Capitalism

Not even pro-capitalists believe that (e.g. orthodox economics has accepted the Marxist analysis into mass unemployment and also borrowed from their crisis theory)

 

Got anything relevant to the post of mine you chose to quote and respond to, or just your next strawman to scamper off after?

 

A poor effort, you've made a claim that not even the neoclassical economist agrees with! Why do you believe the economists think you're talking bobbins?

 

Because they dont think any such thing.

 

They certainly do. They were forced to adopt Marxist analysis to understand unemployment trends (see efficiency wages). Given their acceptance of the empirical process and the consequence of marker concentration, they are also forced to accept the destabilising impact of cost-plus pricing

 

Chasing the next strawman or have you forgot what you are trying to refute?

 

Sounds like you again don't know how to respond. Can you deny that the orthodox economics, through efficiency wage theory, predicts mass unemployment? Not with any validity! Can you deny that cost-plus pricing increases the likelihood of economic crises? Not with any validity!

 

Silly little man. Nothing you are babbling on about even contradicts my assertion that capitalism
"produces so much less unemployment and economic crisis than all the other economic systems". All other economic systems in existance. Not counting the ones youve imagined within your own mind. We all know they can be as good as you want to believe they would be.

 

Again you show your innocence! The efficiency wage analysis, for example, is reliant on ensuring worker compliance: a result required for economic rent seeking in capitalism. Cost-plus pricing is also more likely in capitalism because of the tendency towards market concentration (a basic requirement for shifting price determination away from supply & demand criteria)

 

Notice how nothing you've stated here contradicts a single word of what you chose to quote and respond to

 

Again you respond with nothing. I've not said anything difficult. Does orthodox economics predict mass unemployment? Yes! Why? Because of the nature of ownership (a capitalist-specific result). Does orthodox economics predicts macroeconomic instability? Yes! Why? Because of the consequences of market concentration (with the economist forced to refer to a dual economy: a competitive sector and an oligopolistic sector)

 

There is not free Capitalism in the USA, that is why it fails. Capitalism is over controlled and regulated by the Liberal/Democrats as well as Republican politicians. Capitalism is taxed to death. The government is confiscating every dollar of labor creating, meaning dollars created through the economy.

Every dollar in my pocket is taxed an easy 63%.

Capitalism works in spite of the over taxation..

 

You're abusing the economic spectrum. Laissez faire has not and cannot exist. Government is arguably the key economic agent in capitalism. You'd have to remove capitalism if you find that disagreeable

 

Capitalism is over controlled and regulated by the Liberal/Democrats as well as Republican politicians, you state; "Government is arguably the key economic agent in capitalism."

You are agreeing with me, you just disagree that the government is hurting Capitalism.

I have never studied economics, if you want to explain to me what you think I am not understanding I would appreciate that, no troll here, not at this time anyhow. I will not even follow up asking for a link, you will give me enough information so I can search on my own.

I look at this way, the more the government taxes, the more it controls the economy, the more it regulates the same applies. At this point we are beyond what is reasonable taxation and regulation.

 

And still, you are not contradicting a thing I've said.

 

Depends what you mean. Have I shown capitalism is crucially dependent on mass unemployment and delivers economic instability? Yes. Have I shown that orthodox economics actually agrees with those negative outcomes? Yes.

The problem here is perhaps where you're coming from. You have no economic analysis behind your prance and cannot respond to the economic remarks made. Have I responded to any non-economic dross? Perhaps not!

 

No, the problem remains that you haven't contradict a thing I've said

 

To be fair you've said very little. The one comment you did make, that 'capitalism produces so much less unemployment and economic crisis than all the other economic systems', has even been rejected by neoclassical economics. Other systems aren't reliant on mass unemployment to create economic rents. Other systems do not encourage market concentration and the instabilities that generates.

 

Yes, a simple assertion youve denied for three days now.

 

Its rejected and you know it. Its ridiculous to say 'capitalism produces so much less unemployment and economic crisis than all the other economic systems' when the economics says otherwise (unless of course you're deliberately giving erroneous remark for the sake of it)

 

Economics says no such thing

 

Reiver, do you agree with this assessment: capitalism encourages businesses to compete for investors, thus it also encourages management to seek short-term profit- as opposed to stability and long term success- as it is necessary for firm survival. As such, the current capitalist model (normally referred to as "mixed economy") is dependant on the state to correct for bad business models inherent to success in a capitalist system.

 

Riever's argument, in essence, is that "free market capitalism" is unequivocally bollocks because the capitalist model is inherently unsustainable, thus the state is a necessary agent in the successful function of capitalism. Basically, in a capitalist system, firms are encouraged to compete for investors (because capitalism, by definition, leaves prospective producers at the mercy of investment markets) who will always favour short-term gain over long term stability. Basically, prioritising short-term gain is good for investors but bad for firm survival, therefore the government has to step in in the form of bailouts and subsidies.

 

Sounds like a variant of agency costs. Certainly a problem. I would, however, also remark that the profit motive is sometimes (rationally sidelined) as it becomes about maximising the employment of resources within a complex hierarchy (leading to much more relaxed boundaries of the firm)

 

Could you you explain why optimal utilisation of resources within a heirarchy is a problem? Also, assuming you still subscribe to market-socialism, why are corporate hierarchies a problems from a practical standpoint (rather than a moral one - an argument I certainly support)?

It's not necessarily about agency costs (not sure you understand my point at all). My point is: doesn't prioritising short-term profit over stability (necessary in capitalism because firms are forced to compete in the investment market as well as the consumer market) render the state a necessary agent in sustaining the aforementioned bad business model?

Not really related to this topic, but I'm curious: do you believe in a "mutual bank" to replace private investment?