Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Time for world to embrace Pure Capitalism?

Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

02 Dec 2011, 2:57 pm

Tequila wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Pure capitalism would be anarchy. M Thatcher tried to do it in britian in the 80's and her own party got rid of her.


No she didn't. She didn't get anywhere close.


She tried though.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 4:59 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Pure capitalism would be anarchy. M Thatcher tried to do it in britian in the 80's and her own party got rid of her.


No she didn't. She didn't get anywhere close.


She tried though.


Shame she didn't succeed.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

02 Dec 2011, 6:26 pm

Pure capitalism inevitably leads to cartels and monopolies as smaller businesses get swallowed by larger businesses. The marketplace gets vastly distorted and new entrants are forced out by predatory pricing before they are in a position to compete.

The private sector has demonstrated itself, time and again, to be incapable of regulating itself. That means that government "interference" is not only sensible, it is essential.


_________________
--James


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

02 Dec 2011, 6:32 pm

"pure capitalism" makes me think of snake-oil salesmen in the era of patent medicine. Buyer beware, and so on. Also melamine in pet food and baby formula. Sure, the guys who did it killed themselves or were executed - but only after hundreds of pets and children died.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

02 Dec 2011, 6:40 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Pure capitalism inevitably leads to cartels and monopolies as smaller businesses get swallowed by larger businesses. The marketplace gets vastly distorted and new entrants are forced out by predatory pricing before they are in a position to compete.


That's corporatism, not free-market capitalism. Government interference tends to go hand-in-hand with corporatism as they can influence one another. Another reason why government favours corporatism is that it means less hassle as they don't have to deal with too many people. You're probably asking for a kind of interventionist socialist style of government?



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

03 Dec 2011, 8:18 am

Tequila wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Pure capitalism inevitably leads to cartels and monopolies as smaller businesses get swallowed by larger businesses. The marketplace gets vastly distorted and new entrants are forced out by predatory pricing before they are in a position to compete.


That's corporatism, not free-market capitalism. Government interference tends to go hand-in-hand with corporatism as they can influence one another. Another reason why government favours corporatism is that it means less hassle as they don't have to deal with too many people. You're probably asking for a kind of interventionist socialist style of government?


I think pure capitalism would mean the end of governements, and the end of nations. Corporations would run the world. Britian would be called Tescos.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Dec 2011, 8:26 am

Robdemanc wrote:

I think pure capitalism would mean the end of governements, and the end of nations. Corporations would run the world. Britian would be called Tescos.


Have nations and governments been that good a thing for the world?

ruveyn



NineTailedFox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 84

03 Dec 2011, 8:29 am

Read this. It's hilarious. :lol:



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

03 Dec 2011, 8:37 am

Robdemanc wrote:
I think pure capitalism would mean the end of governements, and the end of nations.


Tell me what you mean by 'pure capitalism' - i.e. extreme libertarianism, anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, whatever it is.

I favour a largely free-market capitalist economy with a small welfare state to provide for the vulnerable and the elderly. I dislike the way the current NHS is run and would reform it so that it delivered better care for its patients at a less expensive cost. If it couldn't do this, I'd privatise it and aim for a more free-market approach (i.e. not the U.S. healthcare system) to health care with the government acting as some kind of broker, if you will. Health credits - as in Singapore? - sound like a good idea.

Hong Kong in the 1970s and the 1980s was largely run along free-market capitalist lines, although there was some intervention by the colonial government to provide for Hong Kong's people (i.e. housing). Did free-market capitalism mean the wall fell in with Hong Kong?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Dec 2011, 8:37 am

NineTailedFox wrote:
Read this. It's hilarious. :lol:


Read what the article referenced. It is spot on.

http://mises.org/etexts/HoppeWhatMustBeDone.pdf

ruveyn



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

03 Dec 2011, 8:38 am

ruveyn wrote:
Have nations and governments been that good a thing for the world?


