Alternatives to capitalism?

[Deleted]

Tragedy of the Commons.

You really do need government.

Poisonous products and monopolies aren't really tragedy of the commons problems though.

[Wells]

Poisonous products and monopolies aren't really tragedy of the commons problems though.

No, but they do show that even in a capitalist society there are times when government is needed to address problems that either arise from profit motives or can't be addressed by profit motives.

[Deleted]

No, but they do show that even in a capitalist society there are times when government is needed to address problems that either arise from profit motives or can't be addressed by profit motives.

Yes, such as overfishing in waters that are commonly owned or pollution in air that is "commonly used".

[ringpriest]

I've said this multiple time before.

If left alone, if not fucked with by the government, Capitalism is the most fair and honest system in existence.

Ardent Communists used to say similar things about why China and the Soviet Union hadn't turned into the workers' paradise they were supposed to.

It's an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. From Wikipedia:

When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

[Catta]

Think for a moment, how does one become a monopoly in a "free market"?

The only way is to achieve close to 100% of market share is to be better than all your competitors from the perspective of the customers. This happens by offering products at cheaper prices and higher value (better quality, aesthetics etc).

And how can this monopoly then abuse its position? It can't charge a monopoly price, which is the negative side of monoplies. New entrants will come to the market if the monopoly tries to charge prices that others could beat.

What happens when they start controlling the supply too?

---------- Post added 2012-05-15 at 12:54 AM ----------

Ardent Communists used to say similar things about why China and the Soviet Union hadn't turned into the workers' paradise they were supposed to.

It's an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. From Wikipedia:

The soviet union and China has had as much to do with communism as DDR had with democracy...

[Laize]

What happens when they start controlling the supply too?

---------- Post added 2012-05-15 at 12:54 AM ----------



The soviet union and China has had as much to do with communism as DDR had with democracy...

Not feasible. De Beers tried that. It wound up costing them far more to try (and fail) to control the supply than to be competitive.

[Catta]

Not feasible. De Beers tried that. It wound up costing them far more to try (and fail) to control the supply than to be competitive.

So when the gasoline suppliers start to agree on fixing higher prices... what happens? Its very hard to start your own gas supplying business

Its not uncommon...

[Wells]

Not feasible. De Beers tried that. It wound up costing them far more to try (and fail) to control the supply than to be competitive.

Vertical monopolies have existed before.

[Deleted]

What happens when they start controlling the supply too?

That's what a monopoly means...

[ptwonline]

Think for a moment, how does one become a monopoly in a "free market"?

The only way is to achieve close to 100% of market share is to be better than all your competitors from the perspective of the customers. This happens by offering products at cheaper prices and higher value (better quality, aesthetics etc).

And how can this monopoly then abuse its position? It can't charge a monopoly price, which is the negative side of monoplies. New entrants will come to the market if the monopoly tries to charge prices that others could beat.

Or if they have deep enough pockets they can simply buy up any competition or else engage in destructive policies like predatory pricing to make sure any competition gets crushed. They can also develop their product and service offerings in such a way that the capital entrance requirements for any competitor are far too high.

[Wells]

That's what a monopoly means...

Well there are vertical and horizontal monopolies/

[Deleted]

Vertical monopolies have existed before.

Examples, please.

[Mayhem]

i said it once and i say it again, thanks to uncontrolled free capitalism, we have a quadrillion dollars worth of derivates... what a great system this is

[Deleted]

Well there are vertical and horizontal monopolies/

Yeah, so?

Monopolies refer to holding most of the market share, which means that all vertical monopolies are also horizontal. But really I fail to see the relevance of bringing them up.

[ptwonline]

Examples, please.

The classic one is AT&T before it got broken up.

[Wells]

Examples, please.

A vertical monopoly would be controlling every step of a process. Like if your company mined the materials, refined the ore, built the components, assembled the car, then sold it.

Horizontal monopolies are when you have control over a specific good or service. Like Microsoft with IE in the 90s.

Increasing specialization has made vertical monopolies less feasible, but they did occur in the 1800s. I suppose I can look up a specific example later when I've got more time. They're not as big a deal though now, because like I said, they're not really viable.

[Elhana]

I've said this multiple time before.
If left alone, if not fucked with by the government, Capitalism is the most fair and honest system in existence.

Eventually it turns into a monopoly and you are fucked unless you are the one.

[Deleted]

The classic one is AT&T before it got broken up.

Yeah, but it's also a classic case of bad state and federal regulation creating barriers of entry that created a monopoly.

A vertical monopoly would be controlling every step of a process. Like if your company mined the materials, refined the ore, built the components, assembled the car, then sold it.

Horizontal monopolies are when you have control over a specific good or service. Like Microsoft with IE in the 90s.

Increasing specialization has made vertical monopolies less feasible, but they did occur in the 1800s. I suppose I can look up a specific example later when I've got more time. They're not as big a deal though now, because like I said, they're not really viable.

I didn't ask for what the terms meant. I asked how this was relevant? And remember, a verticlar monopoly mean you have, at some/all stage(s) of the vertical supply chain, a horizontal monopoly.

[Mayhem]

Yeah, but it's also a classic case of state and federal regulation creating barriers of entry that created a monopoly.

of course, bad regulation is bad, but no regulation is also bad... guess what

[Swagula]

Standard Oil is an obvious example of a vertical monopoly.