CDZ What is socialism?

[DonaldFG]

The capitalist promise fails more often than not. And that is because us citizens are not in control.

The failings of capitalism are well understood. (See the attachment to this post.) Citizens being in control or not is not one of the reasons.

The content in the attachment is nothing more than the basic "stuff" that is part of any collegiate course on microeconomics or macroeconomics. Heck, it's the stuff my own kids (all three of them) covered in high school economics class.

The attachment seems to be a very good explanation of the problems of capitalism. And by the way, it does basically agree with my statement. You really cannot separate politics from the economic system. Therefore, who is in control of government is indeed key. Elite political leaders determine the rules, in other words the regulations. If the people do not have complete control over those leaders, the economic system (whatever kind) is almost guaranteed to fail.

Your reference has the following statements concerning capitalism:

The problem is that free markets tend to lead to concentrations of wealth in the form of personal fortunes and, even more significantly, the large mega-corporation. It is an inherent feature of market dynamics that winners in competition will tend to become larger and larger, and when they become very large they exert real power inside of the market (as well as in the political arena).

A crucial question for sociology and for politics is thus how our institutions either reinforce or undermine different kinds of values and traits. Or to say it even more simply: the kind of people we get in a society is not given by nature, but by the ways our institutions encourage some traits and discourage others. In our present context, the question thus becomes: what kinds of people and traits does a highly competitive, individualistic capitalist society foster?

When they "start to exert real power" is that still free trade anymore. Is that still a market place where ideas compete? This type is stuff is no longer in the realm of free trade in my book, and is not what capitalism stands for. Capitalism is giving the greatest amount of power to the individual. Once it crosses over into certain individuals exerting extra powers infringing on other individual's powers, then it is no longer capitalism, free trade, constitutional republic, or whatever you want to label it as.

The problem here is that both sides agree that power is bad. We seem to have disagreements on the forms of power that are bad. I agree that when big mega corps start throwing their political, financial, or whatever weight around unfairly shutting down the little guy, that is wrong. It is also not free trade. No one seems to be getting that point. But governmental power is also bad, in fact it's been proven through history that it's an even worse power. Our own goverment has shown that many times in the past. I can get into slavery, interment camps, Jim Crow, segregation, and all that...but let's look at something more recently, gay marriage. Yay it's legal now...but the question should never have been legal or illegal, it should have been why does government even have the power to tell two consenting adults who they can and can't love? Our government turned it into the binary legal or illegal, let us rip each other's throats out, and still retained the same power they had before. The only reason government gave themselves the power to "grant a marriage license" was to stop interracial marriage. Let's look at another issue, data mining. Now they govt can say all they want it's for our security and safety...that's just not the case. What it's for is the same reason Google does it, to see inside our minds, things we don't even know about ourselves. That is a tremendous power that even people well versed in the subject can't completely comprehend what can be accomplished wielding that power. The difference is Google does it for advertisement, and not on even close to the same scale out government can. Our government can use it in a way to sway us to where they want us, or enough of us where they want us. Believe me I can go on and on if you want, with things like why this administration doesn't really give a rats a** about global warming. But, If you're not familiar with Stephen milgram and his famous experiments, look into them now. If you don't feel like researching, then there's a good movie on netflix called the experimenter about him, that should suffice. What socialism does is it gives the reigns of our destiny to a select few. Even if those select few are beneficent, it doesn't last for long. What happens when the next guy comes in, does anybody here want Donald trump to be in charge of out department of education? The pendulum in politics, culture, etc. Is always swinging. A borderline fascist , la pen, almost and should have won in France, a pretty socialized country. This is why it is important to limit the power of the select few, and make certain we are all equally empowered. Socialism is just a transfer of power to a select few

First of all, unregulated capitalism and free trade are as incompatible as oil and water. Capitalism breeds corporate power and monopoly inherently. And corporate power kills free trade.

Corporate power also ultimately corrupts government in its favor. That is just the opposite of what government should be doing; government should be making and enforcing laws to protect and nurture its people and their needs rather than let corporations ignore the people's and their employee's needs. This is the primary conflict in the world today in my opinion - corporate power versus people power.

A well socialized government would be one that has only the power its citizens allow it to have. This is why democracy is so important. The people must be the primary source for making the laws that govern us all. If elite leaders do not do their jobs to the people's satisfaction, the means to immediately remove them must be contained in the Constitution for their government.

Elite governing minorities have perfected many means to retain their power over their citizens. These means must be removed and outlawed if we are to have a just civilization.

 

[sakinago]

The capitalist promise fails more often than not. And that is because us citizens are not in control.

The failings of capitalism are well understood. (See the attachment to this post.) Citizens being in control or not is not one of the reasons.

The content in the attachment is nothing more than the basic "stuff" that is part of any collegiate course on microeconomics or macroeconomics. Heck, it's the stuff my own kids (all three of them) covered in high school economics class.

The attachment seems to be a very good explanation of the problems of capitalism. And by the way, it does basically agree with my statement. You really cannot separate politics from the economic system. Therefore, who is in control of government is indeed key. Elite political leaders determine the rules, in other words the regulations. If the people do not have complete control over those leaders, the economic system (whatever kind) is almost guaranteed to fail.

Your reference has the following statements concerning capitalism:

The problem is that free markets tend to lead to concentrations of wealth in the form of personal fortunes and, even more significantly, the large mega-corporation. It is an inherent feature of market dynamics that winners in competition will tend to become larger and larger, and when they become very large they exert real power inside of the market (as well as in the political arena).

A crucial question for sociology and for politics is thus how our institutions either reinforce or undermine different kinds of values and traits. Or to say it even more simply: the kind of people we get in a society is not given by nature, but by the ways our institutions encourage some traits and discourage others. In our present context, the question thus becomes: what kinds of people and traits does a highly competitive, individualistic capitalist society foster?

When they "start to exert real power" is that still free trade anymore. Is that still a market place where ideas compete? This type is stuff is no longer in the realm of free trade in my book, and is not what capitalism stands for. Capitalism is giving the greatest amount of power to the individual. Once it crosses over into certain individuals exerting extra powers infringing on other individual's powers, then it is no longer capitalism, free trade, constitutional republic, or whatever you want to label it as.

