Choice Quotes From Marx

[Havet]

Before I begin, some reccomendations to all of you:

- I am not using these quotes to bash communism/communists, or as a counter-argument of any communist argument
- I will not count "counter-quotes" as an argument either
- It is meant that the content of these quotes is discussed here, with special preference towards OIers


"Doubtless, if the price of all commodities falls -- and this is the necessary consequence of free trade -- I can buy far more for a franc than before. And the worker's france is as good as any other man's. Therefore, free trade will be very advantageous to the worker. There is only little difficulty in this, namely, that the worker, before he exchanges his franc for other commodities, has first exchanged his labor with the capitalist. If in this exchange he always received the said franc for the same labor and the price of all other commodities fell, he would always be the gainer by such a bargain. The difficult point does not lie in proving that, if the price of all commodities falls, I will get more commodities for the same money. "

This is something most mutualists keep repeating. Its good to see good 'ol Karl jumping in with us.


"The most favorable condition for the worker is the growth of capital. This must be admitted. If capital remains stationary, industry will not merely remain stationary but will decline, and in this case the worker will be the first victim. He goes to the wall before the capitalist. And in the case where capital keeps growing, in the circumstance which we have said are the best for the worker, what will be his lot? He will go to the wall just the same. The growth of productive capital implies the accumulation and the concentration of capital. The centralization of capital involves a greater division of labor and a greater use of machinery. The greater division of labor destroys the especial skill of the laborer; and by putting in the place of this skilled work labor which anybody can perform, it increase competition among the workers. "

The important thing here is the context. Marx is clearly not defending the status quo, but rather explaining how attacking it from a certain angle might be worse for the workers in the short-medium term. Something I keep repeating myself with... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1564746&postcount=138):rolleyes:


"Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. "

Again, something pronounced by most mutualists. Keep 'em coming Karl!


"Moreover, the protectionist system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free trade competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country. "

Here it almost seems like Kevin Carson quoted Marx when he wrote Monopoly Capital - A Mutualist Synthesis (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html). I read it, but never saw this particular quote there. Again, it's nice to see Karl being so agreeable! Who would have thought!

Source of quotes: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm#marx

[Dean]

Interestingly, you've ignored contextual quotes, such as the following:


Economists always take the price of labor at the moment of its exchange with other commodities. But they altogether ignore the moment at which labor accomplishes its own exchange with capital.

When less expense is required to set in motion the machine which produces commodities, the things necessary for the maintenance of this machine, called a worker, will also cost less. If all commodities are cheaper, labor, which is a commodity too, will also fall in price, and, as we shall see later, this commodity, labor, will fall far lower in proportion than the other commodities. If the worker still pins his faith to the arguments of the economists, he will find that the franc has melted away in his pocket, and that he has only 5 sous left.
Well! Lowered prices do translate into cheaper wages, since the laborer is not "increasing" in value compared to its decreased output value (to the capitalist, of course)!

Thus, as productive capital grows, competition among the workers grows in a far greater proportion. The reward of labor diminishes for all, and the burden of labor increases for some.

Let us assume for a moment that there are no more Corn Laws or national or local custom duties; in fact that all the accidental circumstances which today the worker may take to be the cause of his miserable condition have entirely vanished, and you will have removed so many curtains that hide from his eyes his true enemy.

He will see that capital become free will make him no less a slave than capital trammeled by customs duties.

Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.

Why should you desire to go on sanctioning free competition with this idea of freedom, when this freedom is only the product of a state of things based upon free competition?

Moreover, the protectionist system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free trade competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
Well that's embarrassing!

[#FF0000]

Split off topic stuff.

[Left-Reasoning]

"If minimum wage laws, and other welfare legislation were the only things removed, then effectively workers would become worse off than before." - Hayenmill

You say this in the post you link to. Hayenmill, defend yourself!

[Havet]

"If minimum wage laws, and other welfare legislation were the only things removed, then effectively workers would become worse off than before." - Hayenmill

You say this in the post you link to. Hayenmill, defend yourself!

Defend myself? But from my understanding of the replies, that particular assumption was not questioned, neither by Dean nor by Marx himself

[Left-Reasoning]

Defend myself? But from my understanding of the replies, that particular assumption was not questioned, neither by Dean nor by Marx himself

I question that understanding.

[Havet]

I question that understanding.

Please elaborate; i'm confused. Which passage stroke your interest?

[Left-Reasoning]

Please elaborate; i'm confused. Which passage stroke your interest?

You said that if minimum wage laws were the only things removed that workers would be worse off than before. I ask you to prove this contention.

[Havet]

You said that if minimum wage laws were the only things removed that workers would be worse off than before. I ask you to prove this contention.

Ah, I get it now.

If you remove minimum wage, but retain the capitalist privilege granted by the State, you keep employers in an artificial position of power (such privilege comes in the forms of IP laws, regulations, public-private partnerships, etc), restriction of the supply of business owners, and consequently, an increase in the supply of wage labour will occur. This means that workers will be easily replaceable and have even less freedom in their economic options.

[Dean]

Ah, I get it now.

If you remove minimum wage, but retain the capitalist privilege granted by the State, you keep employers in an artificial position of power (such privilege comes in the forms of IP laws, regulations, public-private partnerships, etc), restriction of the supply of business owners, and consequently, an increase in the supply of wage labour will occur. This means that workers will be easily replaceable and have even less freedom in their economic options.

