Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes)

[neutrinox]

If you have cornered the market on food, why would you spend $$$ on PR?  
to the alternative:  Would you spend as much on PR as when you *didn't* own the market?  Let's stop grasping at straws.

Why don't you ask Kim Jong Un that question. Or are you saying North Korea is light on the propaganda side?

[crumbcake]

Please.  Let's not try to grasp at straws & technicalities, the meaning was clear:  Two independent teams of air controllers, in competition rather than cooperation with one another.
You don't honestly believe that a monopoly is just one guy?

The air traffic controllers are in competition with each other. Not quite in the same way as in other industries, but pilots do have some latitude in planning their flights. They would avoid the airspace of bad controllers. And they're also in direct competition with the people managing the railways, and the highways. If air travel were the only way to travel, and air traffic controllers were all centrally located for the entire country, then that would be a monopoly.

I'm not going to argue this point further.  If you feel that the air traffic control crew of an airport consists of competing factions, i have nothing left to reach for.  Perhaps an alternate tack is more illustrative:
You do understand that while running a monopoly i can choose to divide my people into two or more competing teams?  If I, (the Pioneer Cap in Communist Monopoly), think it's in the people's best interest for my monopoly to be split up into competing factions, or to be disbanded altogether, then so be it!  This is not capitalism, where the goal of my monopoly is to survive!  This is Communist utopia, where "in people's best interest" means exactly that, and not a euphemism for "churn Uranium 'till you drop dead."  Are we on the same page?

And no, a monopoly is not one guy. It is, however, a central control structure. Which cannot see the whole picture. Economic calculation problem.

Oh give me a break, we're not talking about RR tycoon here, the term "monopoly" simply means that a whole bunch of people aren't competing for the same turf!  This Monopoly is not a fat old guy in a top hat & monocle trying to squeeze out the competition with shady business practices -- this thing is as rigid or flexible as it needs to be, as fragmented as it sees fit, and has all the strengths of feisty start-ups.  Only guided by need to further the common good rather than fear & greed.  Fear & greed have given much to mankind, but they're not the only things that drive man to create.  Really. 

As to your "efficiency":

No wasted money/energy for advertising
No redundant tooling costs for identical products
No redundant/identical products
Streamlined planning/transport/delivery

1.Unless you count propaganda. Monopolies have traditionally spent a great deal of energy and resources trying to convince people how awesome their shitty product is.

That's because they're not true monopolies.  If you have cornered the market on food, why would you spend $$$ on PR?  
to the alternative:  Would you spend as much on PR as when you *didn't* own the market?  Let's stop grasping at straws.

Possibly even more. If people got fed up enough with my product, they would end my monopoly, and possibly my life. This has happened before, even with propaganda.

Again, i'm not saying it's not possible to create a food monopoly so bad that it has to advertise food, or people would stop eating.  I'm sure you could.  I'm only saying it's less likely than if you were running a food business with competition.

2/3. Good point. Making 100 left shoes, size 10, is much more efficient than making 50 pairs of assorted sizes.

So you're saying that the only thing society needs is 100 left shoes in size 10?  Or that the monopoly is intrinsically run by idiots?

Well, how would you incentiveise a factory to provide the shoes that people need in a monopoly setting? For that matter, how would you know what shoes people need? Economic calculation problem.

How would you incentivise a shoe factory in a competitive environment to manufacture the needed shoes?

4. Planning again . Please read up on the economic calculation problem.

You're looking for problems intrinsic to monopolies, not problems often associated with monopolies.  

The economic calculation problem is intrinsic to monopolies. As are the reversed incentives leading to poor service and high prices.

Well no, please provide source

[myrkul]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

Eventually yes, but the government must first put programs in place and offer tons of social welfare, so that the people can survive without them once they are gone. Because if we just took away the government monopoly all at once, there would be no justice groups, or anything.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "remove the monopoly." I mean "allow market competition in those services."

Oh, then yes. That would be the perfect way to do it. Allow them to compete for the spots until eventually the government is just out of programs and the people take care of it. Maybe make the government nothing more than parks and rec.

No, I think you still don't get it. Coke is in market competition with Pepsi. Can I prevent you from drinking Pepsi if I prefer Coke?
Government services should be like that.

Oh, yeah. That's a republic.

No, not even remotely.

[crumbcake]

If you have cornered the market on food, why would you spend $$$ on PR?  
to the alternative:  Would you spend as much on PR as when you *didn't* own the market?  Let's stop grasping at straws.

Why don't you ask Kim Jong Un that question. Or are you saying North Korea is light on the propaganda side?

Not sure -- what are you talking about (specifics or link)
edit:  
edit:  

[FinShaggy]

No, not even remotely.

Not remotely, EXACTLY.

Republics offer complete individual freedom, but still has elected officials.

If you add socialism to that, you get a Socialist Republic. Which is: Complete individual freedoms, elected officials or no officials and a mass of government programs. To CHOOSE from.

[myrkul]

This is Communist utopia, where "in people's best interest" means exactly that, and not a euphemism for "churn Uranium 'till you drop dead."  Are we on the same page?

I see. So we're talking about a fantasy land. You should have told me, I would have included more unicorns in my examples.

How would you incentivise a shoe factory in a competitive environment to manufacture the needed shoes?

The competitive environment.

4. Planning again . Please read up on the economic calculation problem.

You're looking for problems intrinsic to monopolies, not problems often associated with monopolies.  

The economic calculation problem is intrinsic to monopolies. As are the reversed incentives leading to poor service and high prices.

Well no, please provide source

The link is provided twice in the above quote. Feel free to click either one.

[myrkul]

No, not even remotely.

Not remotely, EXACTLY.

Republics offer complete individual freedom, but still has elected officials.

I love how you contradict yourself there. A republic does not offer market competition in government services. It's still a regional monopoly.

[crumbcake]

This is Communist utopia, where "in people's best interest" means exactly that, and not a euphemism for "churn Uranium 'till you drop dead."  Are we on the same page?

I see. So we're talking about a fantasy land. You should have told me, I would have included more unicorns in my examples.

This is the first time my use of the word "utopia" clued you in?
edit:  let's assume for the sake of this interwebz debate that we're both capable of abstract thought, and don't need to dress our models in all the trappings of IRL, OK?  If not, i'll remember to add skidmarks on the silk panties of econololi i draw for you, k?

How would you incentivise a shoe factory in a competitive environment to manufacture the needed shoes?

The competitive environment.

That's about as much of an answer as if i said "noncompetitive environment."  Please don't bluff & answer the question.  

4. Planning again . Please read up on the economic calculation problem.

You're looking for problems intrinsic to monopolies, not problems often associated with monopolies.  

The economic calculation problem is intrinsic to monopolies. As are the reversed incentives leading to poor service and high prices.

Well no, please provide source

The link is provided twice in the above quote. Feel free to click either one.

Don't spam the thread with that link.  I've read the page.  Now tell me why it's supposed to convince me of inherent flaws of Socialism, communism, monopolies or tea in China?

[FinShaggy]

No, not even remotely.

Not remotely, EXACTLY.

Republics offer complete individual freedom, but still has elected officials.

I love how you contradict yourself there. A republic does not offer market competition in government services. It's still a regional monopoly.

A Socialist Republic is still a Republic, and it fits the description.
And it's not a regional monopoly. Just because people have to be judges and stuff doesn't mean they are a monopoly. You could have a publicly owned republic with elected officials.

[myrkul]

How would you incentivise a shoe factory in a competitive environment to manufacture the needed shoes?

The competitive environment.

That's about as much of an answer as if i said "noncompetitive environment."  Please don't bluff & answer the question.  [/quote]
If you don't make the shoes people need, they buy the other company's shoes, and you go out of business.

Don't spam the thread with that link.  I've read the page.  Now tell me why it's supposed to convince me of inherent flaws of Socialism, communism, monopolies or tea in China?

If you've read the page - actually read it, not just skimmed it - and still don't understand, I can't help you.

[myrkul]

A Socialist Republic is still a Republic, and it fits the description.

No it doesn't.

And it's not a regional monopoly.

Yes it is.

Just because people have to be judges and stuff doesn't mean they are a monopoly.

It does if there's only one place you can go to have your case judged. Coke and Pepsi, remember?

You could have a publicly owned republic with elected officials.

You could. But it wouldn't be what I'm talking about.

[crumbcake]

How would you incentivise a shoe factory in a competitive environment to manufacture the needed shoes?

The competitive environment.

That's about as much of an answer as if i said "noncompetitive environment."  Please don't bluff & answer the question.  

If you don't make the shoes people need, they buy the other company's shoes, and you go out of business.

I listen to the people?
edit:  the socialist monopoly needs no other incentive than the needs of the people -- by definition, that's why it exists. 

Don't spam the thread with that link.  I've read the page.  Now tell me why it's supposed to convince me of inherent flaws of Socialism, communism, monopolies or tea in China?

If you've read the page - actually read it, not just skimmed it - and still don't understand, I can't help you.

So your understanding of economy could be reduced to providing me with ... wiki links?

[myrkul]

So your understanding of economy could be reduced to providing me with ... wiki links?

No, but if you have absorbed the information on that page and don't understand how it means that communism/socialism can never properly run an economy, you won't be able to understand anything I explain to you, either.

[crumbcake]

So your understanding of economy could be reduced to providing me with ... wiki links?

No, but if you have absorbed the information on that page and don't understand how it means that communism/socialism can never properly run an economy, you won't be able to understand anything I explain to you, either.

Nicely put.  In other words, those who can't see this are blind, those who can't hear it are deaf?  Please make your own arguments & don't spam that link.  If i wanted to debate wiki, i'd be a wikipedo.

[crumbcake]

So your understanding of economy could be reduced to providing me with ... wiki links?

No, but if you have absorbed the information on that page and don't understand how it means that communism/socialism can never properly run an economy, you won't be able to understand anything I explain to you, either.

PS:  Read through the thread again.  Sometimes i get a sneaking suspicion that you don't even bother reading my posts, forget wiki pages

[myrkul]

So your understanding of economy could be reduced to providing me with ... wiki links?

No, but if you have absorbed the information on that page and don't understand how it means that communism/socialism can never properly run an economy, you won't be able to understand anything I explain to you, either.

Nicely put.  In other words, those who can't see this are blind, those who can't hear it are deaf?  Please make your own arguments

Very well. How are you going to solve that problem, hmm? How do you plan an economy from the center?

[crumbcake]

So your understanding of economy could be reduced to providing me with ... wiki links?

No, but if you have absorbed the information on that page and don't understand how it means that communism/socialism can never properly run an economy, you won't be able to understand anything I explain to you, either.

Nicely put.  In other words, those who can't see this are blind, those who can't hear it are deaf?  Please make your own arguments

Very well. How are you going to solve that problem, hmm? How do you plan an economy from the center?

You're forgetting what we're talking about.  Let me remind you:

Since this vague term capitalism is a degenerative condition, something mankind succumbs to when guided by nothing but "invisible hand" [translation:  Naked greed], it's been a default condition throughout history.  There were a few abortive exceptions.  Count them on one hand.  In other words, yes, you're right.  Capitalism, being the only player, is the star.

edit:  As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions:  What are you basing this on?  

which you've lead here:

Monopolies are never guided by public needs. Even the ones that say they are, are running solely on self-interest alone. And if you want efficiency, a monopoly is the last place to seek it. The incentives are all backward.

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.  

So, where does the burden of proof lie, with me or with you?  You've made some pretty global generalizations, why not back them up?  
edit: I have lousy memory, so be kind enough to quote the claims you wish me to defend, otherwise i'll have to assume that i never made them.  I extend this courtesy to you already.
Deal?

[myrkul]

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.

Of course they are. The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit.

[neutrinox]

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.  

So, where does the burden of proof lie, with me or with you?  You've made some pretty global generalizations, why not back them up?  

The evidence for that is ridiculously obvious. I don't know one single socialist monopoly
a.) government or
b.) company

that would provide a better service to the people than a capitalist one does. Just take a look at North Korea. Do you think the monopoly companies there produce goods that are of great quality? Or that the single political party monopoly is good for the folks in there?

Just compare North Korea to South Korea. Or West Germany to DDR. In both examples the people are from the same background. But the monopoly-regimes have turned into awful places compared to the capitalist neighbors.

The burden of proof is clearly on your side now to provide an example of a monopoly that gives a better end result to the consumer than free market capitalism.

[crumbcake]

in other words, you've claimed that, from the perspective of public good, monopolies are intrinsically flawed.

Of course they are. The incentive, if you're a monopoly, is to raise the price until your public can barely afford it. Likewise, to lower your quality until the public can just barely stand it. That way you get the most per-unit profit.

Aaah, that's where the problem lies for you!  I have a very simple answer:  Who, in God's name, told you that raising prices is ever the incentive in any form of socialism, no matter how muddled?  The incentive is *helping fellow man*!