State Capitalism and Fascism - Ron Paul comments and more

[jediab]

Monopolies only exist with state intervention. They cannot exist in a free market.

How so? I would think the end result of free market system would be 1 company owning everything as sooner or later 1 buys out the other, then another, and another, until you have this giant mega-company that does and sells nearly everything. And with no competition to speak of since they bought them all out, they would be alone to do anything they wanted.

I am asking since my economic skills = teh suck. ;)

[Molon Labe]

state capitalism? Paint it any way you like - what china has is a COMMAND ECONOMY. When the government controls what is made that's socialism. When the government controls what is made but allows the appearace of public sector involvement - that's fascism.

See...we can agree..

[PoliCon]

How so? I would think the end result of free market system would be 1 company owning everything as sooner or later 1 buys out the other, then another, and another, until you have this giant mega-company that does and sells nearly everything. And with no competition to speak of since they bought them all out, they would be alone to do anything they wanted.

I am asking since my economic skills = teh suck. ;)

Because without the government to protect the monopoly a second company could come along at any time and undercut the monopoly either by giving a better product, selling at a lower price, or giving better service around the product. The best a company could hope for in a free market is a near monopoly. Plus at a certain point a monopoly becomes cumbersome and unable to respond to new competition. Without government intervention through regulations for example - a monopoly would not be able to stand under it's own weight.

[PoliCon]

See...we can agree..

Once in a while you get something right. ;)

[jediab]

Because without the government to protect the monopoly a second company could come along at any time and undercut the monopoly either by giving a better product, selling at a lower price, or giving better service around the product. The best a company could hope for in a free market is a near monopoly. Plus at a certain point a monopoly becomes cumbersome and unable to respond to new competition. Without government intervention through regulations for example - a monopoly would not be able to stand under it's own weight.

So what you are saying is that eventionally the mega business would colapse, or not be able to keep up due to it's own bureaucratic BS that all large companies have?

Where would the serious competition come from? Let's say Walmart owns all. How would a start up business be able to do any sort of dent to Walmart's marketshare? Also since Walmart has the funds, contracts, and connections to get it's goods for a low price, they could undercut the prices at the smaller competitor thus attracting more customers.

For the record I have nothing against Walmart. :D

Would you say a good example of what you talk of is the PC industry? They moved faster than the laws could keep up with, thus a lot of things happened that before the government could react. IBM and Apple to start with. Now they are the small players because of companies like HP and Dell. Not to mention the emergence of Microsoft.

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

CaughtintheMiddle....

I'd prefer to have dozens and dozens of Amazon.coms or Verizon Wireless or Direct TVs. Currently you have about 2-4 major companies that dominate their particular industries. And people call that competition.
People have a false illusion of choices. I don't think people realize how much better a truly free market would be.

If you are not for laissez faire capitalism, then you are for government intervention in the markets..........which is what caused the economic collapse. A question you asked about in another thread.

Here's how it works.

No fannie freddie mac......no place to put the bad loans......no bubble in housing market.......no crash.

If there were more competition, then prices of housing would have been more affordable and people could use their earnings to put a down payment on a home of their choice instead of being beholden to bad credit agencies.

Well shit like that yeah,
When I say "Laissez-Faire capitalism", I mean back when the days when there was no form of Social Social, no labor laws, job safety laws, workfare or environmental legislation--Those days. That kind of system.

[Madisonian]

I see no problem with Corporatism if that's what we've been working under since 1900 or so.
I much like our system as it is and has been, and I do not want a return to Laissez-Faire capitalism.

If this is the case, then I would have to say that you have no idea what true Laissez-Faire capitalism is.
Before our current Corporatism, there where dozens or hundreds of competitors in almost every American industry and that competition kept prices honest, technological advances booming and wages increasing. It was when the corporatists started buying politicians and pressured them to make laws, rules and regulations that worked against their competitors that things started to change for the worse.
The larger companies could propose "changes" that they could absorb knowing that their competition could not and in that way create quasi monopolies by attrition.
True capitalism is not survival of the fittest or the weak being devoured by the strong. It is the government stepping out of the equation and allowing the marketplace to determine the winners and losers by virtue of consumers having an adequate and open market from which to purchase.

[Wei Wu Wei]

It seems to me that this "true capitalism" you speak of was only one transitioning stage of wealth accumulation that inevitably leads to large scale megacorporations and politicians selling out. Can you have capitalism without huge mega corporation getting monopolies on markets and accumulating extreme amounts of wealth? Just look at the turn of the century, it was happening then too. With the growth of megacorporations you have extremely wealthy individuals who can buy political influence and more importantly they can own the instutions themselves such as the media or communication systems.

Once a company gets big enough, it's wealth-power can actually bend the rules of the game in it's own favor. This isn't some abnormality, it seems to be the nautral result of systems that exist solely to generate profits.

[Madisonian]

Well shit like that yeah,
When I say "Laissez-Faire capitalism", I mean back when the days when there was no form of Social Social, no labor laws, job safety laws, workfare or environmental legislation--Those days. That kind of system.

"Back in the day", pre-corporatism, many of these "reforms" were not needed for various reasons.
There were ample opportunities to ply your trade and in company A was unsafe to work at, you quit and went to company B that was. Company A, now losing good employees, would have to make its workplace safer if it wanted to compete with company B.

It seems you like laws, laws, regulations and laws. As a responsible adult, I can look after myself without social security, labor laws and the majority of job safety laws, thank you very much. I do not need OSHA to protect me from myself and if you are not smart enough to not walk into a press or industrial automation without having millions of dollars of guards, light screens, 2 hand palm buttons and the rest, then I call that natural selection.

[Madisonian]

It seems to me that this "true capitalism" you speak of was only one transitioning stage of wealth accumulation that inevitably leads to large scale megacorporations and politicians selling out. Can you have capitalism without huge mega corporation getting monopolies on markets and accumulating extreme amounts of wealth? Just look at the turn of the century, it was happening then too. With the growth of megacorporations you have extremely wealthy individuals who can buy political influence and more importantly they can own the instutions themselves such as the media or communication systems.

Once a company gets big enough, it's wealth-power can actually bend the rules of the game in it's own favor. This isn't some abnormality, it seems to be the nautral result of systems that exist solely to generate profits.

And that was supposed to be why the government (federal, state or local) was to remain hands off so politicians had no opportunity to be bought off. It is the government involvement that allowed it to get so fucked up.
If you look at the Constitution, it is only by bastardizing the commerce clause that the feds weaseled their way into the picture at the behest of megacorps and megawealthy.
It was the uber rich and powerful of the time that got the feds to pass the income tax amendment after they had protected their ass-ets in order to minimize competition.