Capitalism and immorality

[Alex_green]

capitalism is the only moral system of government

[nextgencoin]

That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.

Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty.

Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you.

Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall.

Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that.

Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service.

Well the main problem lies with the fact that when there is an actual monopoly the incentive to continue to provide an efficient and superior service fades away. You can't exactly have superior service if there's no longer anything else to compare it to. And since there is no longer an alternative efficiency becomes irrelevant for the monopoly.

When there's no longer an efficient monopoly, more efficient players should enter the market.

The problem comes when the monopoly takes steps to block or create barriers to entry that make entering the market difficult.

Then it wouldn't be a free market would it. And who is able to make barriers of entry other than regulating governments.

if people would understand one thing is that inequality comes from the thing that pretends to alter it, government and regulation.

[nextgencoin]

capitalism is the only moral system of government

Government has a place in Capitalism, its just not the economy. Its focus should only be on governing the law of the land. Capitalism needs land rights etc, its not anarchy.

[Gargulan]

If you have a monopoly then you do not have incentives to provide "superior service" as you do not have any real competition

Incentive is hold on to what you have and keep other from starting a business to compete with you.

Monopolies have enough control of the market so other businesses cannot easily compete.

If that is the case, that's mean they are doing something right.

[DannyElfman]

That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.

Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty.

Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you.

Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall.

Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that.

Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service.

Well the main problem lies with the fact that when there is an actual monopoly the incentive to continue to provide an efficient and superior service fades away. You can't exactly have superior service if there's no longer anything else to compare it to. And since there is no longer an alternative efficiency becomes irrelevant for the monopoly.

When there's no longer an efficient monopoly, more efficient players should enter the market.

The problem comes when the monopoly takes steps to block or create barriers to entry that make entering the market difficult.

this is exactly why most governments have made monopolies illegal and will force them to break up when they come close to having a monopoly

[Erdogan]

Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint...

Yeah, this.  How can freedom to compete in an open market, where you're not allowed to hurt people and steal people's stuff, be immoral?

The moral of capitalism is that of human rights including right to one self and ones things, non-initiation of force in violence to those rights, the rule of law, cooperation in the form of voluntary exchange.

[Marlo Stanfield]

That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.

Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty.

Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you.

Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall.

Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that.

Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service.

Well the main problem lies with the fact that when there is an actual monopoly the incentive to continue to provide an efficient and superior service fades away. You can't exactly have superior service if there's no longer anything else to compare it to. And since there is no longer an alternative efficiency becomes irrelevant for the monopoly.

When there's no longer an efficient monopoly, more efficient players should enter the market.

The problem comes when the monopoly takes steps to block or create barriers to entry that make entering the market difficult.

Then it wouldn't be a free market would it. And who is able to make barriers of entry other than regulating governments.

if people would understand one thing is that inequality comes from the thing that pretends to alter it, government and regulation.

I don't think governments are the only one who could make barriers to entry. Sometimes something as simple as controlling the supply of a commodity is enough to create an insurmountable barrier to entry.

A market with no regulation is more likely to cease to be a free market in the long run than one that is regulated properly with the intention of keeping it free.

[DannyElfman]

That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.

Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty.

Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you.

Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall.

Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that.

Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service.

Well the main problem lies with the fact that when there is an actual monopoly the incentive to continue to provide an efficient and superior service fades away. You can't exactly have superior service if there's no longer anything else to compare it to. And since there is no longer an alternative efficiency becomes irrelevant for the monopoly.

When there's no longer an efficient monopoly, more efficient players should enter the market.

The problem comes when the monopoly takes steps to block or create barriers to entry that make entering the market difficult.

Then it wouldn't be a free market would it. And who is able to make barriers of entry other than regulating governments.

if people would understand one thing is that inequality comes from the thing that pretends to alter it, government and regulation.

I don't think governments are the only one who could make barriers to entry. Sometimes something as simple as controlling the supply of a commodity is enough to create an insurmountable barrier to entry.

A market with no regulation is more likely to cease to be a free market in the long run than one that is regulated properly with the intention of keeping it free.

I would disagree. There are many markets that have little regulation that have very low barriers to entry.

One example would be a lemonade stand, one would need to invest in very little in order to set one up. There are plenty of places where one could be set up. Lemons can be easily grown in the owner's yard for their lemonade paper cups and pitchers have a large enough market for other then lemonade stands that it would be difficult to control this market. This is a very basic example.

The point is that the lower overall investment needed in order to start a business in an industry the harder it will be to have a monopoly over the market.

[taylortyler]

As a liberterian, a TRUE liberterian,  I see the immortality of taxes.  I recognize the evil of using government force to take the product of a citizen's effort and use it for….anything.  ANYTHING.   The only moral purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, thereby increasing freedom.  Forcibly taking wealth from somebody and giving to somebody else is wrong/immoral/evil.

RE: " I see the immortality of taxes.  I recognize the evil of using government force to take the product of a citizen's effort and use it for….anything.  ANYTHING."

 What a parasitical maggot. What a bum. A thief. A criminal. A low life scumbag.



 Your NOT a "true" anything but a parasitical maggot. What a bum. A thief. A criminal. A low life scumbag. Your a traitor. A risk to national security. Just like the Fed.

 OP you come here to whine and cry about taxes when your nothing but an immoral and evil scumbag. Get over it. Grow UP. Or else it's going to end badly for you too.

 This is exactly what happens to children that have terrible parenting or just turn out to be spoiled rotten worthless psychopaths or sociopaths. Usually caused by a lack of a good male role model. I blame it mostly on spoiled rotten mothers whom toss out the fathers.


The OP; yet another freeloading parasitical maggot. Yea, you think you can hide behind some form of anonymity and not pay taxes with bitcoins. Your an idiot.

Is this satire? I don't see how someone is any of this horrible things you say simply because they don't agree with the current tax system.

[InwardContour]

-snip-
I don't think governments are the only one who could make barriers to entry. Sometimes something as simple as controlling the supply of a commodity is enough to create an insurmountable barrier to entry.

A market with no regulation is more likely to cease to be a free market in the long run than one that is regulated properly with the intention of keeping it free.

The biggest barrier to any market is the initial investment necessary to start a business. The more investment required prior to starting a business the harder it will be for newcomers to enter the market.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint...

Yeah, this.  How can freedom to compete in an open market, where you're not allowed to hurt people and steal people's stuff, be immoral?

The moral of capitalism is that of human rights including right to one self and ones things, non-initiation of force in violence to those rights, the rule of law, cooperation in the form of voluntary exchange.

That is right on. There is no reason to force people to give up what they have worked for to give it to people who are less skilled.

[Erdogan]

Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint...

Yeah, this.  How can freedom to compete in an open market, where you're not allowed to hurt people and steal people's stuff, be immoral?

The moral of capitalism is that of human rights including right to one self and ones things, non-initiation of force in violence to those rights, the rule of law, cooperation in the form of voluntary exchange.

That is right on. There is no reason to force people to give up what they have worked for to give it to people who are less skilled.

Right. And the immorality of the redistribution state is that the voters, not themselfves willing to take others' value by force in violation of human rights, contract the leaders to contract the taxmen who contract the police to take it. Not understanding how the free market economy works to the best for all, they blind themselves to the reality what is going on, and consider themselves virtous in taking from the rich to give to the poor. Which, after corruption and cronyism is included in the formula, in fact result in the state taking from the poor and give to the rich, destroying the productive capacity of the population in the course.

Inconscient moral self sanctimoniousness - I point my finger.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint...

Yeah, this.  How can freedom to compete in an open market, where you're not allowed to hurt people and steal people's stuff, be immoral?

The moral of capitalism is that of human rights including right to one self and ones things, non-initiation of force in violence to those rights, the rule of law, cooperation in the form of voluntary exchange.

That is right on. There is no reason to force people to give up what they have worked for to give it to people who are less skilled.

Right. And the immorality of the redistribution state is that the voters, not themselfves willing to take others' value by force in violation of human rights, contract the leaders to contract the taxmen who contract the police to take it. Not understanding how the free market economy works to the best for all, they blind themselves to the reality what is going on, and consider themselves virtous in taking from the rich to give to the poor. Which, after corruption and cronyism is included in the formula, in fact result in the state taking from the poor and give to the rich, destroying the productive capacity of the population in the course.

Inconscient moral self sanctimoniousness - I point my finger.

There are simply a lot of voters and liberal politicians that think with a robinhood mentality.

[CryptInvest]

Apparently capitalism inevitable stage of development of society. All indications are that more will be either socialism as in many European countries, or something very close in meaning.

[ronskii]

Can anyone please share some links of existing theoretical systems that could possibly compete with capitalism?

[tinof]

Can anyone please share some links of existing theoretical systems that could possibly compete with capitalism?

Compete in what way? Slavery, socialism, communism and capitalism have been tried and work well for the ruling class.

[Swordsoffreedom]

I've seen a lot of talk on these boards bashing capitalism. I want to remind people that capitalism is was the only moral system of government and it has never been tried completely.

Cough Development Politics
Tell that to all of Latin America who were raped pretty badly by the industrialization process
A system built on the backs of others through monopolization and trade restrictions
That is why they are moving to socialism systems the same with the Chinese who went from Commy --> Socialist because they were subjected to 100 years of shame and exploitation by the Colonial powers, and had to fight very hard to get out of that dependency. (opium wars etc)

Also known as the Global South
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_divide

In economic terms, the North—with one quarter of the world population—controls four fifths of the world income. 90% of the manufacturing industries are owned by and located in the North. Inversely, the South—with three quarters of the world populations—has access to one fifth of the world income. It serves as a source for raw material as the North, “eager to acquire their own independent resource bases[,]…subjected large portions of the global South to direct colonial rule” between 1850 and 1914. As nations become economically developed, they may become part of the "North", regardless of geographical location, while any other nations which do not qualify for "developed" status are in effect deemed to be part of the "South".