I don't disagree with this particular sentiment - however, I think it is rather dubious and unlikely that a sweeping characterization could be realistic - that is, that only those two laws, when removed, might hurt the working class.

There are a whole slew of laws which have complex economic manifestations, and I think a lot of laws, when removed, could have disastrous and unintentional results for the working class.

[Left-Reasoning]

Ah, I get it now.

If you remove minimum wage, but retain the capitalist privilege granted by the State, you keep employers in an artificial position of power (such privilege comes in the forms of IP laws, regulations, public-private partnerships, etc), restriction of the supply of business owners, and consequently, an increase in the supply of wage labour will occur. This means that workers will be easily replaceable and have even less freedom in their economic options.

Lower unemployment harms workers?

[Havet]

Lower unemployment harms workers?

No. I'm talking of their inability of doing anything but work. There is no competition between laborers and capitalists.

Laborers are free to compete among themselves, and so are capitalists to a certain extent. But between laborers and capitalists there is no competition whatever, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the owners of it are enabled to keep the laborers dependent on them for employment, so making the condition of wage-subjection perpetual. So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means.

For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?

[Dean]

So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means.
I don't see why a state changes this much, or at all. The fact that we have had states for all of human history simply indicates that it provides a valuable service to the owners of the means of production - capitalists will always demand a state.

[Left-Reasoning]

For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?

Your contentions are all true. Nevertheless, this says nothing of the Minimum Wage Laws.

[Havet]

Your contentions are all true. Nevertheless, this says nothing of the Minimum Wage Laws.

By extension, only the abolition of minimum wage laws will do nothing to tackle the lack of competition between laborers and capitalists, since the biggest problem is not lack of competition between workers.

[Left-Reasoning]

By extension, only the abolition of minimum wage laws will do nothing to tackle the lack of competition between laborers and capitalists, since the biggest problem is not lack of competition between workers.

Agreed, but abolishing the minimum wage laws will NOT worsen the conditions of the working man.

[Havet]

Agreed, but abolishing the minimum wage laws will NOT worsen the conditions of the working man.

No? Let us recap what i've said. If you just abolish minimum wages, you increase the amount of people who are now able to employ themselves. This means the supply of wage labor increases, and so does its competition, which coupled with the remaining existence of privileges to capitalists, ends up decreasing the value of each laborer, which also means workers will receive less, which will definitely not help society in the least.

[Left-Reasoning]

No? Let us recap what i've said. If you just abolish minimum wages, you increase the amount of people who are now able to employ themselves. This means the supply of wage labor increases, and so does its competition, which coupled with the remaining existence of privileges to capitalists, ends up decreasing the value of each laborer, which also means workers will receive less, which will definitely not help society in the least.

Rather than waste resources to build automatons more people will be hired which is better than remaining unemployed. That sounds like a good thing to me.

[Havet]

Rather than waste resources to build automatons more people will be hired which is better than remaining unemployed. That sounds like a good thing to me.

Ok, let me re-state my point:

Workers, despite having a job, will receive less. Privilege granted to capital, subsidies to industry, IP laws, corporate charters and corporate laws, anti-discrimination statutes, state ownership of land, currency monopoly, subsidies to infrastructure, regulatory agencies, trade restrictions, licensing schemes and so forth make that the previous power capitalists had over workers is increased, since workers are in greater supply and are easily replaced.

There is a perceived improvement in that workers actually get something for work instead of being unemployed. But since there will be greater quantities of them, they will make less, be bossed around more, and have less say in employment conditions and contracting.

[RED DAVE]

Rather than waste resources to build automatons more people will be hired which is better than remaining unemployed. That sounds like a good thing to me.No, what you get is forced competition among workers for the jobs available at lower wages.

Minimum wage, like the shorter work week, abolition of child labor and safety standards were imposed on capitalism by mass movements of labor. Now that capitalism has succeed in undermining the labor movement, people be trying to justify the decline in the standard of living and working conditions of the working class.

RED DAVE

[Left-Reasoning]

Minimum wage, like the shorter work week, abolition of child labor and safety standards were imposed on capitalism by mass movements of labor.

Movements that didn't understand economics.

[Left-Reasoning]

There is a perceived improvement in that workers actually get something for work instead of being unemployed. But since there will be greater quantities of them, they will make less, be bossed around more, and have less say in employment conditions and contracting.

Just as the ruling class creates artificial barriers so as to extract more money, so you suggest that the minimum wage barriers to entry on the labor market not be repealed in the name that some other generally more skilled workers lose out.

[Left-Reasoning]

You don't help the workers by unemploying those who earn the least.

[Nolan]

Movements that didn't understand economics.

No, the self-aware working class tends to not give a fuck about the well being of capitalism.

[Havet]

Just as the ruling class creates artificial barriers so as to extract more money, so you suggest that the minimum wage barriers to entry on the labor market not be repealed in the name that some other generally more skilled workers lose out.

Come on now, you know I didn't say that. I'm all in favor of abolishing minimum wage legislation (as countries such as Switzerland and Sweden have shown), but ONLY with the simultaneous abolition of other capitalist's privileges (which was also done in the countries mentioned above).

[Left-Reasoning]

Come on now, you know I didn't say that. I'm all in favor of abolishing minimum wage legislation (as countries such as Switzerland and Sweden have shown), but ONLY with the simultaneous abolition of other capitalist's privileges (which was also done in the countries mentioned above).

