Forum Post: Hey, the final inevitable result of capitalism is monopoly, followed by crisis and collapse, or as in our case, followed by bailouts and corporate welfare.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 2:15 a.m. EST by abmebratu
(349)
from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Over over again we have seen one crises worst than the one before. We have seen a few get rich beyond dreams, Some have gotten the feeling of rich on the back of credit cards, yet billions live in poverty. Aid continues to flow, yet disaster and destitute have been unabated. Something is fundamentally wrong with the system. Even in the richest country in the world we have 40 million in poverty, close to 2 million imprisoned, Millions without health insurance.The media doesn't care because they themselves are extensions of the monopoly system. Things ain't getting better. The problem is systemic and it ain't temporary.
This is the inevitable result of economic orthodoxy (neoliberalism). Embedded liberalism has a different result.
Yes, I agree with this.
Deep, but good reading: http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp97-1/wp97-1.html
Thanks for the link... 1997? Should I laugh or cry?
At this point, I'm in the "cry" camp.
Is it too late to reverse course, assuming the political will?
Explain further please??
"embedded liberalism" in order to "signal how market processes and entrepreneurial and corporate activities were surrounded by a web of social and political constraints and a regulatory environment that sometimes restrained but in other instances led the way in economic and industrial strategy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_liberalism
While the gold peg had problems and probably should not be implemented, it was the system under which the middle class expanded in the western world.
I think the gold std was de facto, hardly seems a requirement.
Some of us think that having 4 or five corporations controlling more than 70 percent of the market in certain sectors, such as mobile phones is not a monopoly. However, this is more than a monopoly. It is almost total domination. For a nation of 300 million people, we should have many more options in every sector..... Competition in the U.S economy is not as it is purported to be. We have a limited number of companies relative to our population that control the vast majority of market share. This is true for Telecoms, Media, Automobile, computers, Finance, and more.......We have monopolies largely and we are heading for more monopolies....So I really don't get those who argue based on the competitive nature of the U.S economy. The evidence shows that we are heading in the direction of less and less competition and more and more consolidation and monopoly.
Fail.
state must take control finsh economic communities control Determine the properties state Control and monitoring of companies and not to leave the market to the capitalist
most monopolies result via government intervention and protection. and this is the problem - not capitalism but crony capitalism. not free and fair markets but intervened and manipulated markets tipped in the favor of well connected players.
well that depends on the type now doesn't it http://teachingbe.blogspot.com/2008/07/5-types-of-capitalism.html
Revolution, the only solution.
Fall of Capitalism/Secularism PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ECONOMIC MODEL As the capitalist, acting as promoter/administrator, invests a minimal/nominal amount of his own in the business (obtaining major funding at concessional interest rates) but is entitled to retain full profit and be liable, in the case of loss, only to the extent of his share holding, the underlying system is inherently oppressive and unjust. It is, therefore, time to introduce a new ECONOMIC MODEL for replacing the secular codes of capitalism which, due to its irrational structure, stands grounded since the very beginning of the 21st century.
The banks secure deposits from the general public against promise to pay interest at fixed rates without guaranteeing the face value of the pertinent currency prevailing in the international market at the time the money was deposited. In case, therefore, of devaluation of currency, the depositors lose the net worth of their deposits to the extent of devaluation. As happened with the US $, while 87 cents of a $ were equal to one Euro in 2001, $ 1.4925 is equal to one Euro today. Practically, thus the $ has lost 58.29% of original worth. All this is a result of credit based economy and loan based investment.
As far as the war on terror is concerned, its real cost has been passed on to the countries with US Dollar - based reserves or currencies but, interestingly, the currencies of most European NATO members were, in the year 2000, delinked from the Dollar by floating the Euro as a common EU currency.
www.suprasystem.org
Any ideas???? You are free to post
um....capitalism is 100% anti monopoly...please get facts straight before posting....
BS...The facts in the real world proves this wrong repeatedly.
im not saying it cant happen (although in the US i think there are very limited situations beyond governement owned companies and utilities) but what i am saying is that true capitalism needs to avoid monopoly as once you have a monopoly you do not have capitalism....
