My ideas on pure Lassaiz-faire Capitalsim

Of course monopolies can and do emerge in capitalistic societies. Explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standa...tion.2C_and_breakup_of_the_Standard_Oil_group

The Standard Oil monopoly was created and maintained by the government.

So believing that a monopoly may be possible in pure Capitalism makes one a socialist? You have a lot to learn.
You have much more to learn; start with reading comprehension--I didn't say believing that a monopoly may be possible in pure Capitalism makes one a socialist.

Since we're on the subject of things I didn't say; I didn't said monopolies aren't possible in pure capitalism--they are. I didn't say that monopolies are neccessarily bad--they aren't.

I will say now that coercive monopolies are impossible under pure capitalism; coercive monopolies are possible only with government complicity; and coercive monopolies are the only monopolies that critics of capitalism ever produce as evidence that, because of monopolies, capitalism is bad.

Of course the barriers are legit, thats not the discussion. The discussion is that such high barriers make it very very very difficult to enter the industry.
Fine. So again, what does that mean? Why should it not be "very, very difficult "to get into the levitation machine business? Why should it not be "very, very difficult" to get into the instant transportation business? Why should it not be "very, very difficult" to get into the meat flavored icecream business? And if someone should be able to surmount those difficulties, why should they not be allowed (without the use of force or fraud) to maximize the profitability of their effort?

So you're saying that the example of barriers to trade used in every undergraduate economics class in the United States is limited? Get a clue. Capitalism and freedom are the basis for the philosophy of the United States, but you need to understand it's not perfect. Get a clue.
Get yourself a clue Mr. Undergraduate, the examples of barriers you were presented with, the context in which such barriers were presented, and the conclusion that were drawn for you were most certainly limited, and limiting, if your sense of the meaningfulness of these barriers is any indication.
 
Since we're on the subject of things I didn't say; I didn't said monopolies aren't possible in pure capitalism--they are. I didn't say that monopolies are neccessarily bad--they aren't.

I guess I'm making the false assumption you wished to have a discussion regarding the U.S. economy, but that cannot be -- because the U.S. is neither purely Capitalist nor have pure competition in anyone other than commodities.

So what's your point? Or are you just ranting with no point?
 
I guess I'm making the false assumption you wished to have a discussion regarding the U.S. economy, but that cannot be -- because the U.S. is neither purely Capitalist nor have pure competition in anyone other than commodities.

So what's your point? Or are you just ranting with no point?
You set the rules--make your bullshit point so I can punk it.
 
Basically works, until monopolies spring up. In which case I don't have a problem with a little government involvement. But, our government has gone far beyond this in terms of sticking its nose in private business.

Purely laissez-faire capitalism presupposes a rational society, which we clearly lack. Until we do have a rational society, there will have to be some level of government regulation to protect the general populace from the worst excesses of unrestricted capitalism.
 
Purely laissez-faire capitalism presupposes a rational society, which we clearly lack. Until we do have a rational society, there will have to be some level of government regulation to protect the general populace from the worst excesses of unrestricted capitalism.

If we had a 'rational society' we would never have need of government, for we would be living in a world without threats. Well I suppose that presumes a 'rational world.' ;)
 
What are you talking about?
Reading comprehension is really not your strong suit, is it? Pure Lassaiz-faire Capitalsim is the topic of this thread--you should get familiar with the concept "topic." :D

My point simply is --

The United States is not pure laissez-faire capitalism.
I don't think anyone claimed it was--I know I certainly did not.
The United States does not have pure competition.
I don't think anyone claimed it does--I know I certainly did not.

What is YOUR point?

So what is the point of your post?
Let's check that post you refer to:
You have much more to learn; start with reading comprehension--I didn't say believing that a monopoly may be possible in pure Capitalism makes one a socialist.

Since we're on the subject of things I didn't say; I didn't said monopolies aren't possible in pure capitalism--they are. I didn't say that monopolies are neccessarily bad--they aren't.

I will say now that coercive monopolies are impossible under pure capitalism; coercive monopolies are possible only with government complicity; and coercive monopolies are the only monopolies that critics of capitalism ever produce as evidence that, because of monopolies, capitalism is bad.
Gee whiz Jeff, it appears my point, consistent with the topic of this thread and your contribution to it, was that believing that a monopoly may be possible in pure Capitalism does not makes one a socialist, that monopolies are possible in pure capitalism, and that monopolies are not neccessarily bad.

