Why Socialism will never work...

[Slade3200]

You may attribute all issues to over-regulation but I just don't agree.

Well you don't agree because you keep being told by the socialists that we need more government solutions to fix the problems and that is what you've come to accept as the truth. As I have demonstrated, there is nothing corrupt or unfair about pure free market capitalism. The corruption happens when government interferes and removes free market mechanics. You are trying to fix the problems of too much government interference with more government interference and what happens is, the problem is never fixed... it continues to get worse with each passing "fix" you implement.

We have to start returning to free market, private sector solutions for our problems rather than assuming government can fix everything. The more government does to fix things the more freedom we lose and the more fucked up things get.

It sounds to me like you've been reading some Ayn Rand, great author and provoker of thought but not without flaw... Just like capitalism. Another great thinker of our time, Al Einstein had some opinions on the matter:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights....

...Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. ~Einstein, Monthly Review Article May 1949

I don't agree with everything that Al mentions as I believe he is focusing a little too much on the dark side, however he does bring up some valid points. Nothing is without flaw. Flaws lead to abuse and corruptions which ultimately lead to issues that need to be dealt with. It is the nature of life, business, and our government. We need to consider what we've learned from history and implement the systems with their flaws being considered, focusing on the useful elements and protecting against the problems. Pure capitalism doesn't always benefit the all the people, only those who play its game, Survival of the fittest as I mentioned before. This inherently is its flaw.

Okay, so now... you avoid the topic of free market capitalism and the point that in it's purest form it isn't corrupt or unfair... and you start criticizing Ayn Rand and promoting Albert Einstein as an economic philosopher. I'm not going to apologize for sounding like Ayn Rand and Albert Einstein is a noted physicist who didn't even get physics right sometimes. Having been raised in a Nationalist Socialist system, he is hardly an expert on free market capitalism. Much of what he is ranting about in the article you posted is what I am calling "corporatism" or socialist-capitalism. We went through this, it's nothing at all like free market capitalism.

The only "flaw" with free market capitalism, if you can call it a flaw, is that it can't be tinkered with to be improved by government.

I'm not avoiding anything, nor did I dis Ayn Rand, I believe I complimented her. I'm not talking about some pure theory, I"m talking about real world application. Flaws exist outside of government influence... It's part of nature. You can denying it and preaching about the utopian capitalistic model that no country will ever achieve because it is unrealistic, or you can deal with real world applications. Al wasn't a politician but he has show a tremendous ability to understand how things work. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss.

 

[Boss]

You may attribute all issues to over-regulation but I just don't agree.

Well you don't agree because you keep being told by the socialists that we need more government solutions to fix the problems and that is what you've come to accept as the truth. As I have demonstrated, there is nothing corrupt or unfair about pure free market capitalism. The corruption happens when government interferes and removes free market mechanics. You are trying to fix the problems of too much government interference with more government interference and what happens is, the problem is never fixed... it continues to get worse with each passing "fix" you implement.

We have to start returning to free market, private sector solutions for our problems rather than assuming government can fix everything. The more government does to fix things the more freedom we lose and the more fucked up things get.

It sounds to me like you've been reading some Ayn Rand, great author and provoker of thought but not without flaw... Just like capitalism. Another great thinker of our time, Al Einstein had some opinions on the matter:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights....

...Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. ~Einstein, Monthly Review Article May 1949

I don't agree with everything that Al mentions as I believe he is focusing a little too much on the dark side, however he does bring up some valid points. Nothing is without flaw. Flaws lead to abuse and corruptions which ultimately lead to issues that need to be dealt with. It is the nature of life, business, and our government. We need to consider what we've learned from history and implement the systems with their flaws being considered, focusing on the useful elements and protecting against the problems. Pure capitalism doesn't always benefit the all the people, only those who play its game, Survival of the fittest as I mentioned before. This inherently is its flaw.

Okay, so now... you avoid the topic of free market capitalism and the point that in it's purest form it isn't corrupt or unfair... and you start criticizing Ayn Rand and promoting Albert Einstein as an economic philosopher. I'm not going to apologize for sounding like Ayn Rand and Albert Einstein is a noted physicist who didn't even get physics right sometimes. Having been raised in a Nationalist Socialist system, he is hardly an expert on free market capitalism. Much of what he is ranting about in the article you posted is what I am calling "corporatism" or socialist-capitalism. We went through this, it's nothing at all like free market capitalism.

The only "flaw" with free market capitalism, if you can call it a flaw, is that it can't be tinkered with to be improved by government.

I'm not avoiding anything, nor did I dis Ayn Rand, I believe I complimented her. I'm not talking about some pure theory, I"m talking about real world application. Flaws exist outside of government influence... It's part of nature. You can denying it and preaching about the utopian capitalistic model that no country will ever achieve because it is unrealistic, or you can deal with real world applications. Al wasn't a politician but he has show a tremendous ability to understand how things work. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss.

