"Capitalism isn't perfect" mortgage meltdown extends its reach...

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The concept of a market is an 'it', however the market does not exist in any tangible form. It's a human creation. The people that are involved with the concept of a free market are the ones that make the decisions and they are the same people that might be involved in government.

I also disagree with your definition of government, especially in the US context. The government derives its power from the people, not by threat of force. We vote, therefore we decide what rules to impose on ourselves. Perhaps in Burma where the government took power by force and imposes it's will upon the people your defintion would hold up. Aside from that it's wrong.

In grammar, the market is an it. As to people being involved in government and in the market, what is the point?

As to your second paragraph, just because you get to vote, does not mean the government does not use force to make people comply with whatever was decided. If you try to not pay taxes, the government will use force to make you pay. Businesses cannot force people to do anything, without government force.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

What?



The "market" is an it, not a "they". The market is not a thinking entity and does not ask or demand anything.



I have never ever heard of this definition of government and it is completely false. Government is not capitalists. Government is a collection of human beings intent on using force or the threat thereof to make people do things.



Your conclusion has nothing to do with your arguments. As such, your conclusion is completely unproven.



Again, the market and the government are two different things. So no, blaming government is not blaming the market.



Governments are not a result of markets. Government are a result of people using force or the threat thereof to make other people do things (like pay taxes).



Your rational is completely irrational.

You can use grammar all you want to try to discount the point but that is all you can use - the market is an "it" but it's made up of human beings just like government and those people in the market strongly influence government in the name of the market and in the name of capitalism. Your black and white belief of government as force and only force that exist in its own vacuum is laughable, there is so much nuance that you either can't see or refuse to.

Your rational might align with your ideology but it is not aligned with reality

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

In grammar, the market is an it. As to people being involved in government and in the market, what is the point?

As to your second paragraph, just because you get to vote, does not mean the government does not use force to make people comply with whatever was decided. If you try to not pay taxes, the government will use force to make you pay. Businesses cannot force people to do anything, without government force.

The government uses force to make you pay but only because it has a mandate to do so given to it by the people.


My point is that you can't talk about the behavior of the market without talking about the behavior of the people that participate in it.

[IminWonderland]

The people who participated in this facet of the market are greedy, self absorbed raqueteers.

They used flex rates to persuade people into buying, and then consumers were assed out when the dream fell through.

The American Dream is an easy thing to sell to people. And the Lenders made it more profitable for their lending people, and more attainable to consumers.

The problem is that now, there really isn't anyone to blame. Because the people who really profited from this don't have jobs, and their companies are already in the process of claiming losses.

[Rouger2]

Maybe I can simplify this a little. Our government, in our economy, is like the referee and rule makers in a football game, and the wild eyed middle line backer is the business man. We should allow the game to go on but it must have rules and rule enforcers just think what a football game would turn into without referees and rules, and just like no one from either team, in a football game, should be able to give money to the referees and rule makers neither should businesses be able to give money to their referees and rule makers.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

You can use grammar all you want to try to discount the point but that is all you can use - the market is an "it" but it's made up of human beings just like government and those people in the market strongly influence government in the name of the market and in the name of capitalism. Your black and white belief of government as force and only force that exist in its own vacuum is laughable, there is so much nuance that you either can't see or refuse to.

Your rational might align with your ideology but it is not aligned with reality

Um, EVERYONE is in the market. Maybe you are referring to big business?

As to government, how is government funded? Mainly through taxes and fines. How does government collect taxes and fines? With FORCE. How do governments enforce laws? Through FORCE. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

As to people using the government to influence the market, that is easily rectified in the U.S. It is called an amendment.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Maybe I can simplify this a little. Our government, in our economy, is like the referee and rule makers in a football game, and the wild eyed middle line backer is the business man. We should allow the game to go on but it must have rules and rule enforcers just think what a football game would turn into without referees and rules, and just like no one from either team, in a football game, should be able to give money to the referees and rule makers neither should businesses be able to give money to their referees and rule makers.

No, the legislature and President are the wild eyed line backer, the Constitution is the rules, the courts are the referees, and the people are the spectators.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No, the legislature and President are the wild eyed line backer, the Constitution is the rules, the courts are the referees, and the people are the spectators.

The business people are the competitors not the president or the legislature. Capitalism is competitive, it is survival of the fittest. The most efficient company survives, or the best competitor like in footall, but if you leave business alone with out rules and referees you have price fixing and monopolies, and dumping of products at low prices, and products that are not safe, just like in football without referees and rules you would have kids killing each other.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The business people are the competitors not the president or the legislature. Capitalism is competitive, it is survival of the fittest. The most efficient company survives, or the best competitor like in footall, but if you leave business alone with out rules and referees you have price fixing and monopolies, and dumping of products at low prices, and products that are not safe, just like in football without referees and rules you would have kids killing each other.