Which means that until the other capitalist privileges can be abolished you support minimum wage legislation with all the harm it does to those most desperate.

[Left-Reasoning]

No, the self-aware working class tends to not give a fuck about the well being of capitalism.

This is correct. Unfortunately, they have also tended to be bad at economics. See the eight-hour day campaign.

[Havet]

Which means that until the other capitalist privileges can be abolished you support minimum wage legislation with all the harm it does to those most desperate.

If you show me empirical/scientific evidence of societies where minimum wage laws were abolished, while capitalist privileges remained performed better than societies where both minimum wage laws and capitalist privileges existed then I will become convinced.

[Left-Reasoning]

If you show me empirical/scientific evidence of societies where minimum wage laws were abolished, while capitalist privileges remained performed better than societies where both minimum wage laws and capitalist privileges existed then I will become convinced.

Basic economic theory isn't enough for you?

[Havet]

Basic economic theory isn't enough for you?

If a certain theory is not reproducible in practice, then won't you find that theory useless? That's why I was hoping for some concrete/real-life examples for me to analyze.

[Left-Reasoning]

If a certain theory is not reproducible in practice, then won't you find that theory useless? That's why I was hoping for some concrete/real-life examples for me to analyze.

The common divide between practice and theory is an artificial and fallacious one.

[Havet]

The common divide between practice and theory is an artificial and fallacious one.

Ok, then prove it. I'm all ears.

[Skooma Addict]

Come on now, you know I didn't say that. I'm all in favor of abolishing minimum wage legislation (as countries such as Switzerland and Sweden have shown), but ONLY with the simultaneous abolition of other capitalist's privileges (which was also done in the countries mentioned above).

Which privileges are you referring to and why must they be removed in order for you to support abolishing the minimum wage? The minimum wage is a price floor and it has the same effect as every other price floor.

[Skooma Addict]

Minimum wage, like the shorter work week, abolition of child labor and safety standards were imposed on capitalism by mass movements of labor.

All I can say is hopefully the organized labor mafia is never able to abolish child labor in China given that the alternatives for the children are often times prostitution, drug smuggling, or some underground job which pays far less than a job by, say, an American corporation. Not to mention that many of these children are working to pay for school. Now, this fact is inconvenient for the limousine liberals who like to make themselves feel good by pretending that they can connect with working children in China.

[#FF0000]

Basic economic theory isn't enough for you?

Empirical evidence is worth a lot more than apparently "sound" theory.

[Zanthorus]

I don't think that's a particularly good argument. There is a lot of empirical studies supporting both sides of the minimum wage causes unemployment argument. Plus correlation=/=causation. There could be factors that aren't being taking into account affecting the results.

I would like to see these "basic economics" arguments against the minimum wage though.


All I can say is hopefully the organized labor mafia is never able to abolish child labor in China given that the alternatives for the children are often times prostitution, drug smuggling, or some underground job which pays far less than a job by, say, an American corporation. Not to mention that many of these children are working to pay for school. Now, this fact is inconvenient for the limousine liberals who like to make themselves feel good by pretending that they can connect with working children in China.

You present a false dichotomy between underground jobs and working for an american company. We could always, ya know, attempt to alleviate poverty in China through wealth distribution.

[Havet]

Which privileges are you referring to and why must they be removed in order for you to support abolishing the minimum wage? The minimum wage is a price floor and it has the same effect as every other price floor.

IP laws, public-private partnerships, corporate charters and corporate laws, anti-discrimination statutes, state ownership of land, currency monopoly, subsidies to infrastructure, regulatory agencies, trade restrictions, licensing schemes and so forth

They must be removed in order to achieve equality of opportunity between individuals (workers, businessmen, etc), otherwise people with artificially-gained power will use it to maintain their privilege.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't think that's a particularly good argument. There is a lot of empirical studies supporting both sides of the minimum wage causes unemployment argument. Plus correlation=/=causation. There could be factors that aren't being taking into account affecting the results.

I would like to see these "basic economics" arguments against the minimum wage though.There is plenty of empirical evidence supporting the standard story about what will happen when a binding price floor is enacted. Not only that, but theoretically it is rock solid. In fact, everyone understands why a 70 dollar per hour minimum wage would be bad, yet for some reason things somehow change when we get to an 8 dollar per hour minimum wage. But remember, a minimum wage has to be binding in order to have any effect.


You present a false dichotomy between underground jobs and working for an american company. We could always, ya know, attempt to alleviate poverty in China through wealth distribution. I didn't present any dichotomy.


IP laws, public-private partnerships, corporate charters and corporate laws, anti-discrimination statutes, state ownership of land, currency monopoly, subsidies to infrastructure, regulatory agencies, trade restrictions, licensing schemes and so forth

They must be removed in order to achieve equality of opportunity between individuals (workers, businessmen, etc), otherwise people with artificially-gained power will use it to maintain their privilege.Why must all of those be removed before you could support abolishing the minimum wage? I don't see why the status IP laws or state ownership of land would have any bearing on whether or not to abolish the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is already a tool used by people to maintain state granted privilege. It should just be another part in the list of things you want to abolish immediately.

[Havet]

Why must all of those be removed before you could support abolishing the minimum wage? I don't see why the status IP laws or state ownership of land would have any bearing on whether or not to abolish the minimum wage.