We've been over what free market capitalism is. The mutual and voluntary transaction between parties for goods and services driven by supply and demand in a competitive field where the rules are the same for all. It's not a theory, we see people practicing this every single day and it's what made our nation great. You keep repeating that it has flaws and is sometimes corrupt and unfair but you're not presenting any examples which don't involve outside influence or interference with free market mechanisms. Is free market capitalism "perfect" in the sense that nothing but God is perfect? Maybe not, but it's the best system ever devised by man.

And with Einstein... let's be clear... Capitalism is NOT "Free Market Capitalism." Capitalism comes in all flavors. Socialist-capitalism, Marxism, Fascism... all employ Capitalism. The only GREAT form of Capitalism has proven to be Free Market variety. What Einstein is talking about is the Capitalist environment he grew up in... which is the kind of Capitalism favored by Hillary, Bernie, Obama, etc. So we are seeming to be talking about two different things as if they are the same thing.

But really... Einstein on economics... It may be of some value as a trick question in a trivia contest about famous quotes from famous people... other than that, it has little relevance in economics... and by the way... it's not about being a politician either.

Free Market... The mutual and voluntary exchange between parties for goods and services based on laws of supply and demand in a competitive free enterprise system with Constitutional freedom and laws to ensure everyone plays by the same rules. What is corrupt about that? What is unfair? We can't just say it's flawed because nothing is perfect... that's sort of an infantile approach. We need to objectively validate that charge if we are to accept it.

You will find that every example you can cite will be examples where free market forces were hindered in some way. When Free Market is allowed to work, it works brilliantly. No Flaws!

 

[Slade3200]

You may attribute all issues to over-regulation but I just don't agree.

Well you don't agree because you keep being told by the socialists that we need more government solutions to fix the problems and that is what you've come to accept as the truth. As I have demonstrated, there is nothing corrupt or unfair about pure free market capitalism. The corruption happens when government interferes and removes free market mechanics. You are trying to fix the problems of too much government interference with more government interference and what happens is, the problem is never fixed... it continues to get worse with each passing "fix" you implement.

We have to start returning to free market, private sector solutions for our problems rather than assuming government can fix everything. The more government does to fix things the more freedom we lose and the more fucked up things get.

It sounds to me like you've been reading some Ayn Rand, great author and provoker of thought but not without flaw... Just like capitalism. Another great thinker of our time, Al Einstein had some opinions on the matter:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights....

...Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. ~Einstein, Monthly Review Article May 1949

I don't agree with everything that Al mentions as I believe he is focusing a little too much on the dark side, however he does bring up some valid points. Nothing is without flaw. Flaws lead to abuse and corruptions which ultimately lead to issues that need to be dealt with. It is the nature of life, business, and our government. We need to consider what we've learned from history and implement the systems with their flaws being considered, focusing on the useful elements and protecting against the problems. Pure capitalism doesn't always benefit the all the people, only those who play its game, Survival of the fittest as I mentioned before. This inherently is its flaw.

Okay, so now... you avoid the topic of free market capitalism and the point that in it's purest form it isn't corrupt or unfair... and you start criticizing Ayn Rand and promoting Albert Einstein as an economic philosopher. I'm not going to apologize for sounding like Ayn Rand and Albert Einstein is a noted physicist who didn't even get physics right sometimes. Having been raised in a Nationalist Socialist system, he is hardly an expert on free market capitalism. Much of what he is ranting about in the article you posted is what I am calling "corporatism" or socialist-capitalism. We went through this, it's nothing at all like free market capitalism.

The only "flaw" with free market capitalism, if you can call it a flaw, is that it can't be tinkered with to be improved by government.

I'm not avoiding anything, nor did I dis Ayn Rand, I believe I complimented her. I'm not talking about some pure theory, I"m talking about real world application. Flaws exist outside of government influence... It's part of nature. You can denying it and preaching about the utopian capitalistic model that no country will ever achieve because it is unrealistic, or you can deal with real world applications. Al wasn't a politician but he has show a tremendous ability to understand how things work. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss.

We've been over what free market capitalism is. The mutual and voluntary transaction between parties for goods and services driven by supply and demand in a competitive field where the rules are the same for all. It's not a theory, we see people practicing this every single day and it's what made our nation great. You keep repeating that it has flaws and is sometimes corrupt and unfair but you're not presenting any examples which don't involve outside influence or interference with free market mechanisms. Is free market capitalism "perfect" in the sense that nothing but God is perfect? Maybe not, but it's the best system ever devised by man.

And with Einstein... let's be clear... Capitalism is NOT "Free Market Capitalism." Capitalism comes in all flavors. Socialist-capitalism, Marxism, Fascism... all employ Capitalism. The only GREAT form of Capitalism has proven to be Free Market variety. What Einstein is talking about is the Capitalist environment he grew up in... which is the kind of Capitalism favored by Hillary, Bernie, Obama, etc. So we are seeming to be talking about two different things as if they are the same thing.

But really... Einstein on economics... It may be of some value as a trick question in a trivia contest about famous quotes from famous people... other than that, it has little relevance in economics... and by the way... it's not about being a politician either.

