Unfettered Capitalism

[bripat9643]

They aren't living under capitalism. They are living under crony capitalism.

When and where has there ever been a difference between "capitalism" and "crony-capitalism"?

In this country until about 1916.

 

[georgephillip]

In the 1800's, Lysander Spooner started the American Letter Mail Company, which competed directly with the U.S. Postal Service and forced them to lower their prices on several occasions while still not being cheaper or more effective than Spooner's private company

Spooner forced the USPS to reduce rates, but I wonder how his profit margin would have fared if government had required him to pre-pay pensions for all his employees 75 years into the future?

How Congress Manufactured a Postal Crisis — And How to Fix it

 

[georgephillip]

No, I'm admitting the law does. For instance, unions interfere with the distribution of income.

Corporations and unions both depend on "politically constructed laws" for their existence, so why do you find the former more acceptable than the latter?

 

[georgephillip]

So where is the circular logic used to support the theory of marginal utility?

I never claimed there was any circular reasoning used to support marginal utility.

 

[georgephillip]

In other words, "large scale agriculture" is the kind that requires government. Circular logic.

Can you provide any historical examples of large scale agriculture that did not require government?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Die because of capitalism? Tell me more!!

"A December 2017 statement from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights notes that, while the US manages to spend 'more [money] on national defence than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined', US infant mortality rates were, as of 2013, 'the highest in the developed world'"

How capitalism is killing us

US infant mortality rates were, as of 2013, 'the highest in the developed world'"

The fact that we use different definitions is your proof that capitalism is killing us? DURR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd choose not stealing the products I use.

Without theft you would be homeless

Without theft you would be homeless

You're lying.

Under capitalism, I have the freedom not to work for that guy.
Unlike under your preferred communism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For ****'s sake, NO! I don't want Donald Trump assuming the role of my "provider".

Which institution do you trust to solve the "free rider" problem and other forms of market failure?
View attachment 385146
What is a Market Failure

"How to Solve Externalities
•It is desirable to have the true, proper allocation that is truly efficient.
•Market naturally does not recognize the discrepancies , therefore an authoritative power can best push the market to the true costs and benefits to closer obtain efficient levels

"Information Asymmetry
•Where one party has more information than the other in a transaction
•Leads to market failure
•Inefficient outcome derives from not having the proper information to make decisions upon
•Demand/Supply functions not properly reflected

"Examples of free market Asymmetric Information
•Car Dealers
•Insurance companies
•Stockbrokers
•Replica or rip-offs of real product
•George Akerlof showed that average value of commodities goes down even for quality goods due to information asymmetry

"Solutions to Asymmetric Information
•Companies have incentive to hide information
–Higher profits at consumer’s expense
•Government mandates full disclosure of relevant information
•Successful examples: FDA, SEC"

"Market failure" is a con conceived by politicians so they can justify using tax dollars to put their constituents on the payroll.

Yeah, the FDA saved consumers all kinds of money. That's why each new drug costs $1 billion.

That's why each new drug costs $1 billion.

The good old days.....it's more now.

A Tough Road: Cost To Develop One New Drug Is $2.6 Billion; Approval Rate for Drugs Entering Clinical Development is Less Than 12%

CEA | Update Your Profile

www.policymed.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the 1800's, Lysander Spooner started the American Letter Mail Company, which competed directly with the U.S. Postal Service and forced them to lower their prices on several occasions while still not being cheaper or more effective than Spooner's private company

Spooner forced the USPS to reduce rates, but I wonder how his profit margin would have fared if government had required him to pre-pay pensions for all his employees 75 years into the future?

How Congress Manufactured a Postal Crisis — And How to Fix it

but I wonder how his profit margin would have fared if government had required him to pre-pay pensions for all his employees 75 years into the future?

How many years should they have to pre-pay? Link?

Sounds awful!! Mean Republicans.
What was the final vote on this mean Republican bill?

Bullshit.
Pension law or not, they're losing big bucks.

 

[dblack]

Socialism combines economic power with state power. It means your boss can have you arrested if you piss him off, rather than just fired. He can also have you evicted. And you can't just go get another job, or find another place to live, because there's only one boss, only one landlord.

You seem to be conflating socialism with fascism

They conflate themselves.

Memes and pretty pictures!

 

[dblack]

For ****'s sake, NO! I don't want Donald Trump assuming the role of my "provider".

Which institution do you trust to solve the "free rider" problem and other forms of market failure?

The free rider problem is a result of bad state policy, not a market failure. To solve it, you merely revert the bad policy.

 

[georgephillip]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

Where does the marginal cost come in when you're recouping the $2 billion cost of development?

Or are you one of those morons that thinks a pill that costs 10 cents to make today should ignore the cost of development and Pharma companies should just book a loss?

 

[georgephillip]

Why would it cost any more for private companies to do it than for government to do it? Private schools are cheaper than government schools, and so is everything else the private sector produces.

Because the profit motive raises the cost of living and doing business.

Marx’s Capital: Chapters 4-8 – Surplus Value

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would it cost any more for private companies to do it than for government to do it? Private schools are cheaper than government schools, and so is everything else the private sector produces.

Because the profit motive raises the cost of living and doing business.

Marx’s Capital: Chapters 4-8 – Surplus Value

Because the profit motive raises the cost of living and doing business.

Profit is the incentive for innovation and efficiency. Both missing in government.

That's why private projects are usually done better, faster and cheaper than government projects.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

 

[georgephillip]

How is the stock market a "business bias?" In case you aren't aware of it, corporations began paying their executives when the government passed tax disincentives for paying them in salary.

The stock market prioritizes shareholder interests over employees, and that represents a business bias. Government passed those tax incentives because rich individuals bribed Democrat and Republican politicians for such actions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is the stock market a "business bias?" In case you aren't aware of it, corporations began paying their executives when the government passed tax disincentives for paying them in salary.

The stock market prioritizes shareholder interests over employees, and that represents a business bias. Government passed those tax incentives because rich individuals bribed Democrat and Republican politicians for such actions.

The stock market prioritizes shareholder interests over employees, and that represents a business bias.

Owners get to decide, failures don't.

Government passed those tax incentives because rich individuals bribed Democrat and Republican politicians for such actions.

They bribed Clinton to make executive salary over $1 million non-deductible? Hilarious!!!

 

[bripat9643]

Why would it cost any more for private companies to do it than for government to do it? Private schools are cheaper than government schools, and so is everything else the private sector produces.

Because the profit motive raises the cost of living and doing business.

Marx’s Capital: Chapters 4-8 – Surplus Value

Except that whenever it's eliminated costs increase by hundreds of percent. Have you noticed any government projects coming in under budget? How much do we spend on schooling, $25,000/child? When they wanted to get a bill passed to build a new airport in Denver, they said it would cost $1.5 billion. It ended up costing over $5 billion.

Yeah, getting rid of the profit motive sure is a great way to lower prices, isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

How is the stock market a "business bias?" In case you aren't aware of it, corporations began paying their executives when the government passed tax disincentives for paying them in salary.

The stock market prioritizes shareholder interests over employees, and that represents a business bias. Government passed those tax incentives because rich individuals bribed Democrat and Republican politicians for such actions.

That's like saying if you hire someone to mow your lawn that he should get a share of the equity when you sell your house.

You have to be a ******* idiot to believe workers have any claim on a business.