The problem here is that both sides agree that power is bad. We seem to have disagreements on the forms of power that are bad. I agree that when big mega corps start throwing their political, financial, or whatever weight around unfairly shutting down the little guy, that is wrong. It is also not free trade. No one seems to be getting that point. But governmental power is also bad, in fact it's been proven through history that it's an even worse power. Our own goverment has shown that many times in the past. I can get into slavery, interment camps, Jim Crow, segregation, and all that...but let's look at something more recently, gay marriage. Yay it's legal now...but the question should never have been legal or illegal, it should have been why does government even have the power to tell two consenting adults who they can and can't love? Our government turned it into the binary legal or illegal, let us rip each other's throats out, and still retained the same power they had before. The only reason government gave themselves the power to "grant a marriage license" was to stop interracial marriage. Let's look at another issue, data mining. Now they govt can say all they want it's for our security and safety...that's just not the case. What it's for is the same reason Google does it, to see inside our minds, things we don't even know about ourselves. That is a tremendous power that even people well versed in the subject can't completely comprehend what can be accomplished wielding that power. The difference is Google does it for advertisement, and not on even close to the same scale out government can. Our government can use it in a way to sway us to where they want us, or enough of us where they want us. Believe me I can go on and on if you want, with things like why this administration doesn't really give a rats a** about global warming. But, If you're not familiar with Stephen milgram and his famous experiments, look into them now. If you don't feel like researching, then there's a good movie on netflix called the experimenter about him, that should suffice. What socialism does is it gives the reigns of our destiny to a select few. Even if those select few are beneficent, it doesn't last for long. What happens when the next guy comes in, does anybody here want Donald trump to be in charge of out department of education? The pendulum in politics, culture, etc. Is always swinging. A borderline fascist , la pen, almost and should have won in France, a pretty socialized country. This is why it is important to limit the power of the select few, and make certain we are all equally empowered. Socialism is just a transfer of power to a select few

First of all, unregulated capitalism and free trade are as incompatible as oil and water. Capitalism breeds corporate power and monopoly inherently. And corporate power kills free trade.

Corporate power also ultimately corrupts government in its favor. That is just the opposite of what government should be doing; government should be making and enforcing laws to protect and nurture its people and their needs rather than let corporations ignore the people's and their employee's needs. This is the primary conflict in the world today in my opinion - corporate power versus people power.

A well socialized government would be one that has only the power its citizens allow it to have. This is why democracy is so important. The people must be the primary source for making the laws that govern us all. If elite leaders do not do their jobs to the people's satisfaction, the means to immediately remove them must be contained in the Constitution for their government.

Elite governing minorities have perfected many means to retain their power over their citizens. These means must be removed and outlawed if we are to have a just civilization.

Once monopolies and markets are artificially tampered with, we're no longer in the realm of capitalism, simply because you generally need the help of politicians to do that. Can monopolies form without the help of government, sure, but not often. And when they do form, they do need to be broken up. But those calling for more socialism also tend to be blaming the baby for our problems, not the bath water. They don't want to recognize the good that has emerged from capitalism.

We have largely been more capitalistic comparatively than the rest of the world. And look at what that has produced.
American Leadership in Science, Measured in Nobel Prizes [Infographic]

 

[DonaldFG]

Once monopolies and markets are artificially tampered with, we're no longer in the realm of capitalism, simply because you generally need the help of politicians to do that. Can monopolies form without the help of government, sure, but not often. And when they do form, they do need to be broken up.

Monopolies form like sticky bubbles. Corporations are always looking to merge to gain power. We have seen many mega-mergers the last half century. Without government to stop them, there will soon be one bubble.

 

[sakinago]

Once monopolies and markets are artificially tampered with, we're no longer in the realm of capitalism, simply because you generally need the help of politicians to do that. Can monopolies form without the help of government, sure, but not often. And when they do form, they do need to be broken up.

Monopolies form like sticky bubbles. Corporations are always looking to merge to gain power. We have seen many mega-mergers the last half century. Without government to stop them, there will soon be one bubble.

But that's not capitalism, it can be a result of it, just like Venezuela or Greece is a bad result of socialism

 

[320 Years of History]

The capitalist promise fails more often than not. And that is because us citizens are not in control.

The failings of capitalism are well understood. (See the attachment to this post.) Citizens being in control or not is not one of the reasons.

The content in the attachment is nothing more than the basic "stuff" that is part of any collegiate course on microeconomics or macroeconomics. Heck, it's the stuff my own kids (all three of them) covered in high school economics class.

The attachment seems to be a very good explanation of the problems of capitalism. And by the way, it does basically agree with my statement. You really cannot separate politics from the economic system. Therefore, who is in control of government is indeed key. Elite political leaders determine the rules, in other words the regulations. If the people do not have complete control over those leaders, the economic system (whatever kind) is almost guaranteed to fail.

Your reference has the following statements concerning capitalism:

The problem is that free markets tend to lead to concentrations of wealth in the form of personal fortunes and, even more significantly, the large mega-corporation. It is an inherent feature of market dynamics that winners in competition will tend to become larger and larger, and when they become very large they exert real power inside of the market (as well as in the political arena).

A crucial question for sociology and for politics is thus how our institutions either reinforce or undermine different kinds of values and traits. Or to say it even more simply: the kind of people we get in a society is not given by nature, but by the ways our institutions encourage some traits and discourage others. In our present context, the question thus becomes: what kinds of people and traits does a highly competitive, individualistic capitalist society foster?

When they "start to exert real power" is that still free trade anymore. Is that still a market place where ideas compete? This type is stuff is no longer in the realm of free trade in my book, and is not what capitalism stands for. Capitalism is giving the greatest amount of power to the individual. Once it crosses over into certain individuals exerting extra powers infringing on other individual's powers, then it is no longer capitalism, free trade, constitutional republic, or whatever you want to label it as.

The problem here is that both sides agree that power is bad. We seem to have disagreements on the forms of power that are bad. I agree that when big mega corps start throwing their political, financial, or whatever weight around unfairly shutting down the little guy, that is wrong. It is also not free trade. No one seems to be getting that point. But governmental power is also bad, in fact it's been proven through history that it's an even worse power. Our own goverment has shown that many times in the past. I can get into slavery, interment camps, Jim Crow, segregation, and all that...but let's look at something more recently, gay marriage. Yay it's legal now...but the question should never have been legal or illegal, it should have been why does government even have the power to tell two consenting adults who they can and can't love? Our government turned it into the binary legal or illegal, let us rip each other's throats out, and still retained the same power they had before. The only reason government gave themselves the power to "grant a marriage license" was to stop interracial marriage. Let's look at another issue, data mining. Now they govt can say all they want it's for our security and safety...that's just not the case. What it's for is the same reason Google does it, to see inside our minds, things we don't even know about ourselves. That is a tremendous power that even people well versed in the subject can't completely comprehend what can be accomplished wielding that power. The difference is Google does it for advertisement, and not on even close to the same scale out government can. Our government can use it in a way to sway us to where they want us, or enough of us where they want us. Believe me I can go on and on if you want, with things like why this administration doesn't really give a rats a** about global warming. But, If you're not familiar with Stephen milgram and his famous experiments, look into them now. If you don't feel like researching, then there's a good movie on netflix called the experimenter about him, that should suffice. What socialism does is it gives the reigns of our destiny to a select few. Even if those select few are beneficent, it doesn't last for long. What happens when the next guy comes in, does anybody here want Donald trump to be in charge of out department of education? The pendulum in politics, culture, etc. Is always swinging. A borderline fascist , la pen, almost and should have won in France, a pretty socialized country. This is why it is important to limit the power of the select few, and make certain we are all equally empowered. Socialism is just a transfer of power to a select few

First of all, unregulated capitalism and free trade are as incompatible as oil and water. Capitalism breeds corporate power and monopoly inherently. And corporate power kills free trade.