Not true. Or are you saying that we didn't have capitalism the first 130 years before anti-monopoly laws were made. Capitalism can most certainly have monopolies we still do especially natural monopolies.
no it cant, at that point it is not capitalism:
In a capitalist economy, the prices of goods and services are controlled mainly through supply and demand and competition. Supply is the amount of a good or service produced by a firm and which is available for sale. Demand is the amount that people are willing to buy at a specific price. Prices tend to rise when demand exceeds supply, and fall when supply exceeds demand. In theory, the market is able to coordinate itself when a new equilibrium price and quantity is reached.
Competition arises when more than one producer is trying to sell the same or similar products to the same buyers. In capitalist theory, competition leads to innovation and more affordable prices. Without competition, a monopoly or cartel may develop. A monopoly occurs when a firm supplies the total output in the market; the firm can therefore limit output and raise prices because it has no fear of competition. A cartel is a group of firms that act together in a monopolistic manner to control output and raise prices.
Yes monopolies may be illegal under law but companies find ways of making it so other companies cannot compete with them. JP Morgan made it public that he forcefully stopped Tesla from competing with him and that sort of thing still happens, in essence a monopoly.
so give me an example of a prive company that has no competition...i know where your coming from but you have a choice in nearly everything...i would say 99.5% of the things you buy in your life...you could have bought from another company. am i wrong?
Were I come from I have only one choice of utility and electricity provider unless i want to try and do it myself, which i can't.
ok, dont know where you come from, but many place even have options with utilities....and utilities are by very cost to put down inferstucture the most difficult to have competition with...there be the 0.5%...any others outside of utilities?
If anything what we have now isn't true capitalism because capitalism is the free market and anti-trust laws is regulation thus not truly free market. So really if capitalism doesn't allow monopolies than free market isn't capitalism.
symantics :-)
i'm just saying you said capitalism can't have monopolies and capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production ran for profits. It says nothing of monopolies. I always hear capitalists speak of the free market and doesn't regulation go against free market? That's all i'm saying.
What we had before anti-trust laws was still capitalism, I'm sorry but it was, everyone called it that EVERYONE. And there were monopolies.
broken capitalize...the basis or capitalism is supply demand and market forces...none of which exist with a monopoly.
And besides that's only if there are laws that stop monopolies. We had capitalism for a long time with monopolies. Capitalism is about private property and ownership of the means of production. Basic point, capitalism can have monopolies.
so name one now....the US has done a great job of stoping them dead in their tracks at least in the very recent past and if they do occur they put an end to them quickly....deals are held up all the time if they look like they may potentially cause a monopoly....still not sure why this is an issue today...as you cant tell me one monopoly asside from utilities....doesnt seem like an issue anyone should spend much time trying to fix....
I don't have to, even if there isn't one that doesn't mean that can't exist don't you get it?
if they dont exist....then who cares?
Not to mention a thing called state monopoly capitalism which existed in Russia and the Soviet Union.
I'm just saying you said capitalism can't have monopolies and i'm saying that they can because they have.
But there are monopolies in america, and there are markets controlled by one group. ComEd, AT&T was a monopoly before Regan. The U.S. postal service. Most Utilities are monopolies.
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=628&type=educator
the postal service if firstly not private (as it is a government organisation) but even there you have options...if you dont like them...use UPS, DHL. any monopolies in the past have been broken up....and even with utilities, you often have at least two choices....there certainly isnt much to complain about with monopolies.
Not with utilities, not where i'm from.
Thank god, the Austrians have finally proved that monopolies do not form naturally. Now we can just give up and let the market do what it will.
name one monopoly in the US.
We have cartels. And your point is that government anti-trust enforcement has been successful, or what?
yea i think it has....you have the choice to spend your money where you want...again...give me a single monopoly in the private sector...please enlighten me.
Ok. Government is not capitalism. Capitalism is most certainly not anti-monopoly. Wealth begets wealth; consolidation is a natural aspect of markets. Consumer power thrown in for good measure? Oh never mind. Bedtime.
hahah