Free Market... The mutual and voluntary exchange between parties for goods and services based on laws of supply and demand in a competitive free enterprise system with Constitutional freedom and laws to ensure everyone plays by the same rules. What is corrupt about that? What is unfair? We can't just say it's flawed because nothing is perfect... that's sort of an infantile approach. We need to objectively validate that charge if we are to accept it.

You will find that every example you can cite will be examples where free market forces were hindered in some way. When Free Market is allowed to work, it works brilliantly. No Flaws!

I've given many examples... Walmart and big box retailers that force multiple local "mom and pop" shops out of business because they can not compete with price. This is a problem for local communities and is not because of political influence. Overseas company's, swallowing American company's, jobs, and products... Same concept as the Walmart example. My point about Survival of the fittest which you still don't seem to understand... In a free-market unrestricted capitalist system, the big and successful companies snow ball and eventually gobble up the small fish to the detriment of the small business owner who is trying to compete.

Now let me ask you... What is an example of a pure capitalist system that is working or has worked in our world history?

 

[Boss]

I've given many examples... Walmart and big box retailers that force multiple local "mom and pop" shops out of business because they can not compete with price. This is a problem for local communities and is not because of political influence. Overseas company's, swallowing American company's, jobs, and products... Same concept as the Walmart example. My point about Survival of the fittest which you still don't seem to understand... In a free-market unrestricted capitalist system, the big and successful companies snow ball and eventually gobble up the small fish to the detriment of the small business owner who is trying to compete.

Now let me ask you... What is an example of a pure capitalist system that is working or has worked in our world history?

So far, Walmart is the first actual example you've given that is actual free markets supposedly creating a problem of unfairness. But you see, there is no unfairness with regard to free markets.... you are free to go do business with the mom and pop instead of Walmart. You might think you get a better value with the m&p... better quality or customer service... or maybe you just like the nostalgia of having the quaint m&p around? I seldom go to Walmart... I do 95% of my trade with small businesses. If everyone did that, there wouldn't be a Walmart.

But let's stay focused on "real world reality" here... What enables Walmart to beat the m&p on prices? [Remember... if Walmart and the M&P aren't competing on the same playing field, we do not have actual "Free Market" capitalism.] Walmart is a huge corporation who is able to purchase their inventory from China and other countries much lower than the M&P who are generally restricted in who they can order from and the amount. Much of their buying ability is the result of politicians passing laws and carving out exceptions for big corporations who contribute to their campaigns. Again, we've interfered with Free Market mechanics here.

It might be a surprise to learn that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, there weren't many Mom & Pops handling general merchandise in any given town. Most towns of significance had a General Store and that was really the only option. Even the General Store didn't carry everything... some things it had to custom order... From the Sears and Roebuck catalog. Sears became America's leading retailer through most of the 20th century. By the 1950s, you could buy everything from Sears including your car and home.

However... Consumers evolved who were not inspired by quantity of items as much as they desired immediately available common items. Another free market capitalists decided to do something about this and S.S. Kresge founded a small business that became known as Kmart. In the 1980s, consumers again evolved and began to desire more friendly customer service and better selections at lower prices.... Sam Walton capitalized.

Currently, we have Millennials who will once again "evolve" the consumer demand. If we allow Free Market to work, we may very well see the Walmart's disappear and smaller local (organic) shops begin to emerge as the desirable alternative. One of the fastest-growing retailers currently is Dollar General. Smaller stores with limited staff but conveniently located and with a wide variety of items available at low price.

So... The "downside" you've found in free market capitalism is the competition element. Whenever you have competition, it means someone will prevail and someone will lose. It's not unfair to have people lose. It is Capitalism where the capitalist cannot lose that results in corruption and abuse. You see... because everyone wants a piece of that action... if you can't lose, why wouldn't you? But there is only a limited amount of people who can be capitalists so the ones who quickly fill these coveted spots on the "can't lose" capitalist train are usually the most unethical. And those who determine who fills those spots are also unethical people.

Free Market capitalism relies on competition... and yes, that means there will be losers. As consumer trends change and evolve, capitalists are constantly having to stay a step ahead. To tap into what the consumer wants. I personally know dozens of young small business owners. The trend for the younger generation is to purchase locally... organic produce... handcrafted items... everything that ISN'T Walmart. The old Mom & Pop isn't dead it's just having to reinvent itself.

Now... Losing isn't so bad. Many will tell you that it builds character. Back at the turn of the 20th century, the people who made stagecoach buggies were faced with a changing future. The automobile had arrived and they were quickly becoming obsolete. Many coach builders simply went under along with the buggy whip makers and other related industries like blacksmiths and liveries. But SOME coach builders transitioned to building coaches for autos... Fisher Body Works is probably the most famous example.

The point is, when FREE MARKET is allowed to work and function, it does so brilliantly. There are no "flaws" other than superficial ones that are generally based on some naive notion of "fairness and participation trophies for all" or through the Corporatist Crony Capitalist aspects of outside influence.

