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

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Capitalism needs compeition if there is no competition then it is not capitalism. Eventually in a competition one winner emerges if the market is left alone that creates a monopoly which means no competition so the efficiency of capitalism is not at work and it is as bad and inefficient as big government. I don't know who the Freeman, Ideas on Liberty is but I bet it is financed by business, and I would trust the ideas of Roosevelt over this guy anytime. I don't think the guy knows a thing about competition.

Again i say unto you, capitalism doesn't require direct competition to be capitalism. As long as competing startups are not blocked by a non-market force, then capitalism and competition both exist.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

but I don't mind the government providing said info.

I mind.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Again i say unto you, capitalism doesn't require direct competition to be capitalism. As long as competing startups are not blocked by a non-market force, then capitalism and competition both exist.

So the new startups are not competition then. Until the new startup ups start you do not have capitalism you have monopoly. The absolute definition of Capitalism is competition.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I mind.

lol, unfortunately we have to make reasonable compromises. Providing information has been shown to help, not hinder market forces do what they do naturally at a more efficient rate. The Bureau of Mines (est. 1910) ONLY kept centralized documentation of all mining problems, disasters, incidents, etc... and over the following 30 years mine-related deaths dropped by some 1200%. Could the market have provided that same service? Sure, but they didn't, and our congress of the time (who were mostly economists, not like today where they're mostly lawyers) started the Bureau of Mines who had ZERO power and operated on a very low budget.

Now-a-days there's OSHA and about 6 more various high-cost policing agencies who watch that shit, increasing costs of mine operation, increasing our taxes, and arguably not making the mines any safer (arguably because the actual humans needed in mine operation now-a-days are far less than 100 years ago).

I do think, though, that filling informational gaps is an acceptable duty of the government as long as costs don't get out of control and NEVER tips over to a police-style regulatory practice. The USBM was shut down in 1995 and at that time only had an operating budget of $100 million and that was AFTER it had been doing police-style regulating for 40-50 years and having 1000 employees. Think of how much less that would be if they had only been doing their original job description?

But likewise, those gaps get closed all the time, so it's gotta be loose rather than rigid. No reason for the gov't to try to protect an agency from no longer being needed... that's a GOOD thing.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

So the new startups are not competition then. Until the new startup ups start you do not have capitalism you have monopoly. The absolute definition of Capitalism is competition.

oh my god, no it's not. The definition of capitalism is that the people/citizens own and run the means of production. As long as government doesn't step in and PREVENT competition, then it exists implicitly. I don't know how many times I gotta say the same thing.

If someone like Wal-Mart was the only store like that (as in, no Target or anything) and goes through and buys up all the mom and pop shops around the nation, so what? Nothing is preventing NEW mom and pops from opening, so either Wal-Mart has to continue to offer competitive pricing and quality, or continue buying new mom and pop shops until they run out of money, or let them stay open. Even if ZERO mom and pop shops exist at this moment, capitalism is STILL present because all of that is owned by the people, and nothing is preventing new shops from opening or wal-mart from buying them up and operating in a way to be competitive.

And really, if it WERE the case the a big company like Wal-Mart were continually buying up small shops while offering high prices over and over, I'd be creating Ardent Shop, Frost Shop, AF Shop, Ardentfrost Shop, ad infinitum to get as much money from Wal Mart and their stupid practices as I could before they ran out of money and had to halt operation.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

oh my god, no it's not. The definition of capitalism is that the people/citizens own and run the means of production. As long as government doesn't step in and PREVENT competition, then it exists implicitly. I don't know how many times I gotta say the same thing.

If someone like Wal-Mart was the only store like that (as in, no Target or anything) and goes through and buys up all the mom and pop shops around the nation, so what? Nothing is preventing NEW mom and pops from opening, so either Wal-Mart has to continue to offer competitive pricing and quality, or continue buying new mom and pop shops until they run out of money, or let them stay open. Even if ZERO mom and pop shops exist at this moment, capitalism is STILL present because all of that is owned by the people, and nothing is preventing new shops from opening or wal-mart from buying them up and operating in a way to be competitive.

And really, if it WERE the case the a big company like Wal-Mart were continually buying up small shops while offering high prices over and over, I'd be creating Ardent Shop, Frost Shop, AF Shop, Ardentfrost Shop, ad infinitum to get as much money from Wal Mart and their stupid practices as I could before they ran out of money and had to halt operation.