There is no proof of monopolies in the free market that last for more then a short time period. And there is absolutely no proof of a monopoly that had 100% of the market share. Lastly, there is no proof of monopolies harming the economy.

As to the safety of a product, a business will not stay in business long if it does not either provide safe products at a reasonable price or unsafe products at extremely low prices. If people want to choose a less safe product and pay less (say for example a car without a five mile per hour bumper OMG), then it should be their choice. If a company deceives the public about the safety of a product, then the public still has recourse in civil courts. Not only that, but the image of the company will be hurt, and it will mostly likely lose a large part of the market share. IT IS IN A COMPANIES BEST INTEREST TO PRODUCE SAFE PRODUCTS. This is not to say that companies will not make mistakes. But they do a FAR better job then the government at providing SAFE products at a REASONABLE price. The cost to the consumer for the government to ensure "safe" products is enormous! The government does not conduct a cost/benefit analysis, except how many votes they think it will garner. The actual cost to the public is irrelevant. Look at the cost to the public by the FDA in the number of lives lost. People can be dying of cancer, an experimental drug comes out, but because of the FDA, they cannot try it, and DIE!

Lastly, people play football all the time without "referees" or even safety gear, and no one dies.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

There is no proof of monopolies in the free market that last for more then a short time period. And there is absolutely no proof of a monopoly that had 100% of the market share. Lastly, there is no proof of monopolies harming the economy.

As to the safety of a product, a business will not stay in business long if it does not either provide safe products at a reasonable price or unsafe products at extremely low prices. If people want to choose a less safe product and pay less (say for example a car without a five mile per hour bumper OMG), then it should be their choice. If a company deceives the public about the safety of a product, then the public still has recourse in civil courts. Not only that, but the image of the company will be hurt, and it will mostly likely lose a large part of the market share. IT IS IN A COMPANIES BEST INTEREST TO PRODUCE SAFE PRODUCTS. This is not to say that companies will not make mistakes. But they do a FAR better job then the government at providing SAFE products at a REASONABLE price. The cost to the consumer for the government to ensure "safe" products is enormous! The government does not conduct a cost/benefit analysis, except how many votes they think it will garner. The actual cost to the public is irrelevant. Look at the cost to the public by the FDA in the number of lives lost. People can be dying of cancer, an experimental drug comes out, but because of the FDA, they cannot try it, and DIE!

Lastly, people play football all the time without "referees" or even safety gear, and no one dies.

Capitalism to be capitalism must have competition and with monopolies you have no competition so prices are not affected by the market. Companies work together to set prices. The comsumer pays more than he should. You lose the efficiency of competition or capitalism. So you do not have capitalism. If unsafe products kill people I guess that is a good sign the business has a unsafe product, but people are still dead so that is the way to find unsafe products let people die, and even a pick game of football players play by the rules of football or some rules like football, and in pro football with all the protections they have for quarterbacks so they don't get killed many still get hurt. The original statement was business is like football in that it is a competitive just like the competitive game of football, and so it is.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Capitalism to be capitalism must have competition and with monopolies you have no competition so prices are not affected by the market. Companies work together to set prices. The comsumer pays more than he should. You lose the efficiency of competition or capitalism. So you do not have capitalism. If unsafe products kill people I guess that is a good sign the business has a unsafe product, but people are still dead so that is the way to find unsafe products let people die, and even a pick game of football players play by the rules of football or some rules like football, and in pro football with all the protections they have for quarterbacks so they don't get killed many still get hurt. The original statement was business is like football in that it is a competitive just like the competitive game of football, and so it is.

Monopolies and Oligarchies only exist in a non-capitalistic system. In capitalism, if there is a company that can offer lower prices and better products than anybody else, the THREAT of competition keeps them from charging whatever they want... If companies get together and try to charge whatever they want, startups start popping up offering lower prices. If they buy them up, more will just continue to pop up until the oligarchy runs out of money or they lower their prices.

A monopoly/oligarchy can only exist when sponsored by a government. Feel free to try to come up with counter examples, but this road has been gone down before on these boards: it always ends in the person offering examples giving up.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

If unsafe products kill people I guess that is a good sign the business has a unsafe product, but people are still dead so that is the way to find unsafe products let people die

As I said, the market is way better at ensuring safe products are produced at a reasonable price to the populace then the government can or ever will be. Government mandated airbags ensure about 6,000 lives are saved every year at a cost of $1.2 million per life saved (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levi...Porter2001.pdf). And these were people who were not wearing a seatbelt in the first place! Instead, the population could have paid for 54,000 heart transplants or 141,000 kidney transplants (CHFpatients.com - Heart Transplant - The Straight Story)!