Because "workers, despite having a job, will receive less. All those things I mentioned before make that the previous power capitalists had over workers is increased, since workers are in greater supply and are easily replaced. If you just abolish minimum wages, you increase the amount of people who are now able to employ themselves. This means the supply of wage labor increases, and so does its competition, which coupled with the remaining existence of privileges to capitalists, ends up decreasing the value of each laborer, which also means workers will receive less, which will definitely not help society in the least."

Sorry to be repeating myself. If you need any clarification, i'll be more than happy to address it.


The minimum wage is already a tool used by people to maintain state granted privilege. It should just be another part in the list of things you want to abolish immediately.

That's right, it's also a tool. Which is why I propose eliminating both "worker privileges" (some are privileged at the expense of others) as well as capitalist privileges (some are privileged at the expense of others), preferably at the same time. If not, then I give preference towards those who wold the greatest amount of power and resources, currently.

In short, my motto could be described as:

"Cut taxes bottom up, welfare top down"

But since I don't really advocate reformism, a revolution would do both.

[Dean]

Which is why I propose eliminating both "worker privileges" (some are privileged at the expense of others) as well as capitalist privileges (some are privileged at the expense of others), preferably at the same time.
Good, good: It's just what the banks want. (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/hiding-behind-the-invisible-hand/) Well played!

[Havet]

Good, good: It's just what the banks want. (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/hiding-behind-the-invisible-hand/) Well played!

Banks do not seek to abolish privileges. They seek to abolish impediments to make profit, which is not the same thing.

[Dean]

Banks do not seek to abolish privileges. They seek to abolish impediments to make profit, which is not the same thing.

So you believe that corporate welfare is a more compelling force than systemic structure? Weird... :blink:

[Havet]

So you believe that corporate welfare is a more compelling force than systemic structure? Weird... :blink:

Compelling force? To do what?

Define systemic structure.

[Skooma Addict]

Because "workers, despite having a job, will receive less. All those things I mentioned before make that the previous power capitalists had over workers is increased, since workers are in greater supply and are easily replaced. If you just abolish minimum wages, you increase the amount of people who are now able to employ themselves. This means the supply of wage labor increases, and so does its competition, which coupled with the remaining existence of privileges to capitalists, ends up decreasing the value of each laborer, which also means workers will receive less, which will definitely not help society in the least."

Sorry to be repeating myself. If you need any clarification, i'll be more than happy to address it.

Some workers will earn more money, and some will earn less. "Society" will be helped since the economy is more productive and there is far less unemployment.

This is like saying you oppose removing licenses since it will cause more people to enter the once licensed industries and thus reduce the income of those who had jobs in the industries prior to the removal.

[Havet]

Some workers will earn more money, and some will earn less.

Nobody denied this


"Society" will be helped since the economy is more productive and there is far less unemployment.

That's the problem. it won't be more productive since we were discussing the possibility that worker's privileges dissapeared while capitalist privileges remained. This means that (the privileged) capitalists will use their superior position in trying to maintain monopolies/oligopolies and other affairs which result of a collusion with the State which benefit thems at the expense of other businessmen, workers, and pretty much everyone else which contributes to society.


This is like saying you oppose removing licenses since it will cause more people to enter the once licensed industries and thus reduce the income of those who had jobs in the industries prior to the removal.

Not really. In that licensed industry analogy one would be able to start their own enterprise in "voluntary licenses" or in that now unlicensed industry. By removing licenses you remove an artificial barrier to entry while promoting the increase of a natural barrier to entry (over time businesses standards rise, generally), while in the 1st example workers would still be subject to capitalist's privileges, reducing their choice of how to produce.

[Skooma Addict]

That's the problem. it won't be more productive since we were discussing the possibility that worker's privileges dissapeared while capitalist privileges remained. This means that (the privileged) capitalists will use their superior position in trying to maintain monopolies/oligopolies and other affairs which result of a collusion with the State which benefit thems at the expense of other businessmen, workers, and pretty much everyone else which contributes to society.

But it is not like these privileges will become more profound or more harmful as you are implying. The privileged capitalists will use their superior position to their advantage with or without a minimum wage. It is not like a minimum wage helps to negate or lessen the effect of such privileges. In fact, removing the minimum wage would if anything harm the privileged capitalists. So I don't see how society would be made worse off especially when the economy would become more productive.



Not really. In that licensed industry analogy one would be able to start their own enterprise in "voluntary licenses" or in that now unlicensed industry. By removing licenses you remove an artificial barrier to entry while promoting the increase of a natural barrier to entry (over time businesses standards rise, generally), while in the 1st example workers would still be subject to capitalist's privileges, reducing their choice of how to produce.

Workers would still be subject to capitalist privileges if you remove licenses. Both are artificial barriers to entry which are meant to help the privileged workers at the expense of other often times poorer ones.

[Dean]

Compelling force? To do what?To provide for the control of economic fact by the financial sector - what else?


Define systemic structure.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/systemic
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/structure

[IcarusAngel]

All I can say is hopefully the organized labor mafia is never able to abolish child labor in China given that the alternatives for the children are often times prostitution, drug smuggling, or some underground job which pays far less than a job by, say, an American corporation. Not to mention that many of these children are working to pay for school. Now, this fact is inconvenient for the limousine liberals who like to make themselves feel good by pretending that they can connect with working children in China.


