- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on March 22, 1999 at 11:33:28:

In Reply to: infinite? posted by Gee on March 19, 1999 at 18:31:39:

: Just like that, eternally. So if all the people in Lancatsre stoppped paying you'd somehow have an infinite reserve because you own the road, and repeated attempts to compete can *all* be defeated because of this infinate reserve? No.

If tehys topped paying, I'd forceablly stop them from using my roads,a nd they'd start to starve, I may not have infinite capacity for price increases, but I can hold productive wealth to randsome. Capitalists hate rentiers...just look at the Gulf. If anyone tries to start competition, I am so much bigger than them, because its expensive to build roads, that I can smash them.

: Your assuming some kind of infinite reserve which is not so, as per your lancaster idea. Or is it that the company can continue to make lots of money...for which they need...willing customers. See my response for the competitor dynamic.

Its not hard to smash- you steal ideas, you buy out members of rival firms, you cut your prices to ensure more willinging susomers, until they go out of business and then you hike. Once a mnopoly is in place, if they're smart, they can hold it...

: Ask yourself why? its a populist vote winner? maybe, it gives govt arbitrary power they can enforce pretty much at will (anti trust laws make just about any business 'guilty' - thats how nebulous they are)? yes that sounds right. Got to keep the cattle in line for regular milking after all, how else could the milkers survive?

So it mightn't be that Capitalism and capitalists require a regulatory state to ensure competition continues?

: I think he means marginally richer rather than $1 to $1million

Marginally richer is niether here nor there. So long as teh super rich get super richer.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup