Understanding arguments against capitalism

[moralist]

Today, it's not Daniel Boone... it's Denial Boone.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

I still listen to Wild Bill Hickok and jingles on old time radio!

[moralist]

God... haven't heard those names in decades!

Greg

[Jules Troy]

Yupppp!

Lone Ranger

The life of Ryley

Fibber McGee

They rotate a lot of great old radio shows on this one radio station I listen to while working nights.

Really cool listening to the old commercials that often are woven into little side breaks of the narrative by the actors themselves.

[Alexander Warner]

One of the most common arguments I hear against laissez-faire capitalism is that it by definition supports the creation and preservation of so-called intrinsically evil monopolies, and that the only way to keep these monopolies in check is through government regulation. Why is this wrong? Is the Gilded Age a good example of monopolies running wild? I ask these questions knowing I probably sound like a moron, but I am young and new to objectivism. So when people make these arguments, I genuinely have no idea how to refute them. Thanks in advance for your help.

It is not possible to maintain a monopoly under Capitalism because of how the market operates under capitalism. And if suppose we assume that some organization is having something which is near to monopoly, then it is because it proves such a superior quality that its competitors can't afford and are not able to prove that, and not that it can anyhow stop the competitors from entering the market.

[Brant Gaede]

One of the most common arguments I hear against laissez-faire capitalism is that it by definition supports the creation and preservation of so-called intrinsically evil monopolies, and that the only way to keep these monopolies in check is through government regulation. Why is this wrong? Is the Gilded Age a good example of monopolies running wild? I ask these questions knowing I probably sound like a moron, but I am young and new to objectivism. So when people make these arguments, I genuinely have no idea how to refute them. Thanks in advance for your help.

It is not possible to maintain a monopoly under Capitalism because of how the market operates under capitalism. And if suppose we assume that some organization is having something which is near to monopoly, then it is because it proves such a superior quality that its competitors can't afford and are not able to prove that, and not that it can anyhow stop the competitors from entering the market.

This is standard top down ideological free market reasoning starting from the perfect state that true "capitalism" demands but cannot achieve much less maintain. It constitutes a valid and rational in-the-head starting point. What is next needed is bottom up empiricism. Finally consider the world as it really is and really might be which would be capitalism but with blemishes identified and dealt with as such insofar wacky government policies in the name of purity don't follow--i.e., reversion to ideology even though many people are needlessly hurt. That's why it is not freedom per se but moving toward freedom, careful as we go, that is the operative rational principle as we long for freedom seen as a "city on a hill." Only it's not a hill but a mountain to climb as in life itself is a climb, not to a top reached--just climbed.

--Brant

and when we can't climb any more at least we'll have "Miller time"

I now think of libertarians and classical Objectivists as trapped in a Randian matrix of un-achievable perfectionism, which Rand fudged on in her politics but not morality while the libertarians blew off the morality--as in general philosophical reasoning--and confined themselves mostly to the politics logically rendered as anarchism, anathema to Rand (you can't get the bad out of people for that's getting rid of free will and you can't get the bad out of government for it is of and by people but we can reduce bad to pretty good all considered if we keep at it as a project contra entropy for morality is both within ourselves--a striving to doing right and being right--and without as in the governance we create (life and living is fighting against entropy)

[Wolf DeVoon]

moving toward freedom, careful as we go

Brant, help me think of a time or place when that happened?

[Brant Gaede]

moving toward freedom, careful as we go

Brant, help me think of a time or place when that happened?

The repeal of the corn law(s)?

The abolitionist movement?

The founding of this country from the Mayflower until the adoption of the Constitution?

--Brant

all contra human nature I'm assuming

[Selene]

Someone want to define "freedom" in the context that you are using because that word means a gamut of behavior...

[Brant Gaede]

Someone want to define "freedom" in the context that you are using because that word means a gamut of behavior...

Effective protection, not violation, of individual rights.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

moving toward freedom, careful as we go

Brant, help me think of a time or place when that happened?

The repeal of the corn law(s)?

The abolitionist movement?

The founding of this country from the Mayflower until the adoption of the Constitution?

--Brant

all contra human nature I'm assuming

Yes, fine. I meant since the Civil War, say.

[Brant Gaede]

Moving the goal posts?

After I kicked the ball?

Lucy and the football?

--Brant

nutz, nutz, nutz

I'm defaulting to Greg on this one

[Wolf DeVoon]

Well, the Enlightenment is kinda distant, historically. I wondered if you saw any progress "moving toward freedom, careful as we go" under Gerry Ford? or maybe George W.? ... We went backward at a gallop with LBJ and Obama.

[Brant Gaede]

No, nope, nada, nyet.

[Wolf DeVoon]

People liked Ronald Reagan, but were a little disappointed they couldn't get Jimmy Stewart.

[Gary Fisher]

"Under capitalism your sky high prices are a signal to businessmen. The signal is: you can get 'filthy' rich if you find an alternative petroleum spot, maybe by drilling deeper. Or to another person the signal is: you can get 'filthy' rich by developing an alternative to petroleum, maybe solar or wind or nuclear or ocean waves or ocean tides or volcanic heat or zero point or whatever. Another person reads the signal: you can get 'fithy' rich by developing aerogel insulation so houses don't need so much energy to keep warm. Another reads it: you can get 'filthy' rich by developing LED lights that use less electricity and produce better light. All this and more happens under capitalism, I assume more because a free market consists of a multitude of brilliant minds working together in synergy. Synergy means the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There is no way my own one little imagination can compete with that."

