Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

Yes. Quite exactly. But what you seem to be missing is that I do not agree with this system. I want to see it changed because the system is failing and the inequities are now becoming intolerable for more and more people. So explaining the system that I already fully understand is like arguing how a car's engine works when the car is stuck in a ditch... it's irrelevant.

Or work to change the system.

No, you said "If you don't want anyone to approprate your value, then form your own business or co-op."
It's not about me or what my conditions are. And changing my own conditions doesn't solve the problem. So your solution is impotent.

 

What do you even mean by "the system"? Do you mean the way companies operate? If you don't like the way other people run their companies, then go work for one you like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_cooperatives#United_States) or start your own and run it the way you like.

 

But it could be. You can't tell from an apportionment of the market-place as shown above.

A de facto oligopoly exists when there is no competition, and in fact, most markets tend towards that fact over time. Companies are satisfied with their market-share because it allows them an acceptable profit margin, and that is all investment markets demand.

An oligopolistic market is illegal when it flouts the "anti-trust law", which means that there are restraints on trade for the sole purpose of maintain prices higher than they would be were trade not restrained. Those restraints can be "collusive", meaning companies get together and decide who competes where and where not. But condition of "collusion" must be proven in a court of law.

In your example above, if the above condition can be proven the oligopoly is illegal. Until then, it isn't ...

 

Maybe it would help if you described the specific problem(s) with the system that are causing it to fail.

 

Simplistic reasoning and worthless.

Companies exist to meet a market-demand not a way of working.

 

Give it up, will you.

Marx and Marxism has be dead for more than a century.

Find something else for an argument hobby-horse ...

 

If it's not theft why do you need a gun to take it? Why is violence the only way for a liberal?

 

You mean it's just coincidental that you and Marx are totally concerned with how unfair capitalism is two workers when the reality is it's just as unfair or fair to owners who suffer failure rates in the high 90%'s . And it's just coincidence that American socialist and communist have gotten everything they wanted in the 30s 40s and 50s and now they want government far far bigger still until it is in fact a communist government

 

As I'm sure you know, economists define an oligopoly as a market structure in which a small number of firms has the large majority of market share. That graph shows that this is not the case.

 

Preventing poverty has to become part and parcel "the national will". We are nowhere near that point.

The US is a market-economy where those in perpetual poverty are just "road-kill on the highway of life". That's how dense a country we have become - because we have grown fat and dumb.

Thankfully, that is changing. Bernie was right, he had been to Europe from which he borrowed most of his key ideas - and he communicated them well (if a bit too emotionally).

He remains way ahead of his time. He is the most precursive politician in America ...

 

Blah, blah, blather ....

 

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. T

 

Translation: I said I want to see lots of anti-trust activity because it's the liberal knee jerk thing to saybut I can't provide one example of that activity because I'm really talking through my hat for all the world to see. Maybe it's time for you to do some more cut and paste from the economist?

 

Filing for bankruptcy is a legal means of temporary debt relief and that's not what we're addressing. We're addressing real bankruptcy where the household can never afford to pay all of their bills, EVER! Every day they just go deeper and deeper into debt.

What amazes me is there are those that must believe that an economic system that's failing about 1/3rd of the households in the nation can be called successful. That measurement alone establishes that the economic system is a failure.

 

On this forum, they are legion ...

 

Oh, you mean they're consistently spending more than they earn? Yeah, that's a problem they've got to address.

Yes, government cronyism and hyper-regulation is failing. We need freer markets, less regulation, and sound money.

 

Wow, you're not in touch. You have no idea what I've been advocating for months, yet you show up to invent a strawman, assign it to me, shoot it down, and declare victory. I've never advocated involving guns or violence because neither are needed and both would be counter-productive. So when you get an actual awareness of what I have advocated, get back to me and we'll talk.

 

Indeed. The king of economic voodoo.

 

so how would a naturally violent liberal "fairly" distribute income if not at gunpoint, the usual liberal way???


Kode: "it would mean that every household could enjoy an income that is 4 times the minimum required to keep them out of poverty if the total income were to be "fairly" distributed in some manner?

 

the system has become increasingly libsocialist so of course it is failing. Ever hear of East/West Germany?
Liberalism is naturally illiterate so has no basis on which to understand anything.

 

OMG!! How totally bizarre that you would use that anti-liberal quote from Jefferson who was 10000% opposed to consolidation of power in central govt while you blindly support consolidation or libsocialism!

 

Reuters reports, a survey of east Germans found 52% believed the free-market economy was "unsuitable" and 43% said they wanted socialism back. Karl Marx may be dead and buried in Highgate cemetery, but he's alive and well among credit-hungry Germans. Would Marx have appreciated the irony of his image being deployed on a card to get Germans deeper in debt? You'd think.

Later this week in London, several thousand people will attend Marxism 2012, a five-day festival organised by the Socialist Workers' Party. It's an annual event, but what strikes organiser Joseph Choonara is how, in recent years, many more of its attendees are young. "The revival of interest in Marxism, especially for young people comes because it provides tools for analysing capitalism, and especially capitalist crises such as the one we're in now," Choonara says.

There has been a glut of books trumpeting Marxism's relevance. English literature professor Terry Eagleton last year published a book called Why Marx Was Right. French Maoist philosopher Alain Badiou published a little red book called The Communist Hypothesis with a red star on the cover (very Mao, very now) in which he rallied the faithful to usher in the third era of the communist idea (the previous two having gone from the establishment of the French Republic in 1792 to the massacre of the Paris communards in 1871, and from 1917 to the collapse of Mao's Cultural Revolution in 1976). Isn't this all a delusion?

 

Why make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written?? The best example is landowning, which neoclassical economics incorrectly considers a contribution to production.

 

IP monopolies.