Basic economic theory isn't enough for you?


Looks like the Misean idiots are at it again. The greatest periods of the mass suffering of the workers took place under laissez-faire economics and the failure of self-regulation. This is exactly the same type of policies that the governments of India and China are implementing, and India has been even worse in this regard according to Amartya Sen.

Basically, landed property owners control vast amounts of land without an equal distribution of the sharing. This is caused by market interfere, which keeps people perpetually in poverty.

Amartya Sen and Ha-joon chang are REAL economists, not pseudo-intellectuals like Ludwig von Mises. The real solution would be to allow the countries to properly have land development.

[La Comédie Noire]

That's what Capitalism does, it makes a task so efficient that anyone could do it making it impossible to make a living solely from that task. That's a big problem in an economy based off private accumulation. What should be a blessing for everyone turns into a nightmare for the wage worker. A low wage worker is like a cheap piece of machinery, why should I pay to maintain or fix it, health care, benefits, when I can simply replace it?

Wage laws and collective bargaining slow this process down, but the degradation is inevitable in a capitalist economy.

So what do we do? Throw up barriers. You have to get 3 bull shit degrees and have a license and this much experience and write a doctoral thesis and pay $80,000 in student loans and get a license and a citizenship. Pushing others out just so a few can make a decent living.

At some point the worker is going to decide being a commodity really sucks and abolish the market all together. At least, that's what Marx thought.

[Havet]

The privileged capitalists will use their superior position to their advantage with or without a minimum wage.

Correct


It is not like a minimum wage helps to negate or lessen the effect of such privileges.

It increases such effects because workers, being in a greater quantity and being worth less, have even less chances of starting their own enterprises, since they receive less.


Workers would still be subject to capitalist privileges if you remove licenses. Both are artificial barriers to entry which are meant to help the privileged workers at the expense of other often times poorer ones.

Yes; they will. My point is that both privileges have to go simultaneously, otherwise either party continues to exploit society with their privileges.

[Havet]

To provide for the control of economic fact by the financial sector - what else?


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/systemic
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/structure

How is "systemic structure" a force in any way, and how do you know it compares greater or not with corporate welfare?

[Dean]

How is "systemic structure" a force in any way, and how do you know it compares greater or not with corporate welfare?
It's quite simple - corporate welfare deals with the redistribution of wealth to (typically) larger firms. These firms have achieved their status via conglomeration - on the first hand via their own free enterprise, specifically right around 1900. Since then (as with all power structures!) they have worked with the state to maintain their privilege.

This is a mutually beneficial scheme which will occur in any system where large organizations have the ability to benefit each other.

The underlying value is that state structure benefit capital. If it doesn't benefit capital, it is because those forms of capital are weak and ineffective - if they were effective, they would have enough capital to affect the state to their own ends.

The state is just like any other for-profit entity - it works within the confines and laws of the market.

I know you love to play dumb and obstinate, and fuck around with mindless logic points, but the facts are there and they paint a clear picture.

[Dean]

How is "systemic structure" a force in any way, and how do you know it compares greater or not with corporate welfare?

A great example of market privilege: Goldman Sachs Group Inc. had the only gain among 79 financial companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (http://exiledonline.com/did-goldman-sachs-manipulate-journalists-and-stock-price-on-same-day-as-senate-testimony/)

Why, one might ask?

It’s an obvious question, just wondering if anyone has looked into this because as one reader wrote, “it makes no sense whatsoever.” Except as an expensive PR exercise funded by the bank’s insiders.

...

Instead of reaching the obvious conclusion that something fishy was happening with Goldman’s stock, the columnist blocks out any whiff of journalist/investigator skepticism, and replaces it with the sort of free-market mysticism (http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to _right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers) that was in vogue up until a couple of years ago: The rise in Goldman’s stock price means that the Gods approve of Goldman Sachs’ behavior… and Lloyd Blankfein is now recast as some kind of populist rebel sticking it to The Man, a capitalist whose only crime was doing business better than his competitors–which caught the attention of resentful looters and parasites (http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/) in Congress:

[Skooma Addict]

Looks like the Misean idiots are at it again. The greatest periods of the mass suffering of the workers took place under laissez-faire economics and the failure of self-regulation. This is exactly the same type of policies that the governments of India and China are implementing, and India has been even worse in this regard according to Amartya Sen.

1. The greatest suffering of workers did not take place in lassaize fair societies.

2. India has been worse than it is now.


Basically, landed property owners control vast amounts of land without an equal distribution of the sharing. This is caused by market interfere, which keeps people perpetually in poverty.

Thanks to the Indian beuracracy.


Amartya Sen and Ha-joon chang are REAL economists, not pseudo-intellectuals like Ludwig von Mises. The real solution would be to allow the countries to properly have land development.

You are obviously just saying that because you just agree with them and disagree with Mises. Is Vernon a pseudo-intellectual too?


It increases such effects because workers, being in a greater quantity and being worth less, have even less chances of starting their own enterprises, since they receive less.


Ok, that might be true, but I don't see why it matters. I am sure the workelrs who can now find employment will have an easyer time starting their own enterprises. Again, some workers will recieve more.

If you think the minimum wage gives workers a better chance to start their own enterprises, would you favor raising the minimum wage? What if there were a 20 doller per hour minimum wage, and even though lowering it would allow more people to work, the remaining workers would have a harder time starting their own enterprises? Would you then oppose lowering the minimum wage.


Yes; they will. My point is that both privileges have to go simultaneously, otherwise either party continues to exploit society with their privileges.

But as I said, it is not like removing the minimum wage helps the capitalists with the state granted privleges. In fact, it most likely hurts them. So would you be against removing some capitalist privleges for the same reasons then?

[Havet]

It's quite simple - corporate welfare deals with the redistribution of wealth to (typically) larger firms. These firms have achieved their status via conglomeration - on the first hand via their own free enterprise, specifically right around 1900. Since then (as with all power structures!) they have worked with the state to maintain their privilege.

I know you love to play dumb and obstinate, and fuck around with mindless logic points, but the facts are there and they paint a clear picture.

I'm glad you value facts, because I have some for you:

Complete Free-enterprise does not achieve conglomeration, and there is no evidence of this occurring, especially in 1900. To keep it simple, my main points are that government regulatory agencies, which actively enforced laws which AID conglomeration, formed PRIOR to 1900:

On monopolies:

The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price

... the high price for the crude oil resulted, as it had always done before and will always do so as oil comes out of the ground, in increasing the production, and they got too much oil. We could not find a market for it.
... of course, any who were not in this association were undertaking to produce all they possibly could; as as to those who were in the association, many of them men of honor and high standing, the temptation was very great to get a little more oil than they had promised their associates or us would come. It seemed very difficult to prevent the oil coming at that price.

Rockefeller's prediction was overly pessimistic. Today, although oil still comes out of the ground, federal and state governments have succeeded where the oil produceers of 1872 have failed. Through federal oil import quotas and state restrictions on production they keep the price of oil high and the production low. Progress.

It is also widely believed that railroads wielded unlimited monopoly power. Actually, as shown in Kolko's book, long distance transportation was highly competitive, freight rates were declining, and the number of railroads was increasing until after the turn of the century. One line might have a monopoly for short distances along its route, but a shipper operating between two major cities had a choice of many alternative routes - twenty existed between St.Louis and Atlanta, for instance.

Railroad rebates, cited as evidence of monopoly, were actually the opposite; they were discounts that major shippers were able to get from one railroad by threatening to ship via competitior.
Railroad executives often got toguether to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months, for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the agreeement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in.

J.p Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan) commited his enourmous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met almost unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for eg, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9D03E3DE143AEF33A2575BC0A9619C94689FD7CF) to control rates among western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where it had been before he intervened.

By this time a new factor was entering the situation. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Comission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) was created by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with (contrary to most history books) the support of much of the railroad industry. The ICC's original powers were limited; Morgan attempted to use it tp help enforce the 1889 agreement, but without success.

During its the next 31 years its powers were steadily increased, first inthe direction of allowing it to prohibit rebates (which Kolko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko) estimates were costing the railroads 10% of their gross income) and finally by giving it the power to set rates.

The people with the greatest interest in the ICC were the people in the rail industry. The result was that they dominated it, and it rapidly became an instrument for achieving the monopoly prices they had been unable to get on the free market. The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldace_F._Walker)r, one of the original appointees to the ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the board of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe. The ICC has served the railroads to the present day, in addition it has expanded its power and authority to cover other forms of transportation and to prevent them, whenever possible, from undercutting the railroads.

It has often been claimed that Rockefeller used such tactics to build Standard Oil, but there seems to be little or no evidence for the charge. Standard Oil officials occasionally tried to use the threat of cutitng prices and starting price was in an attempt to persuade competitors to keep their production down and their prices up. But the competitors understood the logic of the situation better than later historians, as shown by the response, quoted by McGee, of the manager of the Cornplanter Refining Company to such a threat:

"Well, I says, 'Mr.Moffet, I am very glad you put it that way, because if it is up to you the only way you can get it [the business] is to cut the market [reduce prices], and if you cut the market I will cut you for 200 miles around, and I will make you sell the stuff,' and I says, 'I don't want a bigger picnic than that; sell it if you want to,' and I bid him good day and left."[1]


The threat never materialized. Indeed it appears, from McGee's evidence, that price cutting more often was started by the small independent firms in an attempt to cut into Standard's market and that many of them were quite successful. Cornplanter's capital grew, in 20 years, from $10,000 to $450,000. As McGee says, commenting on the evidence presented against Standard in the 1911 antitrust case: "It is interesting that most of the ex-Standard employees who destitifed about Standard's deadly predatory tactics entered the oil business when they left Standard. They also prospered."

Another strategy which Rockefeller probably did employ, is to buy out competitors. This is usually cheaper than spending a fortune trying to drive them out - at least, it is cheaper in the short run. The trouble is that people soon realize they can build a new refinery, threaten to drive down prices, and sell out to Rockefeller at a whopping profit. David.P.Reighard apparently made a sizable fortune by selling three consecutie refineries to Rockefeller (http://www.dadyer.com/Economic%20Readings/witchhunting%20for%20robber%20barons.htm). There was a limit to how many refineries Rockefeller could use. Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitation in his later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.

[1] - quoted in John S. McGee, "Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (NJ) Case," Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 2 (October, 1958), p.137. Link to economist David Friedman wherein he uses such quote can be found here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_10/PThy_Chapter_10.html)

Enjoy

[Havet]

Ok, that might be true, but I don't see why it matters. I am sure the workelrs who can now find employment will have an easyer time starting their own enterprises. Again, some workers will recieve more.