 

[Slade3200]

I've given many examples... Walmart and big box retailers that force multiple local "mom and pop" shops out of business because they can not compete with price. This is a problem for local communities and is not because of political influence. Overseas company's, swallowing American company's, jobs, and products... Same concept as the Walmart example. My point about Survival of the fittest which you still don't seem to understand... In a free-market unrestricted capitalist system, the big and successful companies snow ball and eventually gobble up the small fish to the detriment of the small business owner who is trying to compete.

Now let me ask you... What is an example of a pure capitalist system that is working or has worked in our world history?

So far, Walmart is the first actual example you've given that is actual free markets supposedly creating a problem of unfairness. But you see, there is no unfairness with regard to free markets.... you are free to go do business with the mom and pop instead of Walmart. You might think you get a better value with the m&p... better quality or customer service... or maybe you just like the nostalgia of having the quaint m&p around? I seldom go to Walmart... I do 95% of my trade with small businesses. If everyone did that, there wouldn't be a Walmart.

But let's stay focused on "real world reality" here... What enables Walmart to beat the m&p on prices? [Remember... if Walmart and the M&P aren't competing on the same playing field, we do not have actual "Free Market" capitalism.] Walmart is a huge corporation who is able to purchase their inventory from China and other countries much lower than the M&P who are generally restricted in who they can order from and the amount. Much of their buying ability is the result of politicians passing laws and carving out exceptions for big corporations who contribute to their campaigns. Again, we've interfered with Free Market mechanics here.

It might be a surprise to learn that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, there weren't many Mom & Pops handling general merchandise in any given town. Most towns of significance had a General Store and that was really the only option. Even the General Store didn't carry everything... some things it had to custom order... From the Sears and Roebuck catalog. Sears became America's leading retailer through most of the 20th century. By the 1950s, you could buy everything from Sears including your car and home.

However... Consumers evolved who were not inspired by quantity of items as much as they desired immediately available common items. Another free market capitalists decided to do something about this and S.S. Kresge founded a small business that became known as Kmart. In the 1980s, consumers again evolved and began to desire more friendly customer service and better selections at lower prices.... Sam Walton capitalized.

Currently, we have Millennials who will once again "evolve" the consumer demand. If we allow Free Market to work, we may very well see the Walmart's disappear and smaller local (organic) shops begin to emerge as the desirable alternative. One of the fastest-growing retailers currently is Dollar General. Smaller stores with limited staff but conveniently located and with a wide variety of items available at low price.

So... The "downside" you've found in free market capitalism is the competition element. Whenever you have competition, it means someone will prevail and someone will lose. It's not unfair to have people lose. It is Capitalism where the capitalist cannot lose that results in corruption and abuse. You see... because everyone wants a piece of that action... if you can't lose, why wouldn't you? But there is only a limited amount of people who can be capitalists so the ones who quickly fill these coveted spots on the "can't lose" capitalist train are usually the most unethical. And those who determine who fills those spots are also unethical people.

Free Market capitalism relies on competition... and yes, that means there will be losers. As consumer trends change and evolve, capitalists are constantly having to stay a step ahead. To tap into what the consumer wants. I personally know dozens of young small business owners. The trend for the younger generation is to purchase locally... organic produce... handcrafted items... everything that ISN'T Walmart. The old Mom & Pop isn't dead it's just having to reinvent itself.

Now... Losing isn't so bad. Many will tell you that it builds character. Back at the turn of the 20th century, the people who made stagecoach buggies were faced with a changing future. The automobile had arrived and they were quickly becoming obsolete. Many coach builders simply went under along with the buggy whip makers and other related industries like blacksmiths and liveries. But SOME coach builders transitioned to building coaches for autos... Fisher Body Works is probably the most famous example.

The point is, when FREE MARKET is allowed to work and function, it does so brilliantly. There are no "flaws" other than superficial ones that are generally based on some naive notion of "fairness and participation trophies for all" or through the Corporatist Crony Capitalist aspects of outside influence.

Your arguments are much more applicable in a small town/early nation setting. I believe our economy acted in much more of a free market capitalism principle during it's founding. Problems do arise when government steps in and messes with the free market, however there are inherence flaws with the model in our modern society with a national or world economy.

The Walmart effect or Corporate dominance has lasting effects that change the free market into a controlled market. This is sometimes done by the help of government influence but corporate power is the main cause. You mentioned that Walmart has its purchasing power because of restrictions that M&P shops have in their ability to purchase. This is not accurate. Walmart has their purchasing power because they have more money and distribution, and they order in bulk. Bulk pricing is always going to come at a discount so those with more money will get their goods for cheaper, enabling them to sell items for cheaper... All good for the consumer, however, this taken to an extreme will close the doors to other small businesses. This is the power that gets abused and corrupted as the big players can snowball and take over a market. You end up with a handful of companies that own everything.

I am a serial entrepreneur and my exit strategy for most of my businesses is now acquisition. This is the trend in our modern times. Unless you are good enough to invent a Facebook or Twitter, or Uber or a truly original billion dollar idea you are eventually going to either squeak by or get bought and owned by your competition.