So we end up with a bunch of neat stuff that nobody can afford?Honestly, I'd rather just have the cheap petroleum.

[moralist]

Brant writes:

I'm defaulting to Greg on this one.

Gee thanks, Brant...

...but I have no interest in rechewing cud over the dead past simply because it has already happened and no one can do one damned thing to change it.

However, I am interested in the present because that's the ONLY place where EVERYTHING happens.

Greg

[Selene]

Just for the record.

U.S. military draft ends, Jan. 27, 1973 should qualify.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

Just for the record.

U.S. military draft ends, Jan. 27, 1973 should qualify.

A...

73 was an exceptionally good year.

Largest output of U.S. passenger cars, largest oil discoveries worldwide, Zepp's 'Houses of the Holy'

April 1973: John Ehrlichman, H. R. Haldeman, and Richard Kleindienst resign; John Dean is fired.

[jts]

"Under capitalism your sky high prices are a signal to businessmen. The signal is: you can get 'filthy' rich if you find an alternative petroleum spot, maybe by drilling deeper. Or to another person the signal is: you can get 'filthy' rich by developing an alternative to petroleum, maybe solar or wind or nuclear or ocean waves or ocean tides or volcanic heat or zero point or whatever. Another person reads the signal: you can get 'fithy' rich by developing aerogel insulation so houses don't need so much energy to keep warm. Another reads it: you can get 'filthy' rich by developing LED lights that use less electricity and produce better light. All this and more happens under capitalism, I assume more because a free market consists of a multitude of brilliant minds working together in synergy. Synergy means the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There is no way my own one little imagination can compete with that."

So we end up with a bunch of neat stuff that nobody can afford?Honestly, I'd rather just have the cheap petroleum.

If nobody can afford the prices, then even the businessman with a monopoly must lower his prices to make any money.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'd rather just have the cheap petroleum.

Go ahead and claim your cheap petroleum. Here's a shovel. Oil is everywhere. All you have to do is dig.

[Gary Fisher]

<br>"If nobody can afford the prices, then even the businessman with a monopoly must lower his prices to make any money."<br>

<br>-jts<br>

Obviously, that was an exaggeration. What I meant to say was, that if forming a monopoly and charging "sky high" prices to get rich is an acceptable business practice, then it presumably wouldn't matter if many people (possibly most people) could not afford to buy the products that the economy produces?<br>

<br>What I see as the outcome of this, is an economy where the poor people work for bare sustenance, while all of the products they produce are sold, bought, and consumed primarily by rich people.<br>

<br>Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the fella who first brought this issue up (it wasn't Marx), and I've forgotten, but I think there was a classical economist (Bastiat? Menger?) who addressed it.<br>

[jts]

I will attempt to explain again.

Imagine all the known petroleum on planet Earth is in one spot. (Obviously an imaginary scenario; in reality petroleum is all over; it is rare that all of any one resource is in one spot.) Imagine you own that spot. Now you are set up to make a lot of money. Imagine you jack up the price as high as you want.

I say the price of petroleum would eventually come down. Not immediately but in time. Why?

The extremely high price of petroleum would be an incentive for businessmen to find other spots with oil. Then they could compete with you by charging a lower price. The price of petroleum goes down.

The extremely high price of petroleum would be an incentive for businessmen to develop alternatives to petroleum. Solar, wind, geothermal, tides, ocean waves, biomass, nuclear, zero point, whatever. The price of petroleum goes down because it has to compete with other sources of energy.

The extremely high price of petroleum would be an incentive for businessmen to develop aerogel insulation (make it cheap). An ice cube in a box insulated with aerogel takes 3 years to melt. Insulate your house with that and you don't need to burn much petroleum to keep it warm. The light from the aerogel insulated windows (aerogel is transparent enough) would probably be enough so you wouldn't need any petroleum to keep your house warm. The price of petroleum goes down because of reduced demand for it.

The extremely high price of petroleum would be an incentive for businessmen to develop LED lights. LED is Light Emitting Diode. LED lights are very efficient in the use of electricity, about 99% light and 1% heat. Also can produce very high quality light. And can last about 20 years before they burn out. What remains to be done is to bring the price of LEDs down. Again the price of petroleum goes down because of reduced demand for it.

The above list is not complete. A free market can produce more ideas than any one person can imagine.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Sorry. You picked an inapt example with petroleum. I don't want to bother explaining why.

[moralist]

Jerry writes:

The extremely high price of petroleum would be an incentive for businessmen to develop LED lights. LED is Light Emitting Diode. LED lights are very efficient in the use of electricity, about 99% light and 1% heat. Also can produce very high quality light. And can last about 20 years before they burn out. What remains to be done is to bring the price of LEDs down. Again the price of petroleum goes down because of reduced demand for it.

I've installed thousands of dollars of LED fixtures, and regard them as the greatest lighting invention since the incandescent light bulb. Once the initial obstacle of color correction was overcome, now you can't tell the difference. The Capitalist free market is already bringing down the prices.

People should become like LED's... generate more light than heat.

Greg