Capitalism is incompatible with free markets.

Mossy Heneberry

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
3,818
A lot of people may think that free markets can only exist under capitalism. Or that capitalism and the free markets are the same.

They are not.

Capitalism is a method of ownership. The free market is a method of exchange.

Capitalism is just as destructive to the free market as socialism.

http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/chartier.anticapitalism.pdf
 


sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
you are getting very close to amjor truth with that.
But capitalism is about creating the resources for the exchange to happen, its called capitalism because it encourages growth in the means of productionn capital.
Pre-capitalist socities were all about owenrship, and the powre of land, capitalism as envisioned by adam smith aimed to end that power.
it hasnt achieved that aim as yet because the land owners have missapropriated capitalism for their own ends.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Both because most people don’t like working in hierarchical work environments and because flatter, more nimble organizations would be much more viable than large, clunky ones without government support for big businesses, most people in a freed market would work as independent contractors or in partnerships or cooperatives. There would be far fewer large businesses, those that still existed likely wouldn’t be as large as today’s corporate behemoths, and societal wealth would be widely dispersed among a vast number of small firms.
Abyss handily crossed by major assumption. Everything will be for the best in the libertarian world, because we can assume it to be so.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
A lot of people may think that free markets can only exist under capitalism. Or that capitalism and the free markets are the same.

They are not.

Capitalism is a method of ownership. The free market is a method of exchange.

Capitalism is just as destructive to the free market as socialism.

http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/chartier.anticapitalism.pdf
There are many, many interpretations of capitalism. It can be quite subjective. The factors of production, viz., land, labour and capital provide the necessary inputs that we need as outputs to survive such as food, water, shelter etc. and also to make our lives comfortable and meaningful.

The human spark of creativity or entrenpreneurship integrates the above and allows it to happen.

Entrepreneurs are intrinsically motivated to begin with, but they need incentives and a belief to achieve their goals. Thats where the debate centres on.

As Adam Smith said, "For it is not mere benevolence that we expect our dinner from the butcher, baker and brewer, but their own self interest"

An organisation would no doubt work far better if all employees had their own money involved in its capital and then whatever dividends were agreed upon from the profits earned would be shared appropriately. The more people earn, the more they can consume from other organisations and so on. The production function shifts outwards to the right ad infinutum, but prices can still come down from technological advancement.

Whats stops the above is Statism, Fractional Reserve Banking and Fiat Currency.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Have you ever heard of too big too fail?
Sure, but the writer of that piece makes the entirely unsupported assumption that companies only get too big with state aid. Is Microsoft "too big to fail"?
 

Mossy Heneberry

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
3,818
Sure, but the writer of that piece makes the entirely unsupported assumption that companies only get too big with state aid. Is Microsoft "too big to fail"?
What about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? They got plenty of state support and ended up becoming to big to fail. Is MSoft TBF? Absolutely not.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
What about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? They got plenty of state support and ended up becoming to big to fail. Is MSoft TBF? Absolutely not.
Yeah, but that's a different argument. Nobody's claiming that companies can't get big with state support, but the author is effectively claiming that it only happens with state support, which is obviously false. The author then builds on that incorrect assumption.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
it hasnt achieved that aim as yet because the land owners have missapropriated capitalism for their own ends.
And how could you ever stop them doing that without taking the land off them?
 

Mossy Heneberry

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
3,818
Yeah, but that's a different argument. Nobody's claiming that companies can't get big with state support, but the author is effectively claiming that it only happens with state support, which is obviously false. The author then builds on that incorrect assumption.

No it's not a different argument. Why are all monopolies State supported?

And how could you ever stop them doing that without taking the land off them/
Cael, the problem is not people owning property, the problem is that the system is gamed up to allow some people to have an unfair adavantage of owning property via the State.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
And how could you ever stop them doing that without taking the land off them?
Ita not agianst ownershipt of land, its against land owners getting toomuch return...

it can be stopped by the introduction of land value tax..look oit up.....has some very serious advicates....


the article is corercwt in its assumption thatcompanies only get too big because of the state..but its not nescessarily state action thatmakes themtoo big..state inaction can do that i.e. the state not doing enough to ensure that markets remain free....neo-liberalsbelieve that markets are born free... thats where I disagree with them
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Ita not agianst ownershipt of land, its against land owners getting toomuch return...

it can be stopped by the introduction of land value tax..look oit up.....has some very serious advicates....
But, a chara, you are ignoring the fact that because they are the landowners they have the means of buying the politicians. Can you imagine FF or FG bringing in a LVT?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
the article is corercwt in its assumption thatcompanies only get too big because of the state..but its not nescessarily state action thatmakes themtoo big..state inaction can do that i.e. the state not doing enough to ensure that markets remain free....neo-liberalsbelieve that markets are born free... thats where I disagree with them
There's a contradiction there, isnt there? How could it be a free market, if it must be the result of state control?
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Microsoft is not a monopoly. They have extremely large market power, but that evolved from network externalities in its digital operating system. The vast majority of computers use windows as it easier to network across the planet.

It represents a barrier for entry for a competitor as very few people want to purchase a system that could create hassle in transfering programs fro another window based system.
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
But, a chara, you are ignoring the fact that because they are the landowners they have the means of buying the politicians. Can you imagine FF or FG bringing in a LVT?
nope but high profile well known capitalists have advoacted it int he past..people such as winston churchill...and its lib dem policy as of now..while there have been many articles in the press over the years advocating it
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,831
There's a contradiction there, isnt there? How could it be a free market, if it must be the result of state control?
well......we are all free people but we dont mind having laws to preserve that freedom....because the right to be free is enshrined..as long as it doesnt impigne on anothers freedom...same with capitalism..a market can only be free is every operator in it is free to trade without impinging on the rights of another to so do
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top