What are the minimum prerequisites for Capitalism to be possible?

[blablahblah]

I engage in lots of Capitalist activity -- I buy food and stuff. I earn money by providing a service to my employer... General things like that. I never said Capitalism was all bad.

Well, in that case, you can answer your own question, simply by recalling how you yourself learned it.

Well maybe it's not really Capitalism? I could analyse my own experiences without any discussion, make some conclusions and stick to them, but then there's no feedback, no quality control, no fresh ideas...

...
Then you're not using logic. Scarcity is not a requirement for desire. I desire knowledge, yet knowledge is not scarce.

I also like knowledge, but it seems that I can never have it all. As an analogy for rights, would that mean our 'ability' to have rights is somehow constrained? I see the difference but how is it relevant?

By addressing him, you are saying he "owns" his argument. You are also "owning" your fingers and mind to formulate the argument. Arguing against self-ownership always self detonate in this way.

If you could slow down for a second... I'm trying to get to the bottom of this 'Capitalism' thing from first principles. The Lemming humans (from the OP) are being bombarded with new ideas:
Ownership? What's that?
Property? What's that?

Did the concepts exist before anyone "put pen to paper" or made sounds to describe them for the first time? Can a 'concept' be a law of nature? Or were the concepts created by people? They couldn't create themselves -- that would be paradoxical.

[bonker]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial
 when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.

I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.    

[MoonShadow]

In short, monopolies just don't last. Big reason for that is because they get settled in with what they know how to do best, and get killed by newer more efficient technologies they aren't able to adapt to.

I remember Microsoft being subjected to huge anti-trust action. It was smart enough to maintain a monopoly and, as such, was forced to let competition in.

That's not at all what happened.  Microsoft effectively won that fight, and the anti-trust portion of the case was completely dropped.

And then GNU/Linux and MacOSX proceeded to eat their lunch.

And by any objective definition of the term, MS was never a real monopoly, only a temporary market dominator.

[MoonShadow]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial
 when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.    

Oh, the irony!  The cognative dissonance must be bewildering.

[MoonShadow]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

Remember my post the other day, in another thread, wherein I laid bare the reality that most people who argue on obscure Internet forums are actually not capable of changing their minds, regardless of what evidence is presented?

Based on both your most recent conversations here, and your experience in general, would you say my assessment is generally correct or generally incorrect?

[myrkul]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.

On the contrary, it is that of someone living in the real world, confronted with someone espousing evil. If you truly try to see reality clearly, then understand this: capitalism is nothing more than the private ownership of goods and the voluntary trade of same.

I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

I restate: the existence of a law does not prove it's necessity.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.  

Don't simplify. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. Tell me in detail how voluntary trade and private ownership always results in monopoly.

[bonker]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial
 when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.    

Oh, the irony!  The cognative dissonance must be bewildering.

All you have to do is provide a coherent and succinct counter arguement. That's all. No need for dramatics.

[myrkul]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

Remember my post the other day, in another thread, wherein I laid bare the reality that most people who argue on obscure Internet forums are actually not capable of changing their minds, regardless of what evidence is presented?

Based on both your most recent conversations here, and your experience in general, would you say my assessment is generally correct or generally incorrect?

Well, save for the fact that I myself was convinced by argumentation of at least some of the finer points, I'd say, sadly, that you're right. Ah well. My fight is not for them, anyway. It is for, as you said, the unbiased.

[MoonShadow]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial
 when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.    

Oh, the irony!  The cognative dissonance must be bewildering.

All you have to do is provide a coherent and succinct counter arguement. That's all. No need for dramatics.

It wouldn't matter.  We aren't even speaking the same language.  To prove that point, just try and define capitalism in one sentence. 

[myrkul]

All you have to do is provide a coherent and succinct counter arguement. That's all. No need for dramatics.

I already have. Your assertion has already been proven false in at least one case. Given that it's an absolute, ("always") that's enough to disprove it completely. I'll give you a chance, but the burden of proof lies with you.

[MoonShadow]

Well, save for the fact that I myself was convinced by argumentation of at least some of the finer points,

I aslo qualified that by limiting that effect to those over 35.  Are you over 35?  If so, I may have to push up my model.