You keep proving my point. Mom and Pops are competition. The cure for a monopoly is always competition. It keeps prices of products at their lowest possible price for the companies to survive, but when you have a huge company like Walmart they can sell things at a loss and get their profit from other products to put some mom and pop out of business, but I do believe that is illigal. Oh that would be the bad old government helping out competition that can't possible be true. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says about capitalism competition is necessary for it, and I am glad that was understood by Roosevelt and many people in government and out of government today.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

You keep proving my point. Mom and Pops are competition. The cure for a monopoly is always competition. It keeps prices of products at their lowest possible price for the companies to survive, but when you have a huge company like Walmart they can sell things at a loss and get their profit from other products to put some mom and pop out of business, but I do believe that is illigal. Oh that would be the bad old government helping out competition that can't possible be true. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says about capitalism competition is necessary for it, and I am glad that was understood by Roosevelt and many people in government and out of government today.

Dude, if they lower their prices to put a mom and pop out of business, what have they accomplished? NOTHING, as soon as they raise their prices again, another mom and pop who can offer better prices will pop up.

[Spideynw]

Ah, I understand what you are saying now and I agree.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

It doesn't matter what the dictionary says about capitalism competition is necessary for it, and I am glad that was understood by Roosevelt and many people in government and out of government today.

And it does not matter what you say, because in a free market, there is always competition.

As to anti-trust laws of the Roosevelt era, which I am sure you are referring to, they just protect weaker businesses so they can provide YOU with lower quality goods at higher prices.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Dude, if they lower their prices to put a mom and pop out of business, what have they accomplished? NOTHING, as soon as they raise their prices again, another mom and pop who can offer better prices will pop up.

Your solution for a monopoly is to have a new start up store, or a mom and pop to start up. That is competition. You have just proved that capitalism needs competition. while you have stated that it is not needed in capitalism. My belief is that is an absolute necessity.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

And it does not matter what you say, because in a free market, there is always competition.

As to anti-trust laws of the Roosevelt era, which I am sure you are referring to, they just protect weaker businesses so they can provide YOU with lower quality goods at higher prices.

I was saying that competition is always needed in capitalism. Well you can have your opinion about the anti trust laws but I will put my faith in Roosevelt over you any day of the week and twice on sundays.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Your solution for a monopoly is to have a new start up store, or a mom and pop to start up. That is competition. You have just proved that capitalism needs competition. while you have stated that it is not needed in capitalism. My belief is that is an absolute necessity.

But if that's all you're saying, then we're saying the same thing. Because implied competition is still competition. You just like a competitor you can name, but that isn't needed for competition.

I say in order for capitalism to exist, the government can't prevent competition from happening, which they OFTEN do.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I was saying that competition is always needed in capitalism. Well you can have your opinion about the anti trust laws but I will put my faith in Roosevelt over you any day of the week and twice on sundays.

And I was saying that capitalism always has competition.

And it is not an opinion, it is a fact. You are simply refusing to look at the facts. It has nothing to do with faith. But if you are afraid of the truth, then that is your problem.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But if that's all you're saying, then we're saying the same thing. Because implied competition is still competition. You just like a competitor you can name, but that isn't needed for competition.

I say in order for capitalism to exist, the government can't prevent competition from happening, which they OFTEN do.

Government can certianly do that and if they do you do not have capitalism. I will agree with that for sure.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

And I was saying that capitalism always has competition.

And it is not an opinion, it is a fact. You are simply refusing to look at the facts. It has nothing to do with faith. But if you are afraid of the truth, then that is your problem.

You have to have competition for capitalism or capitalism always has competition
It works either way.
I believe that the anti trust laws have helped competition which as I have stated you need for there to be capitalism. You have your supposed authority and I have mine in Teddy Roosevelt who believed in the anti trust laws and I will take him over your authority any time. My common sense tells me that Monopolies can exist and and when they exist you do not have capitalism. There would have been more examples of monopolies if not for the anti trust laws. Microsoft has had the government on them for trying to create a monopoly to control the entire market but they have been stopped, but according to you the government should get out of the way and let them control the entire market.