Corporate power also ultimately corrupts government in its favor. That is just the opposite of what government should be doing; government should be making and enforcing laws to protect and nurture its people and their needs rather than let corporations ignore the people's and their employee's needs. This is the primary conflict in the world today in my opinion - corporate power versus people power.

A well socialized government would be one that has only the power its citizens allow it to have. This is why democracy is so important. The people must be the primary source for making the laws that govern us all. If elite leaders do not do their jobs to the people's satisfaction, the means to immediately remove them must be contained in the Constitution for their government.

Elite governing minorities have perfected many means to retain their power over their citizens. These means must be removed and outlawed if we are to have a just civilization.

As the term is used in economic and political discourse these days, what do you perceive "free trade" to mean and entail?

 

[320 Years of History]

Once monopolies and markets are artificially tampered with, we're no longer in the realm of capitalism, simply because you generally need the help of politicians to do that. Can monopolies form without the help of government, sure, but not often. And when they do form, they do need to be broken up.

Monopolies form like sticky bubbles. Corporations are always looking to merge to gain power. We have seen many mega-mergers the last half century. Without government to stop them, there will soon be one bubble.

??? What does that have to do with sakinago's central point that any extent of "tampering" necessarily moves one from capitalism to something else? I'm sorry, but I'm trying to follow the conversation and I don't see what your remark has to do with her/his point.

Re: sakinago's point, I disagree. An economy functions under capitalism so long as the laws of supply and demand determine what goods and services are produced and made available for sale. A lot of tampering can happen before those two forces cease to drive productive and consumptive behavior.

 

[Militants]

Socialism are old time Communism 100 year before Soviet. America are also people how like to were communist ?? I never knowing that with America. Allways though that America are Anti communism. Or only the Liberalism and Nationalists are Anti communism ??

 

[Militants]

Trump or Cruz will do America great again with war against Al Qaeda and Belarus then more job and more moneytalks in Economic branches.

 

[Militants]

It's manny socialists how blame me but I can do work for Hitler to cross communism in democracy even I ranked socialism in second highest are democracy how are real temptation in earth. My voices blame me and I blame communism far away from communists. I do nothing closely to a communist. One personal have killing feelings if I blame him closely. When I sleep he can open my door and take his knife and kill me when I dreams.

 

[Militants]

What about Stalin all socialists here ????

 

[Militants]

Stalin isn't great well.

 

[Militants]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Socialism Democration will have power. See on Hillary for example.

Hillary must bee stopped in 9-11 / 2016. But Bernie are in my tast.

Reservplan are election 2020 if Sanders won 2016 vote campaign.

 

[DonaldFG]

As the term is used in economic and political discourse these days, what do you perceive "free trade" to mean and entail?

Okay, I will give my explanation of free trade. Today most media refers to free trade as uninhibited trade between nations. In other words, people can buy things made anywhere and usually for near the same local price as where manufactured. And businesses can sell their products to anyone anywhere for the same price plus shipping. Shipping across nation borders adds no additional cost to products.

But there is another element to free trade which is not discussed much. And that is the element of competition between manufacturers. One of the assumptions of capitalism combined with free trade is that consumers will buy the best product at the least expensive price. But that is an ideal seldom seen in the real world. As highly successful companies grow very large, they always clobber their competition even if the competition produces a better product. When profits give then sufficient power, they undercut the small competitors prices (often at below cost) to kill the small business. And the large corporation usually tries to buy the small one (if they have a better product) as the small one fails. When corporations get very large, mega-mergers begin happening.

Without healthy small businesses and their innovations, free trade is lost as far as the consumer is concerned. We end up getting cheaper low-quality products as a result.

And I have not even touched on the unemployment problem created by large corporations with too much power.
This is the main reason for a dying economy. People have less money to buy stuff.

 

[DonaldFG]

Once monopolies and markets are artificially tampered with, we're no longer in the realm of capitalism, simply because you generally need the help of politicians to do that. Can monopolies form without the help of government, sure, but not often. And when they do form, they do need to be broken up.

Monopolies form like sticky bubbles. Corporations are always looking to merge to gain power. We have seen many mega-mergers the last half century. Without government to stop them, there will soon be one bubble.

??? What does that have to do with sakinago's central point that any extent of "tampering" necessarily moves one from capitalism to something else? I'm sorry, but I'm trying to follow the conversation and I don't see what your remark has to do with her/his point.

Re: sakinago's point, I disagree. An economy functions under capitalism so long as the laws of supply and demand determine what goods and services are produced and made available for sale. A lot of tampering can happen before those two forces cease to drive productive and consumptive behavior.

I am not sure what sakinago means by "the realm of capitalism". As far as I am concerned, the existence of monopolies or near monopolies has already killed any advantage of capitalism. Government does not create monopolies; it simply allows it happen. Of course, the government can create its own monopoly for anything. Maybe that is what he meant.

The laws of supply and demand only make sense if the products needed by society are produced. People generate actual demand. When products are made that are not necessarily needed, and demand is artificially created by advertising, our natural resources are wasted unnecessarily and other needs are NOT met.

 

[320 Years of History]

As the term is used in economic and political discourse these days, what do you perceive "free trade" to mean and entail?

Okay, I will give my explanation of free trade. Today most media refers to free trade as uninhibited trade between nations. In other words, people can buy things made anywhere and usually for near the same local price as where manufactured. And businesses can sell their products to anyone anywhere for the same price plus shipping. Shipping across nation borders adds no additional cost to products.

But there is another element to free trade which is not discussed much. And that is the element of competition between manufacturers. One of the assumptions of capitalism combined with free trade is that consumers will buy the best product at the least expensive price. But that is an ideal seldom seen in the real world. As highly successful companies grow very large, they always clobber their competition even if the competition produces a better product. When profits give then sufficient power, they undercut the small competitors prices (often at below cost) to kill the small business. And the large corporation usually tries to buy the small one (if they have a better product) as the small one fails. When corporations get very large, mega-mergers begin happening.

Without healthy small businesses and their innovations, free trade is lost as far as the consumer is concerned. We end up getting cheaper low-quality products as a result.