But the amount that will receive more will be reduced since there is a greater quantity to choose from. It's the same thing with consumer prices of commodities. A greater quantity of milk from different milk companies reduces its cost to the consumer, and with workers that's what ends up happening if ONLY minimum wages are reduced: a greater quantity of labor force to choose from. Scarcity is the key word here.


If you think the minimum wage gives workers a better chance to start their own enterprises, would you favor raising the minimum wage? What if there were a 20 doller per hour minimum wage, and even though lowering it would allow more people to work, the remaining workers would have a harder time starting their own enterprises? Would you then oppose lowering the minimum wage.

I already explained that I do not favor minimum wage. My only criticism is on reformist arguments which claim its elimination alone will be favourable automatically.


But as I said, it is not like removing the minimum wage helps the capitalists with the state granted privleges. In fact, it most likely hurts them. So would you be against removing some capitalist privleges for the same reasons then?

Why would removing a minimum wage "hurt" state-granted privileged capitalists?

[The Gallant Gallstone]

I'm sure that complete free-enterprise would not achieve conglomeration; but seeing as complete free-enterprise is an impossibility, I don't see what it would matter.

The libertarian types are quick to condemn government coercion, but all too often it's the corporate community that seeks government assistance in securing their privileges.

I have no reason to believe that a laissez-faire system could exist in actuality for more than 60 seconds. The people wouldn't want it and neither would the businesses. Government influence and power are worth paying for. They're good investments.

[Glenn Beck]

Movements that didn't understand economics.

So much the better for them.

All this nonsense about the minimum wage relies on the assumption that the "law" of supply and demand is valid and governs labor markets. Despite the mixed and contradictory evidence both for and against this idea. That would imply, to an intelligent person, that perhaps other variables are involved and perhaps certain assumptions of the theory making the unfulfilled predictions are invalid.

Consider the theory of phlogiston. Plenty of useful discoveries were made by chemists who believed in phlogiston. It made general predictions that were generally validated: most of the time when you burn an object it appears to lose mass, so it's not an outlandish thing to believe in. The only problem is that phlogiston doesn't exist, it was simply a theoretical abstraction to explain an observed tendency that was eventually proven to be inadequate to explain what was observed.

Do you see any parallels?

[Dean]

I'm glad you value facts, because I have some for you:

Complete Free-enterprise does not achieve conglomeration, and there is no evidence of this occurring, especially in 1900. To keep it simple, my main points are that government regulatory agencies, which actively enforced laws which AID conglomeration, formed PRIOR to 1900:

Well, your quote deals with cartels which are definitely not conglomerates. Of course. Collaboration of capitalist firms (or entities, as it were) always end in abject failure, because they always go against the business model of capitalist enterprise - competition.

But, there was a little thing called the Great Merger Movement of....

dun dun dun

1895-1904! (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=L1XhvYCsYA4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22great+merger+movement%22&ots=qNT-OzDygR&sig=3Lhx6hBWjuZVKzcszQNckLHscv8#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Right, facts. Let's get some from those libertards at wikipedia, too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions#The_Great_Merger_Movement )!

Oops.

[Havet]

Well, your quote deals with cartels which are definitely not conglomerates.

Wrong


Of course. Collaboration of capitalist firms (or entities, as it were) always end in abject failure, because they always go against the business model of capitalist enterprise - competition.

Not always. Sometimes it is more profitable to temporarily join forces in order to get discounts, etc.


But, there was a little thing called the Great Merger Movement of....

dun dun dun

1895-1904! (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=L1XhvYCsYA4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22great+merger+movement%22&ots=qNT-OzDygR&sig=3Lhx6hBWjuZVKzcszQNckLHscv8#v=onepage&q&f=false)

*drums*

Kolko, G. (1965), Railroads and Regulation: 1877-1916


Right, facts. Let's get some from those libertards at wikipedia, too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions#The_Great_Merger_Movement )!

Ad hominem, and just plain ignorance if you ask me. Just because something in wikipedia doesn't corroborate with your preconceived notions doesn't mean it was made by libertarians. Grow up.

I would also like to point out this:


However more often than not mergers were "quick mergers". These "quick mergers" involved mergers of companies with unrelated technology and different management. As a result, the efficiency gains associated with mergers were not present. The new and bigger company would actually face higher costs than competitors because of these technological and managerial differences. Thus, the mergers were not done to see large efficiency gains, they were in fact done because that was the trend at the time.

[Dean]

Wrong
No, right, kid. Reread your quote. The only cited failure is the attempt to form a cartel.


On monopolies:

The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price

...

J.p Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan) commited his enourmous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met almost unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for eg, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9D03E3DE143AEF33A2575BC0A9619C94689FD7CF) to control rates among western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where it had been before he intervened.

...

The threat never materialized. Indeed it appears, from McGee's evidence, that price cutting more often was started by the small independent firms in an attempt to cut into Standard's market and that many of them were quite successful. Cornplanter's capital grew, in 20 years, from $10,000 to $450,000. As McGee says, commenting on the evidence presented against Standard in the 1911 antitrust case: "It is interesting that most of the ex-Standard employees who destitifed about Standard's deadly predatory tactics entered the oil business when they left Standard. They also prospered."