The community effects are another factor. In the old days, quality was key. Now a days, marketing and advertising is key. There is so much crap out there that can't stay on the shelves because big companies invest millions of dollars on advertising and then offer the lowest price point. There are way better products out there that just never get seen.

I understand your theory about the Free Market and understand the virtues of competition in a free market. We have elements of that in our own economy that are prevailing, like the Facebooks, Ubers, Air bnb's, opportunity still exists and innovation is still being pushed. These elements should definitely be supported. But you can't deny the negative effects that are a result of the system as well... Huge company's acquiring or pricing out their competition, which leads to lower profit margins, lower wages, less money being spent on quality and employees and more being spent on advertising. It is not a perfect system although it is, in my opinion the best out there when used in conjunction with smart and effective social measures implemented by a government. I know you don't agree and you've stated why. I guess we can just agree to disagree with this one... I do appreciate the argument though.

 

[Boss]

I've given many examples... Walmart and big box retailers that force multiple local "mom and pop" shops out of business because they can not compete with price. This is a problem for local communities and is not because of political influence. Overseas company's, swallowing American company's, jobs, and products... Same concept as the Walmart example. My point about Survival of the fittest which you still don't seem to understand... In a free-market unrestricted capitalist system, the big and successful companies snow ball and eventually gobble up the small fish to the detriment of the small business owner who is trying to compete.

Now let me ask you... What is an example of a pure capitalist system that is working or has worked in our world history?

So far, Walmart is the first actual example you've given that is actual free markets supposedly creating a problem of unfairness. But you see, there is no unfairness with regard to free markets.... you are free to go do business with the mom and pop instead of Walmart. You might think you get a better value with the m&p... better quality or customer service... or maybe you just like the nostalgia of having the quaint m&p around? I seldom go to Walmart... I do 95% of my trade with small businesses. If everyone did that, there wouldn't be a Walmart.

But let's stay focused on "real world reality" here... What enables Walmart to beat the m&p on prices? [Remember... if Walmart and the M&P aren't competing on the same playing field, we do not have actual "Free Market" capitalism.] Walmart is a huge corporation who is able to purchase their inventory from China and other countries much lower than the M&P who are generally restricted in who they can order from and the amount. Much of their buying ability is the result of politicians passing laws and carving out exceptions for big corporations who contribute to their campaigns. Again, we've interfered with Free Market mechanics here.

It might be a surprise to learn that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, there weren't many Mom & Pops handling general merchandise in any given town. Most towns of significance had a General Store and that was really the only option. Even the General Store didn't carry everything... some things it had to custom order... From the Sears and Roebuck catalog. Sears became America's leading retailer through most of the 20th century. By the 1950s, you could buy everything from Sears including your car and home.

However... Consumers evolved who were not inspired by quantity of items as much as they desired immediately available common items. Another free market capitalists decided to do something about this and S.S. Kresge founded a small business that became known as Kmart. In the 1980s, consumers again evolved and began to desire more friendly customer service and better selections at lower prices.... Sam Walton capitalized.

Currently, we have Millennials who will once again "evolve" the consumer demand. If we allow Free Market to work, we may very well see the Walmart's disappear and smaller local (organic) shops begin to emerge as the desirable alternative. One of the fastest-growing retailers currently is Dollar General. Smaller stores with limited staff but conveniently located and with a wide variety of items available at low price.

So... The "downside" you've found in free market capitalism is the competition element. Whenever you have competition, it means someone will prevail and someone will lose. It's not unfair to have people lose. It is Capitalism where the capitalist cannot lose that results in corruption and abuse. You see... because everyone wants a piece of that action... if you can't lose, why wouldn't you? But there is only a limited amount of people who can be capitalists so the ones who quickly fill these coveted spots on the "can't lose" capitalist train are usually the most unethical. And those who determine who fills those spots are also unethical people.

Free Market capitalism relies on competition... and yes, that means there will be losers. As consumer trends change and evolve, capitalists are constantly having to stay a step ahead. To tap into what the consumer wants. I personally know dozens of young small business owners. The trend for the younger generation is to purchase locally... organic produce... handcrafted items... everything that ISN'T Walmart. The old Mom & Pop isn't dead it's just having to reinvent itself.

Now... Losing isn't so bad. Many will tell you that it builds character. Back at the turn of the 20th century, the people who made stagecoach buggies were faced with a changing future. The automobile had arrived and they were quickly becoming obsolete. Many coach builders simply went under along with the buggy whip makers and other related industries like blacksmiths and liveries. But SOME coach builders transitioned to building coaches for autos... Fisher Body Works is probably the most famous example.

The point is, when FREE MARKET is allowed to work and function, it does so brilliantly. There are no "flaws" other than superficial ones that are generally based on some naive notion of "fairness and participation trophies for all" or through the Corporatist Crony Capitalist aspects of outside influence.

Your arguments are much more applicable in a small town/early nation setting. I believe our economy acted in much more of a free market capitalism principle during it's founding. Problems do arise when government steps in and messes with the free market, however there are inherence flaws with the model in our modern society with a national or world economy.

The Walmart effect or Corporate dominance has lasting effects that change the free market into a controlled market. This is sometimes done by the help of government influence but corporate power is the main cause. You mentioned that Walmart has its purchasing power because of restrictions that M&P shops have in their ability to purchase. This is not accurate. Walmart has their purchasing power because they have more money and distribution, and they order in bulk. Bulk pricing is always going to come at a discount so those with more money will get their goods for cheaper, enabling them to sell items for cheaper... All good for the consumer, however, this taken to an extreme will close the doors to other small businesses. This is the power that gets abused and corrupted as the big players can snowball and take over a market. You end up with a handful of companies that own everything.

I am a serial entrepreneur and my exit strategy for most of my businesses is now acquisition. This is the trend in our modern times. Unless you are good enough to invent a Facebook or Twitter, or Uber or a truly original billion dollar idea you are eventually going to either squeak by or get bought and owned by your competition.

The community effects are another factor. In the old days, quality was key. Now a days, marketing and advertising is key. There is so much crap out there that can't stay on the shelves because big companies invest millions of dollars on advertising and then offer the lowest price point. There are way better products out there that just never get seen.

I understand your theory about the Free Market and understand the virtues of competition in a free market. We have elements of that in our own economy that are prevailing, like the Facebooks, Ubers, Air bnb's, opportunity still exists and innovation is still being pushed. These elements should definitely be supported. But you can't deny the negative effects that are a result of the system as well... Huge company's acquiring or pricing out their competition, which leads to lower profit margins, lower wages, less money being spent on quality and employees and more being spent on advertising. It is not a perfect system although it is, in my opinion the best out there when used in conjunction with smart and effective social measures implemented by a government. I know you don't agree and you've stated why. I guess we can just agree to disagree with this one... I do appreciate the argument though.

It doesn't matter about the size of the country. It still works better than any system ever devised by man and we see that result in our enormous prosperity over time. Buying in bulk is a tactic used by many free market capitalists. There are hundreds of tactics that are a part of "competition" and you can't have a free market without competition. If you eliminate Walmart's ability to buy cheap then everyone must buy expensively... what does that mean for the consumer? So what if a few companies get big and provide everything? As long as they aren't doing it corruptly or becoming a monopoly... and we have measures to prevent that... what's the problem?

It doesn't allow smaller companies to emerge but that's the thing about free markets... you're not guaranteed your business idea will succeed. In a free market, only the best idea succeeds and that results (generally) in mutual satisfaction for all. In a way (competition) it IS survival of the fittest... but that is the best way.

 

[healthmyths]

I am with you on wanting less unnecessary regulation... As little as possible. I can not ignore the disastrous effects that private corporations have and can cause when they abuse their power.

Again... Private corporations don't abuse their power because they really don't have any power. Every private corporation is dependent upon the consumer. The consumer has all the power, always. What some private corporations do is, they purchase power by making political contributions. Sometimes, a whole lot of corporations go in together and do this. They become the preferred corporations because they have purchased the influence. This is not a problem about the corporation's power... this is a problem with elected representatives selling their power. The corporation is doing what it will naturally try to do if allowed.

Let's be clear here... Many people simply don't comprehend the nuance between Corporatism and Free Market Capitalism. Corporatism is a worse enemy to Free Market Capitalism than Socialism, Maoism, Fascism, Marxism or Communism. Because it pretends to be "Free Market" when it's anything BUT. Not only does it do great damage to actual free market endeavors it also provides the liberal left with the Socialist's examples of Capitalism Gone Bad.

In a perfect world I believe many of your statements would be true, however, we don't live in that kind of world. You have obviously done your homework and have shown an intelligent understanding of different forms of governing, I am a bit surprised that you don't recognize the abuses and flaws that have come from private institutions in our "free market". Yes some of the imperfections are caused by government interference, however, many are also do to abuse and corruption from business owners. In a perfect world the purpose of government, both in their regulations and social efforts would have much different results, anything in concept would have different results, but we don't live in a perfect world and problems will always arise from corruption. That goes for both our government and in our private sector.

To assume 100% of the problems come from one side is naive. Our nation started out very much on the capitalistic side with little government intervention. As problems arose, government intervened, sometimes intervention solved problems and sometimes it created problems. This is why an objective understanding and analysis is so important and why i must argue against the one sided proclamations that you present. As I mentioned before, I agree with much of what you say and appreciate I appreciate the discussion.

I always enjoy discussing this topic with people who keep an open mind and are respectful. Thank you for your kind words. I don't recognize abuses and frauds of a free market capitalist system because there aren't many such examples. You said there are but no real examples are given and there is a reason. Whenever it's truly free market capitalism, the corruptions are mitigated through competition. There is no "perfect" system where no one ever breaks the law or does anything unethical... don't get me wrong. But in a true free market environment, the objective is to provide a satisfactory product to your customer and hope they return for more of what you're offering. Your competition is trying to offer your customer a better value.. a lower price.. some incentive to try their product instead. There is no room for greedy corrupt assholes in that scenario... they generally lose.