You'd be quite happy with the entire population of Nigeria turning up on your doorstep?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Dec 2011, 8:40 am

Tequila wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Have nations and governments been that good a thing for the world?


You'd be quite happy with the entire population of Nigeria turning up on your doorstep?


You assume the Nation State is the only entity capable of community protection. Obviously an armed force is necessary from time to time but this does not necessarily mean a Nation State. It could be an ad hoc militia that does the job.

ruveyn



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

03 Dec 2011, 9:50 am

ruveyn wrote:
Tequila wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Have nations and governments been that good a thing for the world?


You'd be quite happy with the entire population of Nigeria turning up on your doorstep?


You assume the Nation State is the only entity capable of community protection. Obviously an armed force is necessary from time to time but this does not necessarily mean a Nation State. It could be an ad hoc militia that does the job.

ruveyn


becuase thats not a disaster watining to happen,
happenstance military to be swayed by their sometimes leader?


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

03 Dec 2011, 2:35 pm

Tequila wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I think pure capitalism would mean the end of governements, and the end of nations.


Tell me what you mean by 'pure capitalism' - i.e. extreme libertarianism, anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, whatever it is.

I favour a largely free-market capitalist economy with a small welfare state to provide for the vulnerable and the elderly. I dislike the way the current NHS is run and would reform it so that it delivered better care for its patients at a less expensive cost. If it couldn't do this, I'd privatise it and aim for a more free-market approach (i.e. not the U.S. healthcare system) to health care with the government acting as some kind of broker, if you will. Health credits - as in Singapore? - sound like a good idea.

Hong Kong in the 1970s and the 1980s was largely run along free-market capitalist lines, although there was some intervention by the colonial government to provide for Hong Kong's people (i.e. housing). Did free-market capitalism mean the wall fell in with Hong Kong?


When I read the OP the idea that sprang to my mind was of a Darwinian economic situation where there are no laws binding the markets. So individuals and organisations are left free to pursue profit as they see fit. There would be no benefit system (if you don't work for others, or don't sell something yourself you must be a theif or die). There would be no need for governments because everything is privately run (schools, hospitals etc), armed forces would only exist for organisations that could afford to have them. But everyone would have guns anyway because selling guns would be fine.

So really there never has been such a situation except in our savage past.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

03 Dec 2011, 2:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:

I think pure capitalism would mean the end of governements, and the end of nations. Corporations would run the world. Britian would be called Tescos.


Have nations and governments been that good a thing for the world?

ruveyn


I don't know, that is a big question. I suppose the first nation to have existed would have been Mesopotamia, from all accounts it sounded like paradise until it was wrecked by the 2nd nation (whoever they were).

But on the whole nations and governments try to control human populations, in some instances it may have been good for the world (like allowing people to come together and work towards a goal), but in other cases it may have been bad (in that it divided the human race and promotes the idea of war). But I suppose war is the next step up from battles amongst tribes, which must have existed before civilisation.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

05 Dec 2011, 3:19 pm

Tequila wrote:
That's corporatism, not free-market capitalism. Government interference tends to go hand-in-hand with corporatism as they can influence one another. Another reason why government favours corporatism is that it means less hassle as they don't have to deal with too many people. You're probably asking for a kind of interventionist socialist style of government?


You betray your ignorance of the purpose of corporations: to limit the liability of the owners of capital. Where do you think the abbreviation, "Ltd." comes from?

Corporations were invented for the express purpose of allowing multiple owners to pool their capital, invest that capital into a common venture, to receive profits from the venture in proportion to their capital and to have their liability for the debts and obligations of the venture limited to the extent of their participation in the capital of the corporation.

Corporations are the pinnacle of free market capitalism because they are the only vehicle that permits the free movement of capital between investors and entrepreneurs.

But, more importantly, anti-competitive practices of acquisition, monopoly and predation do not rely on the existence of corporations.

And since when does a call for regulation of the marketplace equate to interventionst, socialist government? Is your political view so stunted that you cannot imagine a middle ground?


_________________
--James