 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry
The difference is more in who is allowed to possess production means.
Capitalism=anybody.
Socialism=anybody, but have regulations to avoid abuses.
Communism=the state only. |
I prefer
Capitalism = Wealth, Inequality, Freedom
Socialism = Inefficiency, Equality, Freedom
Communism = Inefficiency, Some are more equal than others (the Communists), Totalitarianism
Last edited by Ned on 28-06-2002 at 07:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
 |
of España
May 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
Your mistake is assuming there is capitalism. Its really a high-bred. Oligopolies really are in place in most US industries, and with the amount of companies that have hands in multiple industries, you don't have anything that Adam Smith forsaw. So without the forces of supply and demand working to control the market, you don't have capitalism. To anyone who talks of government regulation, then you are also talking about something that is not allowed in capitalism.
Now, without thinking of the US as capitalism, then relook at it and you can then see why such things happen. This is not a capitalistic economy, so you either need to break up the huge congolmerates and prevent the merger mentality or you need to regulate them or bring back unions so someone can act as a watch dog. We don't regulate them because when we do, its either flawed by govt or berated by corporations as an infringement on supply & demand and capitalism, despite the fact that their actions have already infringed upon supply & demand and capitalism. We allow big business but are afraid of big govt or big unions, so then who can act as a watch dog on big business?
Therefore, these things happen until someone takes serious actions in govt. Given that Bush is considered a conservative, if he chooses to be bold, he can accomplish this, after all who would dare call him a liberal and pro-big gov't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Strates
|
 |
Apolyton Socialist Labour Party
Jun 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jdjdjd
Your mistake is assuming there is capitalism. Its really a high-bred. Oligopolies really are in place in most US industries, and with the amount of companies that have hands in multiple industries, you don't have anything that Adam Smith forsaw. So without the forces of supply and demand working to control the market, you don't have capitalism. To anyone who talks of government regulation, then you are also talking about something that is not allowed in capitalism.
|
The first person to coint the word "Capitalism" was Karl Marx. He would call what he have now capitalism. Under this economic system there is still over-production, business cycles, huge income disperity, classes, etc... Now, Smith's "invisble hand" it simply dosen't exists. You would need very informed buyers and supplyiers for the laws of supply and demand to actually take effect the way Smith predicted.
Another thing is that we will never live in pure economic system. There is always going to be small traits of other econmic systems in the predominant system.
The basic Marxist thesis is that capitalism is progressive and necessary to further the development of the productive forces, when capitalism can no longer further increase the productive forces and capitalism must therefore be replaced by socialism which can further the productive forces. Can capitalism further increase the productive forces? No, what capitalism is only doing now is making profits in very inefficient ways and only at the expense of others.
"The competition between millions of small-scale producers which is characteristic of the early days of capitalism, leads to the concentration of capital in the hands of just a few as a more efficient means of production. At a certain point (the beginning of the 20th-century), the entire globe has been divided up between a few great powers. Thus begins the final stage in the development of capitalism, imperialism, characterized by the domination of the banks, the formation of large multi-national corporations, and by war."
When Smith wrote The wealth of nations capitalism was still too young to show the inherent weakneses that today pleague society.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
I don't have time to get into this discussion (for the 14th time), so here's a few quick comments...
Strates:
A quick search of my electronic copy of Wealth of Nations finds the word "monopoly" appearing four times in one chapter alone. (Book IV, Chapter 6) Perhaps you don't remember that chapter from your reading? (PS: welcome to Off Topic  )
Strates (again):
quote:
Now, Smith's "invisble hand" it simply dosen't exists. You would need very informed buyers and supplyiers for the laws of supply and demand to actually take effect the way Smith predicted. |
The US dollar has been declining the last few weeks, making US grain cheaper relative to other world suppliers. This morning on the way to work I saw three trainloads of grain headed to Baltimore for export. I wonder how they got there?
jdjdjd:
Even oligopolies compete. Take the US automobile market. In 1970 the big three domestic producers made crap cars and had virtually the entire market. Over time Toyota, Honda, and Nissan entered and took market sahre from domestic producers. Domestic producers increased quality in order to compete.
Chegitz:
The degree of redundancy, if any, depends on the production and distribution conditions of the industry. Economists generally consider oligopoly more efficient than monopoly because oligopolists will come closer to the competitive price than a monopolist will. If oligopolists produce identical products and have large productive capacity, the price they charge will nearly equal the competitive price.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-06-2002 18:27
|