And I have not even touched on the unemployment problem created by large corporations with too much power.
This is the main reason for a dying economy. People have less money to buy stuff.

TY for explaining how you understand the term free trade.

I apologize for this post being so long, but there is so much that you've written that doesn't at all jibe with the principles of economics. At best, they are statements bourne of "common sense;" however, economics -- the behavior buyers and sellers exhibit in the face of scarcity and choice -- does not lend itself to being discerned by common sense. That it doesn't is, IMO, why there is so much haranguing about what economic policy the nation should follow: too many people who have no training in economics exercising their 1st Amendment right to nonetheless discuss and opine about economic matters.

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
― Murray N. Rothbard​

Red:
And they would be correct in doing so.

Free trade is the unrestricted purchase and sale of goods and services between countries without the imposition of constraints such as tariffs, duties and quotas. Free trade is a win-win proposition because it enables nations to focus on their core competitive advantage(s), thereby maximizing economic output and fostering income growth for their citizens.​

Blue:
That is an outcome of free trade existing. It is not an element of free trade.

Pink:
I can assure you that consumers buying a good in the area where it's produced will pay prices far lower than will consumers buying the very same good in a distant locale, regardless of whether free trade happens or not.

For example:

• In 1977 I went globe hopping for the summer and the first port of call was Mexico. My friends and I bought a full sandwich bag of "basic" weed for 75¢, a sum we haggled down from $1.00, when back home in D.C., we had to pay about $10 for it. The last time I bought weed it was $25 for the same quantity in D.C., but I have no idea what the price was in Mexico at the time.
• A couple years ago, I bought a bunch of clothes -- a couple pairs of jeans, a sweater, several shirts and a pair of shoes -- at the Versace boutique in Florence. They were on sale and I paid ~$2200 for all of it...that even though I'd seen the sweater and shoes selling in NYC for $1200 and $600, respectively. Admittedly the boutique was having a sale, but still. The Versace store in NY never has a sale that good.
• In the PRC, I routinely see high end domestically made "designer" (i.e., the designer is a "big deal" among the wealthy folks in China, but nobody outside of the PRC has heard of them) garments selling for half or less of the price the very same garments, made in the same factory, sell for in the West under a different designer's/store's brand name.
• In the PRC the parts that used to be used to make iPhones were the very same parts used to make the Chinese knock-offs of iPhones. And guess what, they worked equally well. In fact, the Chinese version I bought was a dual sim "iPhone," which for me is better because it allows me to install my China Mobile and my U.S. AT&T sims in the phone, and use either, at my choosing, to make calls, send texts, read/send email, etc., and when I travel to the Europe or Japan, or wherever, I take out the China Mobile sim and install the Vodaphone (now Softbank in Japan) sim as needed. As a frequent traveler, being able to carry one less device is a good thing for me. I've been using the phone without issue since 2011. I paid $200 for the phone and purchased it from an independent phone seller at a little booth in Hua Jiang Bei, Shenzhen, PRC. I don't think such a thing can be bought in the U.S., and I know one could not then or now buy an iPhone of any sort for $200.
  
  Just for perspective, Hua Jiang Bei is a 2 mile long by 4/5ths mile or so wide district within Shenzhen that has little other than electronics dealers (most are "mom and pop" type), although there are restaurants and two department stores there too.
  
  To get a sense of just how extensive is the electronics market right there alone -- and note that one can there buy everything electronic and computer related, from the smallest "visible to the naked eye" raw materials to finished goods like phones, televisions, etc. -- image an eight story building covering the area of a "big city" office building and having nothing but electronics vendors in small "shops" that are about 20ft x 15 feet or so. Now imagine that there are well over a dozen such places along with literally hundreds of small one or two story buildings having more of the same. That's Hua Jiang Bei. I don't know of any place in the U.S. that is even remotely similar. The closest thing that readily comes to mind is the jewelry district in NYC.
  
  Schematic representation
  
  
  
  
  
  Actual aerial view -- Hua Jiang Bei is a district named for its central street which is the big one seen about in the middle of photo below.
  
  
  

Without going into too much detail about the vagaries of pricing strategies, which are critical to the practical aspects of a free trade discussion such as the one to which you opened the door, I'll just say that what one pays in the locality where a good is produced is unlikely to usually be near what one pays in a distant and wealthy locale. At the highest level, one can boil pricing down to being a matter of what the market will bear and individual seller's minimum profit requirements.

FWIW, here are some entry level discussions of pricing strategies:

• Pricing strategy an Assessment of 20 Years of B2B marketing Research
  
• The Role of Pricing Strategy in Market Defense
• Retailer Pricing Strategy and Consumer Choice under Price Uncertainty
• Beyond the Many Faces of Price: An Integration of Pricing Strategies
• Pricing a Bundle of Products and Services: A Case for Nonprofits

Green:
They can do that if and only if they sell everywhere at the minimum price at which they'd be willing to sell in the single highest cost market in which they do sell.

Purple:
That's something that occurs in free trade and un-free trade.

Fluorescent Green:
That's not an assumption of capitalism. Capitalism is nothing more than an economic model/system wherein the forces of supply and demand, as described by microeconomics and macroeconomics, determine what is and is not produced and bought. Period. Economic systems become less and less capitalist as governments exert greater and greater degrees of control over what it and is not produced. The most extreme limitation is found in what is referred to as a command economy. Pure capitalism can coexist within a communist or socialist political system, but a purely command economy cannot exist within a democratic political system.

That out of the way, let's look at what that statement is. What it is is a poor approximation of one of the principles underpinning all of microeconomics. That principle is called "rational choice." Specifically, rational choice is an economic principle that assumes that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the greatest benefit or satisfaction and that are in their highest self-interest.

Economics addresses the idea of what constitutes what a given consumer deems as being in their best interest, that is, what provides them the greatest benefit, using the ideas of elasticity and substitution with regard to price.

• Elasticity -- Elasticity is the economists term for what everyone has in mind when they say "worth it." A consumer may be well aware that, say, copper cookware provides distinct advantages over aluminum or ceramic cookware; however, given their cooking needs and abilities, they decide copper cookware isn't "worth it" because it costs too much more than either of those alternatives.
  
  I made exactly such a decision when I bought a sports coupe a few years back. I test drove coupes offered by Porsche and BMW. I could tell the Porsche performed much better and was equally comfortable and convenient to use. Price wasn't a limiting factor, but I was nonetheless very aware of the price difference between the two. I bought the BMW because (1) my driving skills aren't good enough for me to benefit from the Porsche's greater abilities, and (2) the customization options Porsche offered, though appealing, weren't central to why I sought a car in the first place. Though I could tell it was a more capable and more luxurious car, it still wasn't worth it, even though having the money to buy it was not the issue.
  
  On another occasion, I found myself in Dallas and it was far cooler than I'd expected it would be. I needed buy a garment that would be warmer than the thin shirts I had with me and I didn't want to wear a sport jacket to that evening's event. There was a Walmart close by and I went in to see what it had. I found a $5 orange fleece pullover that would do just fine, so that's what I bought. Why? Because for what I needed, there was no need to seek something "nicer" or "better," be either of those terms taken subjectively or objectively. Would I typically go to a Walmart to buy garments? No, but I knew they sell them, Walmart was closer than the Macy's or an outdoor clothing store like REI, and I was sure Walmart would have something good enough to get me through that evening. Lo and behold, I was right. I still wear that pullover; I like it just fine.
  
  Now imagine similar sorts of consumer choices -- pick whatever product you want -- wherein price and functionality are both critical to a consumer and you will, as you likely already do, have a clear grasp of what price elasticity of demand is and how it's manifested by consumers in the marketplace.
• Substitutes -- These are really easy to understand. They are whatever a given consumer views as the possible alternatives s/he may demand (buy) in order to satisfy the need/desire they have. In the examples above, aluminum, steel, copper, and glass ceramic pots/pans are substitutes. So are the BMW and Porsche cars I considered. However, a person who needs transportation may see a BMW, Porsche, public transportation, motorcycle and bicycle as substitutes. Similarly, a hungry person may see hamburgers and carrots as substitute goods, but his also hungry friend may or may not.
  
  What is and is not a substitute is determined by the consumer, not by economists or producers; however, economists and producers can identify what goods/services one can reasonably assume will be seen as substitutes. Also, it's important to keep in mind that money need not be in play; if you need to put out a fire in your skillet, the lid or your glass of water may be substitutes. I note that only so that you'll consider substitutes correctly and not get yourself confused by thinking money necessarily has something to do with it.

Whether consumers utilize the ideas of elasticity and substitutes to make choices they feel are in their best interest is not something that occurs only in an ideal world. It happens every time there resources are scarce and the consumer must use them to obtain satisfaction, however great or small.

Brown:
Those things can and do happen, both on the company level and the individual services/goods level. For example, years ago the Betamax and VHS were competing formats in the video recording industry. Betamax was widely viewed as the objectively better product, but VHS was less expensive and "good enough" for what most consumers needed; thus VHS won out.

As for companies becoming monopoly providers, well, that results from the interplay of a number of factors, but free trade is not among them. Monopolists certainly have vast degrees and extents of control in the marketplace, but a company doesn't come to exist because of free trade, they come to exist as a result of their being able, before other competitors, to overcome one or several barriers to market entry, one of which can be tariffs and other restrictions on free trade. In other words, limitations on free trade can allow a domestic producer to obtain a monopoly in their country. In the U.S. we have laws that prevent that from happening and persisting, except where the good/service produced/delivered lends itself to being offered within the construct of a natural monopoly.

Generally speaking, only undifferentiable goods/services are provided by monopolists. Utilities are the main things that fit that description, and they are because the investment in infrastructure needed to deliver utility goods and services is so large that it's economically inefficient and unprofitable for multiple producers to compete in such arenas. Over time, however, the natural monopoly elements of a monopoly supplier have their monopoly status carved away as it becomes profitable for multiple suppliers to compete. We've seen this played out in the electricity market with the advent of competition in the production segment of the energy industry.

Electricity is produced and delivered to users via three main processes: generation/production, transmission and distribution. Over the past 30 years or so, it's become cost effective for multiple producers to generate electricity, but it's not for multiple providers to deploy transmission and distribution equipment. And frankly, consumers won't want them to...nobody wants three electric utility poles on the corner, yet that's exactly what would have to be there if three companies distributed electricity. Now that electricity generation is efficient to produce by multiple providers, you and I can choose from whom we buy our electricity, but we can't choose who delivers it to us.

The companies I suspect you have in mind are large monopolistic competitors. They are not at all the same as monopolists. They are just big companies that are able to use one or more marketing principles, in concert with economic realities/principles such as barriers to entry, elasticity, substitutes, and others, to obtain and sustain market dominance. Make no mistake, however. Being big doesn't mean one can or will maintain dominance in the market of a given class of goods. The story of Microsoft and its Windows OS obtaining superiority over IBM's OS/2 is a fine example of that. It was by no means easy for Microsoft to achieve that, particularly seeing as OS/2 was widely viewed as being objectively better, but they did it and now are a larger and more profitable company than IBM. Moreover, IBM's loss in the desktop PC operating system market was so great that it exited that market.

 

[DonaldFG]

As the term is used in economic and political discourse these days, what do you perceive "free trade" to mean and entail?

Okay, I will give my explanation of free trade. Today most media refers to free trade as uninhibited trade between nations. In other words, people can buy things made anywhere and usually for near the same local price as where manufactured. And businesses can sell their products to anyone anywhere for the same price plus shipping. Shipping across nation borders adds no additional cost to products.

But there is another element to free trade which is not discussed much. And that is the element of competition between manufacturers. One of the assumptions of capitalism combined with free trade is that consumers will buy the best product at the least expensive price. But that is an ideal seldom seen in the real world. As highly successful companies grow very large, they always clobber their competition even if the competition produces a better product. When profits give then sufficient power, they undercut the small competitors prices (often at below cost) to kill the small business. And the large corporation usually tries to buy the small one (if they have a better product) as the small one fails. When corporations get very large, mega-mergers begin happening.

Without healthy small businesses and their innovations, free trade is lost as far as the consumer is concerned. We end up getting cheaper low-quality products as a result.

And I have not even touched on the unemployment problem created by large corporations with too much power.
This is the main reason for a dying economy. People have less money to buy stuff.

TY for explaining how you understand the term free trade.

I apologize for this post being so long, but there is so much that you've written that doesn't at all jibe with the principles of economics. At best, they are statements bourne of "common sense;" however, economics -- the behavior buyers and sellers exhibit in the face of scarcity and choice -- does not lend itself to being discerned by common sense. That it doesn't is, IMO, why there is so much haranguing about what economic policy the nation should follow: too many people who have no training in economics exercising their 1st Amendment right to nonetheless discuss and opine about economic matters.

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
― Murray N. Rothbard​

Red:
And they would be correct in doing so.

Free trade is the unrestricted purchase and sale of goods and services between countries without the imposition of constraints such as tariffs, duties and quotas. Free trade is a win-win proposition because it enables nations to focus on their core competitive advantage(s), thereby maximizing economic output and fostering income growth for their citizens.​

Blue:
That is an outcome of free trade existing. It is not an element of free trade.

