know how you went from paying taxes to The middle and lower classes cannot live much longer with these types of conditions. This is why there is a constant drain of money OUT of the middle and lower classes and INTO the upper classes. but either you're a super mega genius or you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm a super mega genius. The entire point was to illustrate that there was no point in that cycle that any value was ever added. You're crying because you don't see where any value was added in that process. So, I accomplished my job. Wewt. I'm not saying taxes make everyone poor and unsustainable. I'm saying capital leaves the retail industry in the form of taxes and salaries to corporate execs. If the Main Street labor market is dependent on growth in the retail industry, then it's a very shaky foundation, seeing as retail has these constant siphons to pull money out of the industry. AKA growth in the retail sector is unsustainable. Normally, this would be curtailed by the interplay between the manufacture sector and the retail sector playing off each other. The more sales retail has, the more orders for the manufacture sector, back and forth etc. That's how growth emerges in both sectors. But now the manufacturing sector has been exported to foreign nations. This symbiotic dynamic has been broken. There is nothing but a constant flight of capital away from Main Street. It's really a simple concept, but you're so busy trying to get indignant over my imprecise economics that you choose to bluster and screech instead of see the actual point. It's an analogy. It's not a precise model of exactly what's going on in the entire US economy with every single tax law and channel of capital flow being described. If I wanted to write that, I'd go get a PhD in economics as I'd have pretty much done all the work with none of the benefit.
you're assuming that the retailers lose money because manufacturers are being exported? there is no change in the dynamic here just because manufacturing has moved. more retail still = more manufacturing. people buy things, retail makes profit, manufacturer makes profit. sure, this takes away low skill labor but it creates labor as well because now there are more distribution and management issues to be handled. keeping manufacturing here would hurt retail far more as cost for labor would be so much higher raising price for goods.
|
StorkHwaiting: wtf are you talking about? where did you get your definition of free market capitalism and agents acting in economic environment. How did you manage to get anything about rationally acting beings in the theory? The only schools of thought that defends free market capitalism is Austrian school of economy and does not base its argumentation on anything you are talking about. And when you were designing your fairy tale stories about monopolies were you on crack? Nothing such as a monopoly exists in a free market environment except for the case when the single company actually provides goods and services on a level no other competitor is able to match, which is the very nature of efficiency. The word monopoly was originally used as a label for companies which were granted exclusive rights for production of a good/service by THE GOVERNMENT. Monopolies are the sole providers because other competitors are prohibited to enter by force. In course of history you would hardly find an example of a company which is a single provider of a good without the interference of government. Only companies which actually managed to be efficient in the long run could fight off their competition (which is the desirable state). The reason a monopoly can not exist is potential competition, not the actual number of companies doing the same thing. The second a situation arises where only 1 provider offers products with big margins other entrepreneurs will enter the market to feed on it. The only way a company can remain the single provider is by keeping the price low enough to make the potential profit of its competitor not worth the opportunity cost, thus being efficient. Monopolies as you describe them don't exist in a free market environment.
on the actual approach of the Austrian school of economy on Monopoly and competition: http://mises.org/media/2136?silverlight=0 includes contradicton the myths about monopolies
|
On January 28 2010 07:01 bUbUsHeD wrote:StorkHwaiting: wtf are you talking about? where did you get your definition of free market capitalism and agents acting in economic environment. How did you manage to get anything about rationally acting beings in the theory? The only schools of thought that defends free market capitalism is Austrian school of economy and does not base its argumentation on anything you are talking about. And when you were designing your fairy tale stories about monopolies were you on crack? Nothing such as a monopoly exists in a free market environment except for the case when the single company actually provides goods and services on a level no other competitor is able to match, which is the very nature of efficiency. The word monopoly was originally used as a label for companies which were granted exclusive rights for production of a good/service by THE GOVERNMENT. Monopolies are the sole providers because other competitors are prohibited to enter by force. In course of history you would hardly find an example of a company which is a single provider of a good without the interference of government. Only companies which actually managed to be efficient in the long run could fight off their competition (which is the desirable state). The reason a monopoly can not exist is potential competition, not the actual number of companies doing the same thing. The second a situation arises where only 1 provider offers products with big margins other entrepreneurs will enter the market to feed on it. The only way a company can remain the single provider is by keeping the price low enough to make the potential profit of its competitor not worth the opportunity cost, thus being efficient. Monopolies as you describe them don't exist in a free market environment. on the actual approach of the Austrian school of economy on Monopoly and competition: http://mises.org/media/2136?silverlight=0 includes contradicton the myths about monopolies
Step 1. Start using line breaks. They are your friend.
Step 2. Stop talking shit.
|
On January 28 2010 04:34 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 04:32 StorkHwaiting wrote:
The problem with this theory is it doesn't account for the destructiveness of monopolies.
Which is why no country have ever run a completely free market without laws to protect against monopolies. No kind of pseudo monopoly will ever get stronger than the state and if they become too much of a problem the state will stop them. Big companies like Microsoft are constantly walking on a thread trying to exert as much power as possible will still staying within the laws, the reason they haven't crushed all competition is thanks to those laws. If there is a hole it will get patched and temporary abuse do not cause that much damage, so the system is safe.
Still socialists in Sweden want alcohol and drugs/meds monopolized....by the state?
That's some BS. The entire idea with a free market is to oppose monopolies, which are often times monopolies of the government/state. The idea is that competition leads to lower prices and thus is good for the customer.
Oh and globalization in the economic sense, is just another word for grabbing natural resources from third world countries (and others).
|
On January 28 2010 06:48 Boblion wrote:
Btw StorkHwaiting i don't understand how people can disagree with you as you are stating the obvious.
Globalization raping the lower middle class in Western countries is common knowledge but it is funny to see all those guys with an eco degree in the thread raging because you are discussing an Economic issue lol.
Economy is as scientific as Sociology, History or Political science. I mean all those guys with Phd, Nobel prizes etc ... they weren't able to predict the crisis. I don't want to be mean but there many people ( Stiglitz, Greenspan etc ... ) who are way more qualified than anyone in this thread and guess what they were completly wrong.
So my advice for guys like Caller is to get off of their high horse because having an eco degree is like being C on Iccup and thinking that you are the shit whereas you are just a stupid copycat who has learnt a couple of build orders / eco models.
Be humble.
T_____________T
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
