[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Well you cant win, Monopolism is a possible out come in capitalism.

Its not just a possible outcome, its an atractor that inevitsably gets moved onto. So can life not avoid age and death. But it can create new life. That what lives must die, is not a defeat, nor is it an argment against life.
A consumer population that is aware of this and would be taking this into calculations when deciding its buying behaviour, is the antidot to monopolism, since then companies would necessarily fail to lead them into dependency. The other antidot is creativity and competition, and preventing that lobbyists hijack the legislative and political will-building, but must face the ever new competitors and their revolting ideas. See how the internet brings down the banking sector. The FIAT money system is not kept afloat becasue it is competitive - it is afloat only due to endless political interventionism that distorts the market. On a free market, FIAT money would be dead since long. Or would never have arrived at all. The state interventionism is the source of most of the problems we have today. And this interventionism is being done to give career politicians a reason to claim their existence. This is also the entry gate of lobbyists beign send out to help establishing monopolies for corporations.

And you cant prevent it without some regulation or intervention. The Socialists are right about that one.

I doubt that. Also, once yo allow the first exception fromt he rule, the first intervention by state, you have oepned pandorras box and ensured that from now on ever ore interventionism and eegulatiosn will follow. You set a precedence, and states util today always got ruined by this, in the end. Without exception.

A state shall only collect fees for building defences and securing the borders. Already with state police services I have a problem, for i see no reason why not companies should provide security, law enforcing and jurisdiction. Just that they must be prevented to build monopolies, there must be competition and there must be total transparency. Cartels must be prevented at all costs. Then you have rivalling security providers who see a functioning system as a cost-reducing factor and thus have a strong incentive to do a good job and maintain good jurisdiction ties with other companies when it comes to courts and laws . Because contractors that they are, they can and will be held liable if they do not fulfill the contract for which they get paid. They can be sued, their contracts cancelled. A state cannot be sued, cannot be held liable, cannot be replaced with another competitor on the market. He dictates the service prices. He provides them good or badly. He must not be transparent. He can change contracts UNILATERALLY: And cannot be held responsible for that either. States are a mess. A tyranny. Always. Inevitably.

What they are wrong about, is empowering the State to the point that it becomes the all powerful monopoly itself.

You fall to a logical fallacy there, I think. States are the condensate of monopolism, they are monopolism's manifestation and expression. You cannot avoid to have states being monopolists.

I think the verdict is in pretty much, capitalism is wasteful, highly exploitative, and not everyone is good at it.

So is socialism, if not even more so. And yes, capitalism is somehtign not everyone is good at. The point is if peopel are free to do what they want (within the range of the Golden Rule (that I agree should, and must be enforced by all, everywhere, always), they can go and try to find their niche that meets their individual capabilities and possibilities. That is justice, that is fairness. Not everyone can be an industrial captain and company founder. On a free market everybody is free to try finding his place. And if an independent existence is not available due to lack of skill and wits and options, then people must choose to work for somebody else. And I tell you, many people do not even want to be entrepreneurs, because that means a lot of work and responsiblity and risks. Most people are quite happy to work in a dependent job environment. Konfuziius had it right when claiming that in an dieal society, everybody has some lowers below him and some highers above him. Key is that companies as well as regions and local facilities meet not an oversupply of workers and employees, but must compete for them, else the wages system will not stay intact and monopolies in job offerings will emerge, which of cours eis not good again. Thats why I see labour migration critical. Regions, companies must be in need to comete for talents and skilled people, and to be competitive, they must get their homework done and be attractive themselves. Everybody wins!

Yet its responsible for more prosperity, innovation and increased living standards than any other system in existence.
Biggest danger is, it can lead to a massive wealth divide. Leading to as sense of unfairness and resentment, (especially when the rich play dirty and rig the system) leading to people wanting to burn it all to the ground.

Maybe that is the natural antidot. Violence is no unntural state or method in nature. It is omnipresent, and quite common. Very often as the method of choice to defend oneself from the violence somebody else is directing against oneself. But before it goes this far, people decide on the market, they build their bartering decisions, and they are responsible for them and the consequences they bring. Maybe they should not want to buy always at the same company because they have this one item, and by that allowing the monopoly that they better should avoid? Diversification is something not only governments should take into account when deciding on the nation's external ressource and energy supliers - it is in the individual's own interest as well.
Schools must teach these contexts and ideas, of course. For which it is inevitable that the state holds no longer the monopoly for public education. It mst be destroyed, like so many other state monopolies as well.