Pink:
I can assure you that consumers buying a good in the area where it's produced will pay prices far lower than will consumers buying the very same good in a distant locale, regardless of whether free trade happens or not.

For example:

• In 1977 I went globe hopping for the summer and the first port of call was Mexico. My friends and I bought a full sandwich bag of "basic" weed for 75¢, a sum we haggled down from $1.00, when back home in D.C., we had to pay about $10 for it. The last time I bought weed it was $25 for the same quantity in D.C., but I have no idea what the price was in Mexico at the time.
• A couple years ago, I bought a bunch of clothes -- a couple pairs of jeans, a sweater, several shirts and a pair of shoes -- at the Versace boutique in Florence. They were on sale and I paid ~$2200 for all of it...that even though I'd seen the sweater and shoes selling in NYC for $1200 and $600, respectively. Admittedly the boutique was having a sale, but still. The Versace store in NY never has a sale that good.
• In the PRC, I routinely see high end domestically made "designer" (i.e., the designer is a "big deal" among the wealthy folks in China, but nobody outside of the PRC has heard of them) garments selling for half or less of the price the very same garments, made in the same factory, sell for in the West under a different designer's/store's brand name.
• In the PRC the parts that used to be used to make iPhones were the very same parts used to make the Chinese knock-offs of iPhones. And guess what, they worked equally well. In fact, the Chinese version I bought was a dual sim "iPhone," which for me is better because it allows me to install my China Mobile and my U.S. AT&T sims in the phone, and use either, at my choosing, to make calls, send texts, read/send email, etc., and when I travel to the Europe or Japan, or wherever, I take out the China Mobile sim and install the Vodaphone (now Softbank in Japan) sim as needed. As a frequent traveler, being able to carry one less device is a good thing for me. I've been using the phone without issue since 2011. I paid $200 for the phone and purchased it from an independent phone seller at a little booth in Hua Jiang Bei, Shenzhen, PRC. I don't think such a thing can be bought in the U.S., and I know one could not then or now buy an iPhone of any sort for $200.
  
  Just for perspective, Hua Jiang Bei is a 2 mile long by 4/5ths mile or so wide district within Shenzhen that has little other than electronics dealers (most are "mom and pop" type), although there are restaurants and two department stores there too.
  
  To get a sense of just how extensive is the electronics market right there alone -- and note that one can there buy everything electronic and computer related, from the smallest "visible to the naked eye" raw materials to finished goods like phones, televisions, etc. -- image an eight story building covering the area of a "big city" office building and having nothing but electronics vendors in small "shops" that are about 20ft x 15 feet or so. Now imagine that there are well over a dozen such places along with literally hundreds of small one or two story buildings having more of the same. That's Hua Jiang Bei. I don't know of any place in the U.S. that is even remotely similar. The closest thing that readily comes to mind is the jewelry district in NYC.
  
  Schematic representation
  
  
  
  
  
  Actual aerial view -- Hua Jiang Bei is a district named for its central street which is the big one seen about in the middle of photo below.
  
  
  

Without going into too much detail about the vagaries of pricing strategies, which are critical to the practical aspects of a free trade discussion such as the one to which you opened the door, I'll just say that what one pays in the locality where a good is produced is unlikely to usually be near what one pays in a distant and wealthy locale. At the highest level, one can boil pricing down to being a matter of what the market will bear and individual seller's minimum profit requirements.

FWIW, here are some entry level discussions of pricing strategies:

• Pricing strategy an Assessment of 20 Years of B2B marketing Research
  
• The Role of Pricing Strategy in Market Defense
• Retailer Pricing Strategy and Consumer Choice under Price Uncertainty
• Beyond the Many Faces of Price: An Integration of Pricing Strategies
• Pricing a Bundle of Products and Services: A Case for Nonprofits

Green:
They can do that if and only if they sell everywhere at the minimum price at which they'd be willing to sell in the single highest cost market in which they do sell.

Purple:
That's something that occurs in free trade and un-free trade.

Fluorescent Green:
That's not an assumption of capitalism. Capitalism is nothing more than an economic model/system wherein the forces of supply and demand, as described by microeconomics and macroeconomics, determine what is and is not produced and bought. Period. Economic systems become less and less capitalist as governments exert greater and greater degrees of control over what it and is not produced. The most extreme limitation is found in what is referred to as a command economy. Pure capitalism can coexist within a communist or socialist political system, but a purely command economy cannot exist within a democratic political system.

That out of the way, let's look at what that statement is. What it is is a poor approximation of one of the principles underpinning all of microeconomics. That principle is called "rational choice." Specifically, rational choice is an economic principle that assumes that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the greatest benefit or satisfaction and that are in their highest self-interest.

Economics addresses the idea of what constitutes what a given consumer deems as being in their best interest, that is, what provides them the greatest benefit, using the ideas of elasticity and substitution with regard to price.

• Elasticity -- Elasticity is the economists term for what everyone has in mind when they say "worth it." A consumer may be well aware that, say, copper cookware provides distinct advantages over aluminum or ceramic cookware; however, given their cooking needs and abilities, they decide copper cookware isn't "worth it" because it costs too much more than either of those alternatives.
  
  I made exactly such a decision when I bought a sports coupe a few years back. I test drove coupes offered by Porsche and BMW. I could tell the Porsche performed much better and was equally comfortable and convenient to use. Price wasn't a limiting factor, but I was nonetheless very aware of the price difference between the two. I bought the BMW because (1) my driving skills aren't good enough for me to benefit from the Porsche's greater abilities, and (2) the customization options Porsche offered, though appealing, weren't central to why I sought a car in the first place. Though I could tell it was a more capable and more luxurious car, it still wasn't worth it, even though having the money to buy it was not the issue.
  
  On another occasion, I found myself in Dallas and it was far cooler than I'd expected it would be. I needed buy a garment that would be warmer than the thin shirts I had with me and I didn't want to wear a sport jacket to that evening's event. There was a Walmart close by and I went in to see what it had. I found a $5 orange fleece pullover that would do just fine, so that's what I bought. Why? Because for what I needed, there was no need to seek something "nicer" or "better," be either of those terms taken subjectively or objectively. Would I typically go to a Walmart to buy garments? No, but I knew they sell them, Walmart was closer than the Macy's or an outdoor clothing store like REI, and I was sure Walmart would have something good enough to get me through that evening. Lo and behold, I was right. I still wear that pullover; I like it just fine.
  
