- Capitalism and Alternatives -

mmmmmm.

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on July 21, 1999 at 18:52:00:

In Reply to: hmmm posted by Gee on July 21, 1999 at 14:42:20:

: Poeple seem to know precious little about monopolies, I think its because there is the prevailing belief that economics is zero sum, and that competition is win or lose with nothing in between.

My local bus company is a monopoly, so I deig them nicely- you and Joel accepted that certain sectors could be monopolised.

:Also any large company is assumed to have infinite reserves to fight off any contender whilst producing products of less utility.

Not necessarilly infinite, enough to discourage investors, and articulalry, enough in comparisson with the start up costs for copetitors (i.e. If I want to set up a bus route, it'll cost me 1 million- StageCoach can throw me into bits by spending 100 K).

: "genuine capitalism has never been tried yet"

19th C. England, tried.

: Yup, one man alone cant earn billions (just for you RD),

Thank you.

:he needs others too - an theyre pretty rich because of the voluntary association, all that associating to mutual benefit, my word!

Not all, not by a long way.

: : Only under a capitalist society can one person rise from poverty and with the right idea and skills, become a millionare.

Under socialism, no-one would be born in poverty anyway, and tehre would be no millionaires- so whats said here is 'under capitalism, only things that can happen under capitalism will happen'.

: And despite the insistence that this doesnt happen the majority of millionaires in the US, and even in Britain were of average economic measn when they started out. Wealth grows, it isnt static.

But what of Billionaires? And Thats still a tiny number compared to the people who stay on average or below means. there are more rags to rags than rags to riches stories- capitalism cannot benefit the majority of people.

: Look up how many Carnegie and Rockefeller libraries and institutes there are.

Think it was getty, ecided to try spending money faster than he could make it, giving to charity, IIRC, he failed.

: Slightly better termed effective supply and demand, but yes.

And effective demand.

: Whilst you might receive criticism from socialists about claiming that doesnt work and demand evidence etc, they will simply nod in agreement to this last sentence without asking for anything more. My but we are selective!

No, cause we've allready proved it sideways- plus its not my job to debate your points for you.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup