Can capitalism exist without govt

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Capitalism exists at its best when not controlled by strict regulatory policies. It heavily depends on the fluctuating supply and demand cycle and competition to produce a better and cheaper product.

Spoken like a true republican! Unfortunately, since either A) the wool is over your eyes or B) you have a rather large investment in sheep, you fail to see that without regulation, a "supply" and "demand" economy quickly turns into a "withhold" and "speculate" economy. Still using modern US as an example, let's look at oil: we have plenty of crude, but the price of gasoline stays high? Why?

A) Manufacturers limit refinement so that they can create false-shortages and drive the prices up.
B) Investors create an OPEC scare saying there's going to be conflict tomorrow/next week/next year, and they drive prices up.

And after all of that, they yell, "Don't tax me, bro!"

Conglomerates need to be outlawed. Futures need to be outlawed. Without regulation at every level, the 1% will control every part of your economy and government as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Businesses do NOT pass savings on to consumers. They do NOT create more jobs with their wealth. They privitise their profits and pass the cost along to everybody else.

[iamoenaj]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Spoken like a true republican! Unfortunately, since either A) the wool is over your eyes or B) you have a rather large investment in sheep, you fail to see that without regulation, a "supply" and "demand" economy quickly turns into a "withhold" and "speculate" economy. Still using modern US as an example, let's look at oil: we have plenty of crude, but the price of gasoline stays high? Why?

A) Manufacturers limit refinement so that they can create false-shortages and drive the prices up.
B) Investors create an OPEC scare saying there's going to be conflict tomorrow/next week/next year, and they drive prices up.

And after all of that, they yell, "Don't tax me, bro!"

Conglomerates need to be outlawed. Futures need to be outlawed. Without regulation at every level, the 1% will control every part of your economy and government as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Businesses do NOT pass savings on to consumers. They do NOT create more jobs with their wealth. They privitise their profits and pass the cost along to everybody else.

It's kind of funny how you didn't include that last few sentences of mine so that you could make this argument.

I did say there needs to be some sort of governing body. Not one that gives handouts to make people dependent on your 1%, but one that regulates unfair practices and disputes. That's it.

And once again your arguments that corporations pass their profits to the shareholders and give all the costs to the consumers..lol. Really? Stop buying their product or service if you believe that...boom.

If you're weak, you won't survive. Your way of thinking makes a good humanitarian case, but I think it's obvious to see where that has led us. The US has grown weak with less critical thinkers and ambitious people. Nobody is held accountable for their actions now. That is the problem that results from your argument of heavy regulation and policy. There is no risk but a safe little bed for you to live your life of mediocrity on.

Oh, and I'm not Republican. Like that is a put down to be affiliated with one of the two major parties? Start thinking for yourself.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by iamoenaj [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stop buying their product or service if you believe that...boom.

What a sham. You HAVE to have gasoline to work. You HAVE to have a house for shelter. You HAVE to use a phone for the most basic communication over any amount of distance longer than right in front of you.

You are FORCED to use these services or live in the stone age. There's no choice. It's a monopoly and a farce. They use price fixing to keep profits high and don't ever pass savings on to the consumer. This is capitalism.

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On other hand, total government control over economy (socialist planned economy) is what lead to bankruptcy and fall of Soviet Union.

Misconception. It was greedy leaders keeping profit for themselves (with assistance from CIA agents aimed at toppling "communism") that led to the fall of the USSR. Someone needs to remind the Republicans in America that you have to actually feed the poor or they will revolt.

[Hoggen]

Using the simplest definition of government, i.e. a monopoly on force, there has been no sustained period in human history where government has not existed, so your question is irrelevant.

[Loke]

Samoht, you can't take one sector of the economy (oil), which happens to be largely run by cartels (like opec) and then argue that it is representative of an economy as a whole. That is like me taking the natural monopoly provided to utility companies and using their actions to forecast the actions of a restaurant - one faces competition while the other does not. Oil is a very particular sector of the economy and not at all representative of economic actions under competition.

Generally speaking, savings are passed on to the consumer so as to attain a higher share of the market, thus increasing profits. This has been shown time and time again - there are even instances in which savings beyond actual cost of production were passed to the consumer due to competition (Utah Pie Company v. Continental) - given there were monopolistic factors there - but still. You don't see me sitting here claiming that all companies will sell their products at below cost because I have one example of that having happened.

Again, wealth is not finite - capital may be finite, but capital and wealth are two different things. The rich are getting richer, but every statistic says that the poor are getting richer too (rich relative to past rich, poor relative to past poor). I'm not sure where (aside from marx) you got these ideas from, but even modern economics that I think are generally wrong tend to disagree with the majority of what you're saying - there is simply too much evidence to the contrary.

[rikustrength]

We have capitalism on p99 with no government so...

[Loke]

Originally Posted by rikustrength [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We have capitalism on p99 with no government so...

If you rip someone off in a trade what happens? If someone is farming an item (think production) and you steal their camp, what happens? The GMs are our government on P99. They make and enforce rules about general conduct - that can definitely be described as governing.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Samoht, you can't take one sector of the economy (oil), which happens to be largely run by cartels (like opec) and then argue that it is representative of an economy as a whole. That is like me taking the natural monopoly provided to utility companies and using their actions to forecast the actions of a restaurant - one faces competition while the other does not. Oil is a very particular sector of the economy and not at all representative of economic actions under competition.

You're ignorant if you believe that oil is the only part of this economy where this occurs. Ever heard of banks? Housing? Cell phones?

They're all out of control, and any cost-effective competition is immediately bought out to improve profits or sued so that they're tied up in litigation long enough to make them irrelevant.

There was a thread somewhere asking why the price of FBSS was so high on P99. It's because the people with all of the plat sit around in EC and buy them all creating a false shortage as they resale them at a fixed price.

Capitalism is always corrupt. Capitalism is never the answer.

[Loke]

I'm not saying that - but I'm saying no one sector is representative of an economy, and you actually have to look at each sector before making any conclusions.

Cell phones have 4 national players, as well as numerous regional (alltel, us cellular are examples) - comparing that to the oil industry is ridiculous. I think you fail to understand the costs associated with cell phones - especially given the recent influx in internet capable phones. Basic I/O tells us that for firms, profit maximization occurs when their marginal revenue is equal to their marginal cost. There is not a single cell phone company out there making profits any where near that point.

As for banking and housing - I'm not sure what you're talking about, nor how you can compare those things to cell phones or oil with a straight face. There is a great peter schiff lecture that discusses the housing crisis - which had a number of contributing factors. You really need to be more specific.. you can't just say "LOOK AT HOUSES AND BANKS!" and expect that to prove any point. What exactly about housing and banking are you talking about? Issues in both industries have specific and often interlinked causes.

[Hoggen]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're ignorant if you believe that oil is the only part of this economy where this occurs. Ever heard of banks? Housing? Cell phones?

You can buy large multi-bedroom houses in Detroit MI for under 50 k. Why? Because regulation and the National Labor Board drove all industry out of the city, and the supply of homes available is staggering. Was that the result of Capitalism? No, it was the result of government intervention.

You say Capitalism is always corrupt, and never the answer. What is the answer then? What works better?