  Now imagine similar sorts of consumer choices -- pick whatever product you want -- wherein price and functionality are both critical to a consumer and you will, as you likely already do, have a clear grasp of what price elasticity of demand is and how it's manifested by consumers in the marketplace.
• Substitutes -- These are really easy to understand. They are whatever a given consumer views as the possible alternatives s/he may demand (buy) in order to satisfy the need/desire they have. In the examples above, aluminum, steel, copper, and glass ceramic pots/pans are substitutes. So are the BMW and Porsche cars I considered. However, a person who needs transportation may see a BMW, Porsche, public transportation, motorcycle and bicycle as substitutes. Similarly, a hungry person may see hamburgers and carrots as substitute goods, but his also hungry friend may or may not.
  
  What is and is not a substitute is determined by the consumer, not by economists or producers; however, economists and producers can identify what goods/services one can reasonably assume will be seen as substitutes. Also, it's important to keep in mind that money need not be in play; if you need to put out a fire in your skillet, the lid or your glass of water may be substitutes. I note that only so that you'll consider substitutes correctly and not get yourself confused by thinking money necessarily has something to do with it.

Whether consumers utilize the ideas of elasticity and substitutes to make choices they feel are in their best interest is not something that occurs only in an ideal world. It happens every time there resources are scarce and the consumer must use them to obtain satisfaction, however great or small.

Brown:
Those things can and do happen, both on the company level and the individual services/goods level. For example, years ago the Betamax and VHS were competing formats in the video recording industry. Betamax was widely viewed as the objectively better product, but VHS was less expensive and "good enough" for what most consumers needed; thus VHS won out.

As for companies becoming monopoly providers, well, that results from the interplay of a number of factors, but free trade is not among them. Monopolists certainly have vast degrees and extents of control in the marketplace, but a company doesn't come to exist because of free trade, they come to exist as a result of their being able, before other competitors, to overcome one or several barriers to market entry, one of which can be tariffs and other restrictions on free trade. In other words, limitations on free trade can allow a domestic producer to obtain a monopoly in their country. In the U.S. we have laws that prevent that from happening and persisting, except where the good/service produced/delivered lends itself to being offered within the construct of a natural monopoly.

Generally speaking, only undifferentiable goods/services are provided by monopolists. Utilities are the main things that fit that description, and they are because the investment in infrastructure needed to deliver utility goods and services is so large that it's economically inefficient and unprofitable for multiple producers to compete in such arenas. Over time, however, the natural monopoly elements of a monopoly supplier have their monopoly status carved away as it becomes profitable for multiple suppliers to compete. We've seen this played out in the electricity market with the advent of competition in the production segment of the energy industry.

Electricity is produced and delivered to users via three main processes: generation/production, transmission and distribution. Over the past 30 years or so, it's become cost effective for multiple producers to generate electricity, but it's not for multiple providers to deploy transmission and distribution equipment. And frankly, consumers won't want them to...nobody wants three electric utility poles on the corner, yet that's exactly what would have to be there if three companies distributed electricity. Now that electricity generation is efficient to produce by multiple providers, you and I can choose from whom we buy our electricity, but we can't choose who delivers it to us.

The companies I suspect you have in mind are large monopolistic competitors. They are not at all the same as monopolists. They are just big companies that are able to use one or more marketing principles, in concert with economic realities/principles such as barriers to entry, elasticity, substitutes, and others, to obtain and sustain market dominance. Make no mistake, however. Being big doesn't mean one can or will maintain dominance in the market of a given class of goods. The story of Microsoft and its Windows OS obtaining superiority over IBM's OS/2 is a fine example of that. It was by no means easy for Microsoft to achieve that, particularly seeing as OS/2 was widely viewed as being objectively better, but they did it and now are a larger and more profitable company than IBM. Moreover, IBM's loss in the desktop PC operating system market was so great that it exited that market.

Apparently you are one of those who cannot see the forest because of all the trees! If you back off and consider the main events happening everyday, you begin to see the big picture. I am a big picture guy. Pay special attention to whistleblowers. Some economists agree with me. One of my heroes is RichardDWolff.

I appreciate your effort in putting your response together, but my big picture view remains the same. I won't try to reply to all that you stated, but will make a few additional comments.

Monopolistic competitors you mentioned maintain dominance not by marketing principles, but more by lack of principles. New Deal anti-trust regulations helped to keep them in line for a while. But their political power caused the enforcement to stop. Senator Warren has been trying to reinstate some of these controls.

Microsoft in particular has killed or bought out many good technology companies. I watched it happen over the years - I worked in the computer field. One company (I forget the name) created an operating system much faster and efficient for PCs than Microsoft had. PC manufacturers were getting ready to start selling PCs with the new OS when Microsoft reminded them they signed an exclusive contract to use Microsoft's OS. A suit was settled out of court to the best of my memory. Before Republicans took control of government, the government was in motion to stop Microsoft's anti-trust actions. Today the Linux OS is replacing many Windows systems, even on mainframes.

Another point, many of those mega-corporations are in multiple industries, so if one division fails, the others keep the corporation in the black. And their unscrupulous methods continue.

 

[Militants]

Big city from country which ?

 

[Holos]

Once monopolies and markets are artificially tampered with, we're no longer in the realm of capitalism, simply because you generally need the help of politicians to do that. Can monopolies form without the help of government, sure, but not often. And when they do form, they do need to be broken up.

Monopolies form like sticky bubbles. Corporations are always looking to merge to gain power. We have seen many mega-mergers the last half century. Without government to stop them, there will soon be one bubble.

??? What does that have to do with sakinago's central point that any extent of "tampering" necessarily moves one from capitalism to something else? I'm sorry, but I'm trying to follow the conversation and I don't see what your remark has to do with her/his point.

Re: sakinago's point, I disagree. An economy functions under capitalism so long as the laws of supply and demand determine what goods and services are produced and made available for sale. A lot of tampering can happen before those two forces cease to drive productive and consumptive behavior.

I am not sure what sakinago means by "the realm of capitalism". As far as I am concerned, the existence of monopolies or near monopolies has already killed any advantage of capitalism. Government does not create monopolies; it simply allows it happen. Of course, the government can create its own monopoly for anything. Maybe that is what he meant.

The laws of supply and demand only make sense if the products needed by society are produced. People generate actual demand. When products are made that are not necessarily needed, and demand is artificially created by advertising, our natural resources are wasted unnecessarily and other needs are NOT met.

I understand your confusion about sakinago's remark. I won't remake sakinago's framing to ensure you about Capitalism, but I will offer my perspective about the discussion taking place because I disagree with the final conclusion of resource wastage under the obviously misunderstood procedure of social laws and market forces reduced to partial supply and unregulated demand in consideration of the primary comprehension for both production and consumption of governments and peoples.

Production is indeed necessary for any kind of consumption. With that I cannot disagree because I am both producer and consumer.

As soon as you point to the economy as being exemplified by the fact that products have indeed been made without any necessity and moreover, rather implicitly or explicitly, that their unnecessary transactions would have to be proceeded through psychological cohercion (what you called artificial advertising), you personally become indebted to market forces to reinstate the necessary supply you have neglected for putting the identified unnecessary production as more greatly remunerating and even as more important to pay attention to, when attention is more greatly valuable in Capitalism than any form of remuneration.

When supply has already exceeded demand but the basic demand has not been met and even deprived of, we are obliged to acknowledge and face a serious factual contemporary problem reaching transnational transactions. These transnational transactions are what the realm of Capitalism is, like any other economic or political measure that would already be so advanced to reach such Statal proportions, Capitalism has been made to ensure regulation for greater accuracy within synchronistic circulation of distribution schedules and consumer-producer stability.

Because the economy has already been established since long and many regulating structures chronologically implemented for general civil improvement, and Capitalism being as it is the "cap limit" for global market expansionism, the excess of supply, in fact so excessive to already provide for all consumers and still remain as excess, the producers have no other option but to continue its appropriate distribution and also to redistribute what cannot righteously be consumed because of the previous importive and exportive pursuit strung by remuneration focused labor.

The currently functioning distribution and redistribution proceeding with the already projected post capitalistic economy takes form now as what is known as sustainability. Sustainability is the recycling and composting of inorganic and organic economic products by and through different industries to become better designed and more greatly efficient products for the already mentioned mending of transgressed market and social regulations.

 

[Militants]

New York or Mexico City ?

 

[320 Years of History]

One of my heroes is RichardDWolff.

There are several videos on that webpage. Which of them is most germane to the topic at hand? I don't have the time to watch all of them. I can find the time to read them if there is a text version, but absent that, I will read the one that best pertains to what we are discussing here.

I am familiar with Dr. Wolff. Indeed, I've read parts of his book Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian. It was one of the texts included in my son's AP economics class. (I wish his book had existed when I was in school...it'd have been a great time and effort saver for writing two of my papers and my minor thesis so much easier. LOL)

I believe some years back he was named one of the top Marxist economists in the U.S. That's a pretty cool accolade to receive; however, it also is one that indicates he prefers, in the "big picture sense," a command economy to one driven by supply and demand. I can understand the benefits of command economies, particularly if they are managed by disinterested and benevolent "controllers." I certainly am not committed to capitalism's key reality that some competitors will experience greater success than others, thereby having and having access to more of the overall society's resources.

The downside of a command economy isn't found in what it offers, but rather it bringing it to fruition and maintaining it. Looking pragmatically at the "big picture" of implementing a command economy, one must consider what is among the biggest picture elements of all: human nature. To have a thriving and successful command economy that works both effectively and efficiently, the people making the decisions about what gets produced and made available for sale have to unwaveringly make their choices without regard to their own gain, or that of those close to them, focusing entirely and always on what's best for everyone.

While there may be individuals who are both highly knowledgeable re: economics and can thus make excellent choices about what the society needs, produces, imports, exports, etc., I find it highly unlikely that there exists anyone who sooner or later will not take unfair advantage of their position(s) as the "economy controllers" to enrich (monetarily or otherwise) themselves incrementally more than the millions on whose behalf they are expected to make macroeconomic and microeconomic choices.

y you are one of those who cannot see the forest because of all the trees! If you back off and consider the main events happening everyday, you begin to see the big picture. I am a big picture guy. Pay special attention to whistleblowers. Some economists agree with me.

I appreciate your effort in putting your response together, but my big picture view remains the same. I won't try to reply to all that you stated, but will make a few additional comments.

In your post, you specifically posit that I do not see the big picture. I assure you. You are wrong. I specifically mentioned China’s and drew examples from it because it is a society that macroeconomically is a command economy and that in selected locales allows capitalism to reign in the microeconomic sphere.

In your post you also attest to being a “big picture guy.” Well, I doubt that you are, though I believe you want to be, because as one, you’d have realized I have no expectation of you addressing a good deal of what I wrote because they were specific events and observations that served as examples that served as support for and illustrations of the key points I was making, and there weren’t that many key points in the post. In fact, there really was just one, supported by multiple things, and that one is:

• You don't know what you are talking about, or if you do, it's not evident from what you wrote in that post. The evidence that led me to make that point is:
  • You lack an accurate understanding of what free trade is and is not. This is seen by contrasting the definition of that term with your presentation of what the term means which mentions nothing about the presence or absence of restrictions on or constrictors of the exercise of trade such that it is either free or not free.
  • You describe elements of competition as being what free trade is or entails, failing to recognize that those aspects of competition exist when there is and is not free trade.
  • You inaccurately paraphrased the theory of rational choice -- something that is so central to economics that nobody who knows economics misstates it, even if they do attempt to recharacterize or refute it -- and cited it as part of what is free trade, which is a means by which one or groups exercise rational choice. Rational choice theory is even a key foundation in Marxist economic theory Your "hero," Dr. Wolff even wrote of it, referring to it as "rational choice Marxism." (see additional references to the idea of rational choice as it applies to Marxist economics just below)
    • Elster, J. 1983. Sour Grapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Elster, J. Ed. 1986. Rational Choice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    • Roemer, J. 1988. Free To Lose. London: Radius.
      
    • Wright, E. O. 1985. Classes. London: Verso.
      
    • Wright, E. O. 1989. "Rethinking The Concept of Class Structure". In The Debate on Classes.
  • You ascribe to capitalism, competition and free trade the diminution of quality in goods (services) produced, yet boosts in quality and the availability of exceptionally high quality, exceptionally innovative approaches, ideas and products are among very things that unbridled competition and capitalism are best at yielding. Among the things command economies have to attempt to overcome is allowing the good to become the enemy of the best. That simply isn't a problem in capitalism because ultimately, what's best is determined by the laws of supply and demand.

Elasticity and substitution were the two things I specifically discussed and that, along with rational choice, is what I would have expected you to respond to because those are the key dimensions that pertain to the points you seemed to be trying to make, particularly now given your presumed preference (as implied by whom your hero is) for greater degrees of control over macro and micro economic choice. I'm aware of what the command economist's responses are to that, but I'm certainly not going to make your points for you, or give you hints of what they are, especially when I don't agree with them.

I also would have expected you to raise in response to my comments the one thing I did not and that is central to what's wrong with large capitalist economies like that of the U.S., but you didn't even begin to mention it...didn't in spite of the fact that it's one of the "big picture" elements of rational choice theory. And no, I'm not going to tell you what it is because you're the "big picture guy," so you should have keyed on it immediately, for it's the one angle from which you could have approached the thesis that runs through the non castigatory elements of your reply to me, and for which there is no good and widely agreed upon (by economists) response, though there are mediocre responses to it and I have my own innovative (that because I have yet to see someone else present it) response to it and if raise the point, I'll share it.