|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 14, 2013 21:49:20 GMT
I would argue that while capitalism has lead to market concentration in the past there is no reason why it has to.
This thread is about "quantitative easing" based upon the Federal Reserve purchasing of government bonds so I limit my discussion to that and how the Federal Reserve, by violationg statutory laws which I have cited, is stealing the wealth of average Americans. That cannot be ignored and it is not based upon my opinion but instead it's upon verifiable facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 14, 2013 22:19:38 GMT
I would argue that while capitalism has lead to market concentration in the past there is no reason why it has to. Based on what? You haven't presented an argument. You've made it more than that. You've used your dogmatic position over the chosen monetary system in capitalism to ignore labour reality. It has ensured that your position is content free |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 15, 2013 4:44:55 GMT
Market concentration is related to corporatism moreso than capitalism. When government regulations favor corporations over small business owners, like we have in the US, then it leads to market concentration.
A "Central Bank" that is dedicated to the banking system, which is what the Federal Reserve is, and is not required to comply with the law of contracts corrupts capitalism. The only real concern the Federal Reserve has related to the economy is how it affects the banks as it's entire purpose is to ensure maximum profits for the banking system. Laizze-Faire capitalists oppose a central banking system because it violates the Rights of the Person.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 15, 2013 10:09:41 GMT
Market concentration is related to corporatism moreso than capitalism. A fake distinction that only shows that your thinking continues to be corrupted by the fake libertarian on-line sites. Marker concentration doesn't need government regulations. All it requires is the existence of imperfect contracting, leading to the profit motive shifting to a growth motive (i.e. a consideration relaxing of the boundaries of the firm) Given laissez-faire is neither achievable or desirable, their views over the monetary system are a irrelevant dogma |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 15, 2013 11:51:15 GMT
Market concentration is related to corporatism moreso than capitalism. A fake distinction that only shows that your thinking continues to be corrupted by the fake libertarian on-line sites. Marker concentration doesn't need government regulations. All it requires is the existence of imperfect contracting, leading to the profit motive shifting to a growth motive (i.e. a consideration relaxing of the boundaries of the firm) Given laissez-faire is neither achievable or desirable, their views over the monetary system are a irrelevant dogma The first response is self-contradictory as a lack of government regulation reflects "corporatism" (i.e. the corporations are expected to be responsibily self-regulating which they are not) and that is corporate favoritism which allows market inequities. As for any belief that there can be "perfect" contracting that is as absurd as any belief in "perfection" which is Utopian. Utopia simply doesn't exist and all shortcomings must be dealt with pragmatically. Of course Laizze-Faire capitalism can exist and is desirable so long as it is pragmatic in addressing real issues that exist in a non-utopian world. For example the knowledge that imperfect contracts do exist in a non-utopian world can be addressed by Laizze-Faire capitalism in a pragmatic fashion to mitigate the effects of the imperfect contract. It is also rather weird to mention "imperfect" contracts while ignoring that the Federal Reserve note is a promissory note that is a contract but the Federal Reserve will not fulfill the conditions of the contract to redeem the note on demand as required by law. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 15, 2013 17:51:17 GMT
The first response is self-contradictory as a lack of government regulation reflects "corporatism" (i.e. the corporations are expected to be responsibily self-regulating which they are not) and that is corporate favoritism which allows market inequities. Bobbins on two levels! First, the point was simple: the boundaries of the firm will lead to market concentration purely in terms of the profit incentive. Second, the impact of corporations on regulation is ambiguous. The right winger, for example, will often whinge about how corporations support minimum wages because they want to impose unfair competition on SMEs Don't make things up! I never said there can be perfect contracting. What I've referred to is how imperfect contracting impacts on the theory of the firm. That leads to an institutionalist approach where market concentration in capitalism is indeed the norm. Laissez-faire cannot exist, by definition. Capitalism is inherently unstable and without government interventionism it would be demolished. Imperfect contracting was used in terms of transaction costs (and how that impacts on economic relations). Naff all to do with the dogma prance over the monetary system |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 16, 2013 2:33:10 GMT
Where did the idea come from that Laizze-Faire lacked government regulation? Capitalism lacking government regulation is economic anarchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 17, 2013 9:59:19 GMT
Where did the idea come from that Laizze-Faire lacked government regulation? Capitalism lacking government regulation is economic anarchy. The important point is that government is the key economic agent in capitalism. Without it, stagflationary pressures will eventually lead to its destruction. Laissez faire economics is built on ignoring that reality in order to peddle right wing ideology |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 8, 2013 11:39:25 GMT
Where did the idea come from that Laizze-Faire lacked government regulation? Capitalism lacking government regulation is economic anarchy. The important point is that government is the key economic agent in capitalism. Without it, stagflationary pressures will eventually lead to its destruction. Laissez faire economics is built on ignoring that reality in order to peddle right wing ideology
No person or entity has a "Right to Pollute" while we all have an Inalienable Right to clean air, water and land. Laizze-Faire capitalism has a mandate to protect the Rights of the Person and pollution violates those Rights. While some pollution is necessary for the benefit of society Laizze-Faire capitalism would require the least possible pollution to achieve the benefit and it would also impose financial obligations to mitigate the effects of any pollution upon enterprises that create the pollution.
Let me provide a real time example of what Laizze-Faire capitalism wouldn't allow.
The San Onofre nuclear power plant has been shut down and San Diego Gas & Electric, which owns a 20 percent stake in the San Onofre power plant on Southern California's coast, is requesting that future consumers pay for the estimated $800 millions to recover investments in the plant.
news.yahoo.com/sd-utility-asks-public-pay-193759027.html
What isn't being addressed is that Southern California Edison, a private corporation trading on the NYSE, is the primary investor with the other 80% ownership in the San Onofre nuclear power plant and it is their investors (predominately from the wealthiest 5% in America) would be the true beneficiaries if the future consumers cover their investment costs. Instead of the investors in Edison having to pay the costs of decommissioning they want to walk away with their profits and shift the costs to average Americans.
Laizze-Faire capitalism would have required both Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric to provide the necessary funds to pay for decommissioning and would not have allowed this financial burden to be passed off on others to protect the "investors" in the power plant. The investors should not profit by transferring the costs of decommissioning to non-investors but that is what's being proposed. Laizze-Faire capitalism would have protected the Property Rights of the Non-Investors.
|
|