[bonker]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.

On the contrary, it is that of someone living in the real world, confronted with someone espousing evil. If you truly try to see reality clearly, then understand this: capitalism is nothing more than the private ownership of goods and the voluntary trade of same.

I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

I restate: the existence of a law does not prove it's necessity.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.  

Don't simplify. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. Tell me in detail how voluntary trade and private ownership always results in monopoly.

At least you can come up with a decent reply, thanks for that. The drama-queens and tantrum-monkeys on here are quite a drain.

What you say is true, the existence of a law does not prove it's necessity. But, considering economics as a rational science, it is evidence that monopoly is a danger.

My statement was that monopoly was an equilibrium state of capitalism. I'm not entirely sure what you expect when you want a detailed discussion of this. This a forum, not a journal.

[MoonShadow]

What you say is true, the existence of a law does not prove it's necessity. But, considering economics as a rational science, it is evidence that monopoly is a danger.

Considering that there are a number of competing economic theories even today, and in many ways they contradict each other, I don't consider the above statement to be a given.  If you wish to keep it, you're going to have to make that case based upon whatever version of Economics you speak of.

My statement was that monopoly was an equilibrium state of capitalism. I'm not entirely sure what you expect when you want a detailed discussion of this. This a forum, not a journal.

And what is this premise based upon?  There is no evidence to suggest this is true, even temporarily.

[myrkul]

Well, save for the fact that I myself was convinced by argumentation of at least some of the finer points,

I aslo qualified that by limiting that effect to those over 35.  Are you over 35?  Is so, I may have to push up my model.

Well, I am now, but I wasn't when that happened. Your model is safe.

My statement was that monopoly was an equilibrium state of capitalism. I'm not entirely sure what you expect when you want a detailed discussion of this. This a forum, not a journal.

If monopoly is the equilibrium state of capitalism, then you can describe how it gets there from a different state. Let us posit 1000 people, each granted equal land (which we will, for the sake of this discussion, assume is uniform in arability and resources). They are given nothing else, just the land, and themselves. Describe, if you can, how a monopoly forms from this, in as much detail as possible. If you find yourself unfit for the task, feel free to refer me to some other source, which has made the argument better than you can, or to quote it.

[MoonShadow]

Unfortunately, monopolies are a natural equilibrium state of capitalism. To function effectively, capitalism must be supported by a hidden system of authoritarian control..

You're welcome to believe that lie, if you like, but I'm not going to pretend it's truth to make you happy. For instance, you still haven't explained how that happens.

That's rather dramatic language. I'm not happy or sad about the nature of reality, I just try and see it clearly. Your attitude, by contrast, is of someone in denial
 when an attempt is made to rouse them from a comforting dream. Unfortunately, you are actually living in a dream world.I restate: the real-world existence of anti-trust action and global monopoly legislation indicate that monopoly is a natural end state of capitalism.

To simplify, it "happens" though a process of concentration of power.    

Oh, the irony!  The cognative dissonance must be bewildering.

To me it seems plausible that without "property rights", which some people insist are essential for Capitalism to work, resource scarcity would work differently. Scarce resources might diffuse and spread evenly throughout society, a la: some sort of idealised Socialism. From a progress POV, this could be bad as there might be no pressure to innovate -- since everyone already has all the same stuff, it might not occur to anyone to try and create anything different. (Side note: they say that "travel broadens the mind" -- you get to discover all these new scarce things! )

Thus, property rights do seem like a driving force behind increasing relative scarcity. When some people own stuff, those resources become relatively more scarce for those who don't own them. The real world seems to consist of a chaotic assortment of millions of different things that are more or less scarce, depending on where people happen to live. Combined with the ideas of property and ownership, there is huge pressure to specialize in some particular field.

It also seems plausible that this specialisation is self-reinforcing, that there's some positive feedback loop going on. E.g.: you own some resource, it's abundant for you and scarce for others. Laziness and routine seems like human nature, so when people see an opportunity, e.g.: a natural talent that's easy for them but a nightmare for others, I guess they'll want to make the most of it, right? Absolute monopolies might be rare, but that's semantics. How about a general pressure towards monopolization?

I would contend that formalized property rights are a result of capitalism at work, not a pre-requisite.  It's provablely true that capitalism exists even in places for which it is, directly or indirectly, forbidden.  If the society at large does not recognize the property rights of a capitalist, then he will find a workaround to that limitation.  Thus, strong property rights could not be a requirement.

[myrkul]

If the society at large does not recognize the property rights of a capitalist, then he will find a workaround to that limitation.  Thus, strong property rights could not be a requirement.

Well, shit. That's a good point.

[MoonShadow]

This is a wonderful resource for anyone trying to improve themselves in this topic.  As a sidenote, she takes donations for support via bitcoin.

http://praxgirl.com/2011/06/10/episode-1-the-introduction/

Be warned though, she and her crew have been doing this for a couple of years now, and have quite a few episodes in the can.  Not only can catching up take some serious time, she doesn't wait for the slow kids if they fall off the back of the bus.

[MoonShadow]

And this one is useful as well, as the main characters are engaging in capitalism at the smallest scale.

http://www.desertislandgame.com/

[MoonShadow]

I would contend that formalized property rights are a result of capitalism at work, not a pre-requisite.  It's provablely true that capitalism exists even in places for which it is, directly or indirectly, forbidden.  If the society at large does not recognize the property rights of a capitalist, then he will find a workaround to that limitation.  Thus, strong property rights could not be a requirement.

What about being a functional part of Capitalism at play? Is that fair? I don't really see how the practice of trade might somehow cause property rights afterwards.

Property rights are encourged by capitalism because efficiencies in markets favor strong property rights within those markets.  It's no secret that governments across human history are practially influenced by the wealthiest among them, and whenever capitalism has been allowed to dominate, the wealthy include those who became wealthy using capitalist principles, whether they understood them as such or not.  While the individial capitalist might favor a monopoly power, his peers resist that for their own ends.  This balance of forces favors the legal establishment and enforcement of property rights.

If my earlier reasoning holds,
TL;DR:

Property rights --> scarcity --> specialization + human nature --> tendency to at least some monopolization.

Scarcity is not a result of property rights.  Scarcity is a result of reality.  I really don't have a method of getting you there from where you are here.  Again, it's provablely true that capitalism exists even in societies that forbid it, and actively work to suppress it.  Thus property rights cannot be a pre-requisite.

and it's pure Capitalism with no Socialist compromises, nothing to hold people back, then Bonkers could be right about monopolies being a natural equilibrium point.

Well, I can't prove a negative; but since there is no such thing as a natural and stable monopoly across the recorded history of mankind, I'd wager it's safe to say that she is incorrect on this point. 

I think it's an issue of semantics -- even an artist might have a monopoly on their special brand of artwork.

Not without a government granted advantage.  Copyright is, by definition, a tempoary monopoly on the reproduction of artworks enforced by government statutes.  Absent the use, or threat of use, of government force; no artist could command a monopoly on similar works, nor on modern machine copies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

[blablahblah]

I would contend that formalized property rights are a result of capitalism at work, not a pre-requisite.  It's provablely true that capitalism exists even in places for which it is, directly or indirectly, forbidden.  If the society at large does not recognize the property rights of a capitalist, then he will find a workaround to that limitation.  Thus, strong property rights could not be a requirement.

What about being a functional part of Capitalism at play? Is that fair? I don't really see how the practice of trade might somehow cause property rights afterwards.

Property rights are encourged by capitalism because efficiencies in markets favor strong property rights within those markets.  It's no secret that governments across human history are practially influenced by the wealthiest among them, and whenever capitalism has been allowed to dominate, the wealthy include those who became wealthy using capitalist principles, whether they understood them as such or not.  While the individial capitalist might favor a monopoly power, his peers resist that for their own ends.  This balance of forces favors the legal establishment and enforcement of property rights.

Or subversion thereof?! You seem to have stumbled upon a point where Capitalism might create a pressure for governments to come into existence and enact various laws. I suspect this might be anathema to some...