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Monopolies and Oligarchies only exist in a non-capitalistic system. In capitalism, if there is a company that can offer lower prices and better products than anybody else, the THREAT of competition keeps them from charging whatever they want... If companies get together and try to charge whatever they want, startups start popping up offering lower prices. If they buy them up, more will just continue to pop up until the oligarchy runs out of money or they lower their prices.

A monopoly/oligarchy can only exist when sponsored by a government. Feel free to try to come up with counter examples, but this road has been gone down before on these boards: it always ends in the person offering examples giving up.

I don't buy that at all. A capaitalistic system necesarily results in monopoly as one business will eventually out compete all others in that market and send them out of business. The only thing that prevents this is government regulation. Once a business has established a monopoly they can do things that smaller startups can not do. For example, artificialy lower prices in one small area to drive a new startup out of business. Then once the startup is gone, raise prices again. If you know that a monopoly will do this should you try and compete with them you simply won't try. This allows the monoply to charge above market value and stifle competition. A freemarket does nothing to prevent this.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

As I said, the market is way better at ensuring safe products are produced at a reasonable price to the populace then the government can or ever will be. Government mandated airbags ensure about 6,000 lives are saved every year at a cost of $1.2 million per life saved (). And these were people who were not wearing a seatbelt in the first place! Instead, the population could have paid for 54,000 heart transplants or 141,000 kidney transplants (CHFpatients.com - Heart Transplant - The Straight Story)!

In business as in a football game there are those who want to bend the rules, or get away with an infraction. Cigeretter makers lied about the affects of tar for years while people were dieing. China has sent bad food and products over here sold by american companies without adequate government inspection. In the old days companies used child labor and workers worked seven days a week from dawn to dusk. There once was a car that was found to be unsafe at any speed after they had sold thousands. You have bad or greedy people in business just like every where so you need the referees and rule makers the people who are elected by the people to watch out for the people.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Monopolies and Oligarchies only exist in a non-capitalistic system. In capitalism, if there is a company that can offer lower prices and better products than anybody else, the THREAT of competition keeps them from charging whatever they want... If companies get together and try to charge whatever they want, startups start popping up offering lower prices. If they buy them up, more will just continue to pop up until the oligarchy runs out of money or they lower their prices.

A monopoly/oligarchy can only exist when sponsored by a government. Feel free to try to come up with counter examples, but this road has been gone down before on these boards: it always ends in the person offering examples giving up.

That worked once or when there were many businesses in a market but with the huge companies that are around now it not so easy for a start up to start with the huge investment required and the other companies being established. They have had laws against monopolies since Teddy Roosevelt broke up the giant Trusts, so it has been harder for companies to do it, and the government is watchful for them and stop some before they start.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

That worked once or when there were many businesses in a market but with the huge companies that are around now it not so easy for a start up to start with the huge investment required and the other companies being established. They have had laws against monopolies since Teddy Roosevelt broke up the giant Trusts, so it has been harder for companies to do it, and the government is watchful for them and stop some before they start.

The laws obviously don't help... look at the cell phone industry or the CATV industry. These are wrought with overcharging and poor competition BECAUSE the gov't regulates them so heavily.

A small company doesn't need to compete nationally with a big company to make an impact. A small local company that can offer a product comparable to the competition at a reduced price = success in capitalism. If one company can do it, so can others in other locations. In capitalism, the constant threat of that keeps the prices of large corps down, there needn't be like a Wal-Mart vs. K-Mart distinction.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't buy that at all. A capaitalistic system necesarily results in monopoly as one business will eventually out compete all others in that market and send them out of business. The only thing that prevents this is government regulation. Once a business has established a monopoly they can do things that smaller startups can not do. For example, artificialy lower prices in one small area to drive a new startup out of business. Then once the startup is gone, raise prices again. If you know that a monopoly will do this should you try and compete with them you simply won't try. This allows the monoply to charge above market value and stifle competition. A freemarket does nothing to prevent this.

So what if a company drives all the others out of business? The monopoly still doesn't exist. A monopoly only exists when there is no way to achieve competition in that industry, and as soon as that company raises their prices that would warrant people wanting to move to another company for the same service if they could offer a lower price, BAM, it happens.

<Ron Burgundy>It's science</Ron Burgundy>