And that will always be a problem for the 'its human nature' right wingers. They often want to crow that they are libertarian, but libertarianism- by focusing on the co-operation opportunities amongst entrepreneurs- should eliminate the need for the 'economies of scale or scope' corporation. That it doesn't indicates that hierarchy serves another role: a rather unpalatable one based on coercion
Don't you know your Hayekian attack on market socialism? Any hierarchical enterprise will inflame the costs from dispersed knowledge. How to avoid that? Avoid the hierarchy, utilising co-operative entrepreneurship Your comments are boring as they are based on ignorance of your 'own' theory
I think the argument can be made for everything including all life forms. Marketing people use the simple "product life cycle model"; introduction-growth-maturity-decline. Decline has been almost proven to be primarily by corruption in communist countries. I think a good case can be made that the USA is currently in decline due to corruption. I also think that "European socialism" is not old enough yet to have proven itself as a model to emulate.
Co-operative entrepreneurship? Look at how well you "cooperate" with other posters, is that going to change with socialism? I can't see how. Next you'll have the lions laying with the lambs. Yet you keep on answering, who is the fool?
I co-operate with entrepreneurs all of the time. Never been a problem. The problem you have pf course is that you go on and on without any economics spine to your comments. Uncunning to the extreme! One day you will say something correct. One day
Define each structure as you like. My contention is that WWI and WWII were so significant to Europe that for all practical purposes each country was reborn in 1945 or a decade or so later with new concepts of government that haven't really been proven over long terms. The USA has been the same with huge increases in regulations to simulate wrinkles and gray hair.
No, just demand accuracy! World war subsequently led to increased regulation within capitalism (e.g. improvements to welfare systems), but same ole capitalism none the less
You are massively uncooperative on this forum, don't provide examples, don't answer questions, and rarely provide a reference, etc. Either you are out of character here (highly unlikely), or with the entrepeneuers you "co-operate" with. Maybe you think what you do on this forum is "co-operation", meaning as long as entrepeneurs accept your purported superior knowledge, and co-operate with you, you are co-operating.
Why would I want to be co-operative on a forum? Sounds like you took a wrong turn and you're looking for a dating agency. If you can't refer to capitalism on a thread about capitalism then there's not much I can do for you
What are you talking about. You just proved my point. In a capitalist economy there is free trade. A free market means free. No government intervention. You just cited an example where the government meddles with markets. Yet again, capitalism is not practiced because of government intervention.
Capitalism is a system of wage labor, capital accumulation and private ownership of the means of production. Government intervention in capitalist markets doesn't stop an economy being capitalist - it's even theoretically possible to have a capitalist system without a market.
Capital accumulation is an unnecessary qualifier for a simple definition of the Capitalist economic system. The type of means of production falls under private ownership, and is therefore assumed to have been accumulated to a given extent. The same cannot be said for wage labor, as there is nothing stipulated in the fundamental elements of Capitalism which says that the production of goods and services constitutes an completely separate owner-producer dynamic, meaning the owner may not necessarily be barred from being the sole producer, thereby reaping all the profit of an economic transaction. In addition, if we are looking at capital as a means of production, there are only two types in play: natural capital and infrastructural capital. Financial and human capital are not included.
A hatred of coercion. So the last option I guess, but not exactly: I only love Capitalism in that it allows no coercion.
I think it generally works very well in places like Norway, Sweden and denmark, with the high social spending for the strong social safety nets.
I have asked, and have yet to get an answer how, in a world of socialism / worker owned firms, how the entrepeneur finances a new business. Without new business, stagnation. Collusion between business and government results in regulation that limits / eliminates competition, resulting in increased prices, high executive compensation, and generous "contributions" to politicians. As an example, the cost of medical care / insurance has risen far faster than the cost of auto repair / insurance. Did "The Affordable Care Act" reduce, or increase medical care / insurance costs? Explain please.
1. One can argue that there are better systems but if one travels the world they will find out what poor really is. Even in countries that have a low poor rate and high standard of living they are sub-serviant to the government. One thing leftist's seem not to understand is that there are still large blocks of people who are individulists who are willing to go it alone and live their lives on their own merits. They take responsibility for their own actions and lifestyles. 2. Many in our society have no education what so ever. (I know many who are graduates and THINK they are educated). They can do a couple things; risk their own money and time and open a business, work for someone else or do nothing. If they work for someone else they have the option of accepting the offer for compensation or refusing it and looking elsewhere. If they accept, and later they are not satisfied, they can try and renogotiate the terms of their employment or quit. 3. The one constant in life is change. They say there three types of people 1. People who take charge of their life and make things happen 2. People who stand pat and follow the crowd and let things happen 3. People who look around and wonder what the hell happened. (This will be evident the beginning of next year if we fall over the fiscal cliff) 4. Most workers have been conditioned that they are in a "war" . Workers vs Management. Workers have brainwashed that because they get hired that they are now part owners of the company that hired them. They have not risked any anything to get the company off the ground. They work thier 8 hours and leave while the boss stays and works his normal 12 -16 hours. (Normally if he divided his hours into his compensation he makes less than the 8 hour employee). Sure many can join a union and force a company to pay hire wages and benefits. The company then raises prices on the consumer, the consumer then determines if they will or will not pay higher prices, if the consumer balks and the company loses business they have to decide how to cut costs. Have all the fat is cut then I guess you know where the ax will fall.
Most employers have been conditioned that they are in a war with their employees. Management vs Worker. Management is brainwashed that their workers are completely against them, with no interest in the job other than to work their 8 hours and collect a paycheck so they treat their workers like enemies, deliberately ignoring any human concerns of or about their workers. Workers respond to this sort of abuse by becoming the workers the management expects. It is a feedback loop, mostly negative, created by management's negative expectations. Wage increases cannot always just be passed on in higher prices, especially when competitors keep prices low. Wages have less to do with competitiveness than other factors, like investing in productivity increases. Many businesses lose their competitive edge over the years because competitors invest in increasing productivity and become vastly more efficient, to the point where those who maintain competitiveness because they keep wages down and do not spend on productivity improvements are pushed out of the market completely by ever lower pricing and/or increases in quality they cannot hope to keep up with. Many companies in the US failed because they did not make the necessary medium and long term investments necessary to match or better the efficiency of their competitors. Those who did are still in business and the US is still the largest manufacturing nation in the world, but with far fewer workers. Workers who can be paid high wages because they are highly skilled technicians and engineers operating and maintaining the automated machinery that does all the work.
Oligarchies and monopolies work against capitalism. Both of these enterprises operate pretty much unchecked in our current system and this undermines capitalism. Regulation serves to support these oligarchies and monopolies and further stifles capitalism by putting barries to entry up. Lobby groups serve to keep regulations favorable to monopolies and oligarchies .. to keep politicians from making changes or calling out these groups. The media is bought and paid for .. and many of the majors are part of or owned by oligarchies or monopolies .. so the media will not be rocking the boat. Without a free and fair media there is no such thing as democracy since in order for democracy to work .. the raging masses need to be able to make informed choices.
Because Democratic systems lend themselves to being economically unsound. The populace is an ignorant conglomerate that hopes that they will strike it rich. In other words, give the people the power, and they will take it away from themselves.
Market socialism delivers 'free enterprise'. Capitalism tends not to, given it encourages market concentration and the limitations of class on economic choice
Capitalism and market concentration goes hand in hand. Indeed, it provides a major reason why capitalism is inherently unstable.