The Marx dream of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Seems to be just that - a dream.

The first part of it is a nightmare . It means the subjugation of the individual under the collective interest. We call that totalitarianism. The second is not fair, is not just. I want it being replaced with "to each according to what he deserves".

We see the consequences of "according to his needs" in germany currently, with this mass migration. Many volunteer helpers have given up by now and are desillusionised, because they report that three years ago they started enthusiastically and were met by friendly thankful foreigners - who then learned that if they just stick to their customs and culture and refuse to work and integrate and reject to clean their houses stairways, according compensations and service will be provided by the state. By this help of the state, the will for integration and adaptation has been actively reduced, instead the demands levels by newcoming migrants is being risen. No, please not "to everybody according to his needs", keep it fair instead, give justice a bigger stand. "To each according to what he deserves. " Its also a good boost for own pride. It leaves people the choice to achieve by themselves. Look at wellfare households, how low self esteem there often is, and how willing some parasites accept to reduce their life goals since then they can make a living at state expenses. Not all, but quite some - numbers growing, and now the migrants add to these numbers tremendously.

Too many Capitalists try to exploit the tools of good for evil (and succeed in the evil)

And too many lifeforms turn ill and get infectious. That is not argument against life. Corrupt or monopolistic"capitalists" (we all should be capitalists) are destroying the free market. People have it in their hands to not let them get this far. The answer to monopolism is - competition amonst rivals and diversification of buying decisions. That everybody is subject to regulation by market changes. The value of labour as well as the value of items and resources is decided by bartering market participants. They do the regulation alltogether, while none of them can ifeunce it all by himsaelf. its a bit reminding of the blocchain tehcology. everybody who is part of the blockchain, particpates in prviding the securit yin it, but nobody has the power to dicate the system the standards of security. Thinking of the invisible hand by Adam Smith.

Either select Cooperations rig the system, or state does. Pick your poison.

Thats why I am "zero state", and am pro "local region". Thats why I am against big corportions and globalization, mega states and supranational organizations. Small regional business and trade structures. By the way, this interpretation and understanding of "small is beautiful" is at the very basis of germany'S highly successful business model, the socalled Mittelstand and linked to it the so-called "duales Ausbildungssgssystem". (Add to this the fact that nowhere else in the world the quota of family ownership of companies is as high as in Germany). No other country does this like germany does. Trump sings songs on the consequences of it, although he does not meet the notes.

Capitalism wins because on an indervidual basis it tends to provide the better out come for most people, few will make it to the top - but most will do ok out of it.
Its possible for Socialism to allow people to do ok too, but it removes most of the possible routes to 'climb up' that capitalism provides, (that's the price of equity) and that's a deal breaker for most.
Perhaps power just doesn't do good things to people, yet as a species we are dependent on hierarchy.
Quite tragic.

A capitalist societyy necessarily will always include inequality. It must, else there cannot be innovation and competition. Its is about the difference, the will of those ranking lower to reach higher, that injects ever new movement and energy into the system. The former GDR and the Warsaw Pact economies were good examples of what happens if this incentive gets removed. Life paled. Economy stagnated, petrified. Corruption at the top of the hierarchy nevertheless blossomed.



Life means constant chnaging. No change and no movement: life dies.


The sad truth that we have instead, is a social-psychological fact that was even experimentally supported. When people in a group context are left with choosing between these two alternatives: to have very few belongings and "wealth", but everybody having the same, and alternatively everbody having more in total, but at the "price" of needing to accept a certain spread of differences between people, a certain level of inequality (while still everbody havign more than in the first group) - then the huge majority of people to my great depression prefers to accept equality of everybody in the same misery. -This is the point where I cancelled my solidarity with common society. There is material truth in the saying that in socialism all people are equla and united in the same misery. Most people want it this way. Its fair that they get what they want. And that those not wanting it can flee from them.