Chang, you’re right, with the exception of two words: “competition-based”. The whole raison d’être of the outlaw US empire is to eliminate competition. Oligarchs are not interested in competing. They’re interested in forming a cartel and eliminating anyone who tries to complete.
Apologies, I failed to take into account that Chang is quoting Caitlin. But then Chang uses the quote in slightly misleading way (imho) to define “capitalism”. Capitalism is something that existed in the mid-19th century. What we have now is “monopolistic cartelism” (i.e. gangsterism). It’s like robber-barons, but with smartphone-based mind control.
Capitalism has existed since the mid 15th Century (i.e. around 1450). There are MULTIPLE "kinds" of Capitalism (just like there are multiple kinds of Socialism, Communism, etc.) - BUT -> they are all still Capitalism (call it neoliberalism, techno-feudalism, or whatever else you want).
multiple - "resource-based socialist system" is my preference - respecting the MOST important things on the planet -> resources (earth, etc.) and life (people, other species).
Also note that multiple variations of economic systems exist simultaneously in multiple different parts of the planet (for example: currently there exists some forms of slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, socialism, and others in different pockets of human geography).
Check out Peter Joseph (for more on resource-based systems).
The Resource-based socialist system reminds me of Eco-Socialism.
When exploring alternative economies I'm curious to find out who will get to issue the credit as opposed to the present system where a very small group appears to have the monopoly.
In the end - alternative economies can only succeed with self government instead of being ruled from afar.
Yes! Competition is what the Capitalists DON'T WANT. Monopolies is what allows the Oligarchs and Empire Managers to make obscene profits. Real competition decreases profits. Hence, these Capitalists abhor competition and will do ANYTHING to eliminate it - where ever it finds it.
Capitalists often defend corporate mergers on the grounds that they supposedly increase competition. That is a clear misdirection. Mergers actually reduce overall competition by making the resultant merged company more competitive vis a vis its rivals. Don’t be fooled by this head-fake.
that seems to be the whole point of competing, not? in the end someone wins, eliminating competition seems inherent to competing, especially when you put basic needs (food, shelter, health,...) on the playing field. for the rich it is a game, for the poor it's a matter of life and death.
Seems like your definition of competition is totally circular logic. “Competition = No Competition”. Or in other words, you define competition as “the creation of monopolies.”
indeed, competition is a cul-de-sac with monopoly as the ultimate goal of the mechanism. other people studied this and came to the same conclusion. convincing people it's something different has become an important part in outsmarting competition.
>>"Monopolies cannot survive in a truly capitalistic economy."
INCORRECT.
Monopolies is an intrinsic feature of CAPITALISM. Capitalism (and all that it entails) leads to monopolies.
There is nothing like "truly capitalistic economy" - who's definition is adhered to for "truly" and "untruly" Capitalism? Yours? Other Capitalism apologists? Imperialists or Colonialists? Neoliberals? The Oligarchy and the power elite?
Stephen I think you make an artificial distinction. Capitalism will always seek to achieve monopoly and eventually, because of corruption, will always achieve it.
It’s like making a distinction between someone who wants to murder but is prevented from doing so, and someone who murders with impunity. The former is preferable to the latter obviously, but a non-homicidal condition is better.
Chang, you’re right, with the exception of two words: “competition-based”. The whole raison d’être of the outlaw US empire is to eliminate competition. Oligarchs are not interested in competing. They’re interested in forming a cartel and eliminating anyone who tries to complete.
Apologies, I failed to take into account that Chang is quoting Caitlin. But then Chang uses the quote in slightly misleading way (imho) to define “capitalism”. Capitalism is something that existed in the mid-19th century. What we have now is “monopolistic cartelism” (i.e. gangsterism). It’s like robber-barons, but with smartphone-based mind control.
Capitalism has existed since the mid 15th Century (i.e. around 1450). There are MULTIPLE "kinds" of Capitalism (just like there are multiple kinds of Socialism, Communism, etc.) - BUT -> they are all still Capitalism (call it neoliberalism, techno-feudalism, or whatever else you want).