When free markets are allowed to function as they are intended to, they do so flawlessly. I have a store with a gallon of milk which I value less than the $4.50 in your pocket. You have $4.50 you value less than the gallon of milk in my store... so we agree to mutually trade with each other in a voluntary exchange we both consider beneficial. It is when we introduce government mandates or interference with the mechanisms of free markets, that we get failures and shortcomings. When you come in my store with a gun pointed at my head... which is essentially what backing by government power is... and tell me that you want my gallon of milk but you think you should be entitled to it for free... well, that's a different kind of system from a free market.

Government intervention into free market capitalism is always detrimental to the system. It turns parts of it into socialist-capitalist or corporatist style system... not free market. In order to have a true free market, governments should get out of the way as much as possible. Let free market capitalism work and it will work... people will be prosperous... consumers will be happy... it's mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Win-win-win!

Your scenario may be accurate when applied in a consumer based market place, however, we are talking about a Nation so there are many other elements that factor in. The greed and corruption isn't aimed at the consumers but rather the competition and has an effect on the community as a whole. For example, we were discussing a public school system vs. a private school system. I have no doubt that the free-market approach to our school system would be a disaster. In one aspect, as you mentioned, competition would help drive higher wages for some teachers and would improve the quality of education for some students, these would be the top performers. But what would happen to the poor when they now have to pay for their childs education? Their children would either not go to school or they would all go to the cheapest schools. The better teachers would go to the higher paying schools and the wealthy families would send their kids to those schools. You would end up with the rich reaping all the benefits and the poor receiving a much lower quality of education. Combine that with the distribution of wealth in this country and the fact that the poor far outnumber the rich, you end up fostering a system that keeps feeding a small part of the population and the poor majority suffer.

Similarly the same thing will and does happen with private businesses and that is why there have been actions to prevent monopolies... Once a company dominates the marketplace they can forcefully block the opportunities for the little guys to prosper. We see this with Walmart's coming in and shutting down all the mom and pop shops in our local communities that can't afford to compete. The bigger picture shows this with the competition we are getting from over seas production... American companies can't compete and we are losing jobs.

Like we discussed earlier, it is about a balance. I think we should work towards a free market capitalistic society as much as we can, but also recognize the necessity of the social programs and government regulations. Yes, they can be smarter and more efficient, many are in need of reform... However, we shouldn't be dismissing them all together.

Can you give me specific examples where a "Monopoly" exists today in the USA?
Specific companies that complete MONOPOLIZE the market.

 

[healthmyths]

I've given many examples... Walmart and big box retailers that force multiple local "mom and pop" shops out of business because they can not compete with price. This is a problem for local communities and is not because of political influence. Overseas company's, swallowing American company's, jobs, and products... Same concept as the Walmart example. My point about Survival of the fittest which you still don't seem to understand... In a free-market unrestricted capitalist system, the big and successful companies snow ball and eventually gobble up the small fish to the detriment of the small business owner who is trying to compete.

Now let me ask you... What is an example of a pure capitalist system that is working or has worked in our world history?

So far, Walmart is the first actual example you've given that is actual free markets supposedly creating a problem of unfairness. But you see, there is no unfairness with regard to free markets.... you are free to go do business with the mom and pop instead of Walmart. You might think you get a better value with the m&p... better quality or customer service... or maybe you just like the nostalgia of having the quaint m&p around? I seldom go to Walmart... I do 95% of my trade with small businesses. If everyone did that, there wouldn't be a Walmart.

But let's stay focused on "real world reality" here... What enables Walmart to beat the m&p on prices? [Remember... if Walmart and the M&P aren't competing on the same playing field, we do not have actual "Free Market" capitalism.] Walmart is a huge corporation who is able to purchase their inventory from China and other countries much lower than the M&P who are generally restricted in who they can order from and the amount. Much of their buying ability is the result of politicians passing laws and carving out exceptions for big corporations who contribute to their campaigns. Again, we've interfered with Free Market mechanics here.

It might be a surprise to learn that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, there weren't many Mom & Pops handling general merchandise in any given town. Most towns of significance had a General Store and that was really the only option. Even the General Store didn't carry everything... some things it had to custom order... From the Sears and Roebuck catalog. Sears became America's leading retailer through most of the 20th century. By the 1950s, you could buy everything from Sears including your car and home.

However... Consumers evolved who were not inspired by quantity of items as much as they desired immediately available common items. Another free market capitalists decided to do something about this and S.S. Kresge founded a small business that became known as Kmart. In the 1980s, consumers again evolved and began to desire more friendly customer service and better selections at lower prices.... Sam Walton capitalized.

Currently, we have Millennials who will once again "evolve" the consumer demand. If we allow Free Market to work, we may very well see the Walmart's disappear and smaller local (organic) shops begin to emerge as the desirable alternative. One of the fastest-growing retailers currently is Dollar General. Smaller stores with limited staff but conveniently located and with a wide variety of items available at low price.