If you manage to have someone with reading comprehension capability help you, that person will confirm that my further point Jeff, is that coercive monopolies are a bad thing, and under capitalism, coercive monopolies can't happen.

Purely laissez-faire capitalism presupposes a rational society, which we clearly lack. Until we do have a rational society, there will have to be some level of government regulation to protect the general populace from the worst excesses of unrestricted capitalism.
Nonsense. There is zero need "of government regulation to protect the general populace from the worst excesses of unrestricted capitalism." There is only need of laws that protect people from the use of fraud and unlawful force in their interactions with each other.
 
Don’t you think that there should be agencies like the FDA to approve drugs before the gullible public uses them? Consider the children of Thalidomide.

Shouldn’t there be government over-sight agencies to look out for future shenanigans like Worldcom and Enron? “Sorry, you gullible emplyess who we convined to invest in Enron while I was bailing out. Gee. I thought that it would be profitable for you.”

What do you think of opportunistic business owners of a few decades ago. When there is a labor shortahge, employers better treat their workers with respect but when there is low demand for workers and a high supply of despirate unemployeed people, bosses can easily take advantage of people who have practically no where else to go. Bosses could get hungry hopeful people to suffer any type of abuse from a “slavedriver” before fair labor standards and the labor boards were established.

No. I don’t believe that the USA should turn into a total nanny-state but I do believe that some government regulation is warranted.
 
What is YOUR point?

Let's check that post you refer to:Gee whiz Jeff, it appears my point, consistent with the topic of this thread and your contribution to it, was that believing that a monopoly may be possible in pure Capitalism does not makes one a socialist, that monopolies are possible in pure capitalism, and that monopolies are not neccessarily bad.

If you manage to have someone with reading comprehension capability help you, that person will confirm that my further point Jeff, is that coercive monopolies are a bad thing, and under capitalism, coercive monopolies can't happen.

Nonsense. There is zero need "of government regulation to protect the general populace from the worst excesses of unrestricted capitalism." There is only need of laws that protect people from the use of fraud and unlawful force in their interactions with each other.

So in other words you really don't have a real point that relates to the real world? Exactly. Your ad hominem attacks only further show the intellectual void in your posts.
 
I made my point. It's real world.

Because there isn't a country in the world that is purely Capitalist and has pure competition, it's not real world. End of story.


You should look up big words like "ad-hominem" before you try using them. :D

ad ho·mi·nem /ɑd ˈhoʊmɪˌnɛm; Eng. æd ˈhɒmənəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahd hoh-mi-nem; Eng. ad hom-uh-nuhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective Latin.
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


By attacking my status as an undergraduate and my need to "look things up" and "increase my reading comprehension, you are making a textbook ad hominem attack. You have ceased defending your point; therefore, the discussion is over.
 
Because there isn't a country in the world that is purely Capitalist and has pure competition, it's not real world. End of story.
Finding the country that is purely Capitalist and has pure competition is not the point of this thread--THAT'S the real world.

ad ho·mi·nem /ɑd ˈhoʊmɪˌnɛm; Eng. æd ˈhɒmənəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahd hoh-mi-nem; Eng. ad hom-uh-nuhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective Latin.
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


By attacking my status as an undergraduate and my need to "look things up" and "increase my reading comprehension, you are making a textbook ad hominem attack. You have ceased defending your point; therefore, the discussion is over.
Nonsense, Mr. Undergraduate Lack O' Reading Comprehension. :D

1) Pointing out your lack of reading comprehension is not an appeal to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason--it is pointing out your lack of intellect or reason, and is a valid observation. I can't help that my delivery is not so amusing to you.

2) Pointing out your lack of reading comprehension and ridiculing your attempted "every schoolboy knows" appeal to authority is not attacking your character rather than answering your argument.

Which finally brings us to where you hope to misapply ad-hominem (a nice example of Argumentum ad Logicam) to me as if you presented an argument that I was refuting. If you're looking for fallacies of argument, have a friend with reading comprehension read your responses to my argument and explain to you Appeal to Authority, Quoting Out of Context, Fallacy of the Consequent, Illicit Substitution of Identicals, Bad Company Fallacy, and most importantly, Straw Man and Ignoratio Elenchi.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top