No
Capitalism is based upon private ownership and use of capital
Not for the COERCIVE monopoly state as you would prefer
Any state in a capitalist society will be very very minimal
ANy state is a good sign that capitalism has already been corrupted by those controlling the area
The U.S. only had a mixed economy from the scratch that people called capitalism despite the definition of private ownership
Calling a girl a boy doesn't make her one.
Calling a fascist a capitalist doesn't make them such, either.
You need to work on your analogies AND on your logic. Try again.
Your analogies are illogical.
??? What analogies have I made?
Alternatives to the present economic system?
multiple - "resource-based socialist system" is my preference - respecting the MOST important things on the planet -> resources (earth, etc.) and life (people, other species).
Also note that multiple variations of economic systems exist simultaneously in multiple different parts of the planet (for example: currently there exists some forms of slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, socialism, and others in different pockets of human geography).
Check out Peter Joseph (for more on resource-based systems).
The Resource-based socialist system reminds me of Eco-Socialism.
When exploring alternative economies I'm curious to find out who will get to issue the credit as opposed to the present system where a very small group appears to have the monopoly.
In the end - alternative economies can only succeed with self government instead of being ruled from afar.
A return to the free market of the late 18th century, before Hamilton dragged us back into mercantilism for the City of London.
(1) Capitalism is NOT "free-markets"
(2) Concepts like "free-markets" are a misnomer - free markets don't exists - never have.
(3) Study the history of human economics - markets are usually created by the state and regulated so as to promote "freeness"
(4) Without market regulation, monopolies and those with power wield their own whims/fancies/rules on markets and thus making them UNFREE.
So an economy cannot exist without a state, Karl?
an actual Free Market based upon the LIBERAL concept of Freedom of Association.
Even in the MARKET
Others inherently support state-mandated associations including Caitlin
and so-called social "liberals"
Economics are not partisan.
Yes! Competition is what the Capitalists DON'T WANT. Monopolies is what allows the Oligarchs and Empire Managers to make obscene profits. Real competition decreases profits. Hence, these Capitalists abhor competition and will do ANYTHING to eliminate it - where ever it finds it.
Capitalists often defend corporate mergers on the grounds that they supposedly increase competition. That is a clear misdirection. Mergers actually reduce overall competition by making the resultant merged company more competitive vis a vis its rivals. Don’t be fooled by this head-fake.
that seems to be the whole point of competing, not? in the end someone wins, eliminating competition seems inherent to competing, especially when you put basic needs (food, shelter, health,...) on the playing field. for the rich it is a game, for the poor it's a matter of life and death.
Seems like your definition of competition is totally circular logic. “Competition = No Competition”. Or in other words, you define competition as “the creation of monopolies.”
indeed, competition is a cul-de-sac with monopoly as the ultimate goal of the mechanism. other people studied this and came to the same conclusion. convincing people it's something different has become an important part in outsmarting competition.
Monopolies cannot survive in a truly capitalistic economy.
>>"Monopolies cannot survive in a truly capitalistic economy."
INCORRECT.
Monopolies is an intrinsic feature of CAPITALISM. Capitalism (and all that it entails) leads to monopolies.
There is nothing like "truly capitalistic economy" - who's definition is adhered to for "truly" and "untruly" Capitalism? Yours? Other Capitalism apologists? Imperialists or Colonialists? Neoliberals? The Oligarchy and the power elite?
In other words, your definition of monopoly is schizophrenic.
You're not making sense here...
Otherwise known as Capitalism.
Stephen I think you make an artificial distinction. Capitalism will always seek to achieve monopoly and eventually, because of corruption, will always achieve it.
It’s like making a distinction between someone who wants to murder but is prevented from doing so, and someone who murders with impunity. The former is preferable to the latter obviously, but a non-homicidal condition is better.