So... The "downside" you've found in free market capitalism is the competition element. Whenever you have competition, it means someone will prevail and someone will lose. It's not unfair to have people lose. It is Capitalism where the capitalist cannot lose that results in corruption and abuse. You see... because everyone wants a piece of that action... if you can't lose, why wouldn't you? But there is only a limited amount of people who can be capitalists so the ones who quickly fill these coveted spots on the "can't lose" capitalist train are usually the most unethical. And those who determine who fills those spots are also unethical people.

Free Market capitalism relies on competition... and yes, that means there will be losers. As consumer trends change and evolve, capitalists are constantly having to stay a step ahead. To tap into what the consumer wants. I personally know dozens of young small business owners. The trend for the younger generation is to purchase locally... organic produce... handcrafted items... everything that ISN'T Walmart. The old Mom & Pop isn't dead it's just having to reinvent itself.

Now... Losing isn't so bad. Many will tell you that it builds character. Back at the turn of the 20th century, the people who made stagecoach buggies were faced with a changing future. The automobile had arrived and they were quickly becoming obsolete. Many coach builders simply went under along with the buggy whip makers and other related industries like blacksmiths and liveries. But SOME coach builders transitioned to building coaches for autos... Fisher Body Works is probably the most famous example.

The point is, when FREE MARKET is allowed to work and function, it does so brilliantly. There are no "flaws" other than superficial ones that are generally based on some naive notion of "fairness and participation trophies for all" or through the Corporatist Crony Capitalist aspects of outside influence.

Your arguments are much more applicable in a small town/early nation setting. I believe our economy acted in much more of a free market capitalism principle during it's founding. Problems do arise when government steps in and messes with the free market, however there are inherence flaws with the model in our modern society with a national or world economy.

The Walmart effect or Corporate dominance has lasting effects that change the free market into a controlled market. This is sometimes done by the help of government influence but corporate power is the main cause. You mentioned that Walmart has its purchasing power because of restrictions that M&P shops have in their ability to purchase. This is not accurate. Walmart has their purchasing power because they have more money and distribution, and they order in bulk. Bulk pricing is always going to come at a discount so those with more money will get their goods for cheaper, enabling them to sell items for cheaper... All good for the consumer, however, this taken to an extreme will close the doors to other small businesses. This is the power that gets abused and corrupted as the big players can snowball and take over a market. You end up with a handful of companies that own everything.

I am a serial entrepreneur and my exit strategy for most of my businesses is now acquisition. This is the trend in our modern times. Unless you are good enough to invent a Facebook or Twitter, or Uber or a truly original billion dollar idea you are eventually going to either squeak by or get bought and owned by your competition.

The community effects are another factor. In the old days, quality was key. Now a days, marketing and advertising is key. There is so much crap out there that can't stay on the shelves because big companies invest millions of dollars on advertising and then offer the lowest price point. There are way better products out there that just never get seen.

I understand your theory about the Free Market and understand the virtues of competition in a free market. We have elements of that in our own economy that are prevailing, like the Facebooks, Ubers, Air bnb's, opportunity still exists and innovation is still being pushed. These elements should definitely be supported. But you can't deny the negative effects that are a result of the system as well... Huge company's acquiring or pricing out their competition, which leads to lower profit margins, lower wages, less money being spent on quality and employees and more being spent on advertising. It is not a perfect system although it is, in my opinion the best out there when used in conjunction with smart and effective social measures implemented by a government. I know you don't agree and you've stated why. I guess we can just agree to disagree with this one... I do appreciate the argument though.

It doesn't matter about the size of the country. It still works better than any system ever devised by man and we see that result in our enormous prosperity over time. Buying in bulk is a tactic used by many free market capitalists. There are hundreds of tactics that are a part of "competition" and you can't have a free market without competition. If you eliminate Walmart's ability to buy cheap then everyone must buy expensively... what does that mean for the consumer? So what if a few companies get big and provide everything? As long as they aren't doing it corruptly or becoming a monopoly... and we have measures to prevent that... what's the problem?

It doesn't allow smaller companies to emerge but that's the thing about free markets... you're not guaranteed your business idea will succeed. In a free market, only the best idea succeeds and that results (generally) in mutual satisfaction for all. In a way (competition) it IS survival of the fittest... but that is the best way.

My reason for this thread is being clearly defined by you and others that understand that "competition is good"!
That was one of the reasons we are the "United States" because EACH state is as has been referred to as a "laboratory" that can if a valid premise
be used by all states...again though if a valid premise.
A good example is Massachusetts health care program. Works fine from all indications for them. But as pro-single payers use them as an example these
pro-single payers forget one major difference. Massachusetts is a fairly homogeneous population of less then 6.7 million versus 330 million Americans.
Massachusetts' experiences just won't port to that size population. Plus if I as a citizen of Massachusetts am FREE to move versus single payer for USA... where
can I go????

 

[Likkmee]

Wry dey no trelling us WRY !!!