The only apparently contrary example is the last paragraph, but we should note that this says nothing of the value of having larger firms - did these new firms not amount to centralized capitalist structures? Why do we only see their value in relation to Standard Oil? How many are still around today?

Let's see:

By 1911, with public outcry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic) at a climax, the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) ruled that Standard Oil must be dissolved and split into 34 companies. Two of these companies were Jersey Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_of_New_Jersey) ("Standard Oil Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry) of New Jersey"), which eventually became Exxon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon), and Socony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socony) ("Standard Oil Company of New York"), which eventually became Mobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil).

Oops again! Looks like the only factor which devolved Standard Oil's centralized system was the government. Touché...

Let's let you think on that a while and get back to me.


Not always. Sometimes it is more profitable to temporarily join forces in order to get discounts, etc.
Sure, sometimes. But that is neither here nor there.




*drums*

Kolko, G. (1965), Railroads and Regulation: 1877-1916
It's good that you apparently have a source. Unfortunately, it doesn't help if you don't provide links or anything.




Ad hominem, and just plain ignorance if you ask me. Just because something in wikipedia doesn't corroborate with your preconceived notions doesn't mean it was made by libertarians. Grow up.
:laugh: I was using them as a source to support my point.


I would also like to point out this:
However more often than not mergers were "quick mergers". These "quick mergers" involved mergers of companies with unrelated technology and different management. As a result, the efficiency gains associated with mergers were not present. The new and bigger company would actually face higher costs than competitors because of these technological and managerial differences. Thus, the mergers were not done to see large efficiency gains, they were in fact done because that was the trend at the time.
Good, you provided a quote I already read. Unfortunately, you have omitted important supporting passages (just like in your OP!):

However, there were companies that merged during this time such as DuPont, US Steel, and General Electric that have been able to keep their dominance in their respected sectors today due to growing technological advances of their products, patents, and brand recognition by their customers. The companies that merged were mass producers of homogeneous goods that could exploit the efficiencies of large volume production. However more often than not mergers were "quick mergers". These "quick mergers" involved mergers of companies with unrelated technology and different management. As a result, the efficiency gains associated with mergers were not present. The new and bigger company would actually face higher costs than competitors because of these technological and managerial differences. Thus, the mergers were not done to see large efficiency gains, they were in fact done because that was the trend at the time. Companies which had specific fine products, like fine writing paper, earned their profits on high margin rather than volume and took no part in Great Merger Movement.
Well, gee golly - your frail example of how mergers are inefficient doesn't seem so convincing now!

But, the underlying fact is that this has been proven false:

Complete Free-enterprise does not achieve conglomeration, and there is no evidence of this occurring, especially in 1900. To keep it simple, my main points are that government regulatory agencies, which actively enforced laws which AID conglomeration, formed PRIOR to 1900:
Nope, 1900 is the median year of our "Great Merger Movement."

Your ignorance is astounding.

[Havet]

No, right, kid. Reread your quote. The only cited failure is the attempt to form a cartel.

Exactly. Only state-sponsored cartels or cartels formed by indirect state action managed to survive.


The only apparently contrary example is the last paragraph, but we should note that this says nothing of the value of having larger firms - did these new firms not amount to centralized capitalist structures?

yes, they do.


Why do we only see their value in relation to Standard Oil?

Because we were talking about conglomeration/cartel/monopolies, and Standard Oil is often a cited example.


How many are still around today?

Let's see:

Since they are still around today, it only shows how effective state direct/indirect action is in ensuring monopoly/cartel/conglomeration privileges.


Oops again! Looks like the only factor which devolved Standard Oil's centralized system was the government. Touché...

There you go, completely ignoring the fact that state action was the only thing that ensured the maintenance of such monopoly structures.


By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States

4 years after the Interstate Commerce Comission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) was formed by federal law. Interesting...


It's good that you apparently have a source. Unfortunately, it doesn't help if you don't provide links or anything.

My source is not available to read online. I already told you you can see the main quotes from that source here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_10/PThy_Chapter_10.html).


:laugh: I was using them as a source to support my point.

Mentioning that libertarians are the only ones who write wiki articles you disaprove of is ad hominem no matter what your intentions. Deal with it.


Unfortunately, you have omitted important supporting passages (just like in your OP!):

Well, gee golly - your frail example of how mergers are inefficient doesn't seem so convincing now!

I haven't ommited anything. I specifically pointed out how the factors you mentioned were irrelevant given the existence of "systemic lack of gains" (to use your gibberish language, one ad hom deserves another).


Nope, 1900 is the median year of our "Great Merger Movement."

Read above.


Your ignorance is astounding.

Even if I were ignorant, such an accusation doesn't help the discussion, which makes one wonder why you even bothered replying in the first place, if you do not seek to reach agreements based on reason and logic.

[Dean]

Mentioning that libertarians are the only ones who write wiki articles you disaprove of is ad hominem no matter what your intentions. Deal with it.

Um, no. I don't know why I even engage you. I cited an article which supports my opinion.

What does it mean when I say they're libertarians? It means that even the most contrary sources provide supporting evidence. It would be ad hominem if I opposed their point, but I don't - contrary, I used it to strengthen my argument.



As for the rest of your post, it can be addressed in the following:

Power structures work together to maintain hegemony. This is why the media is incredibly instrumental for Goldman Sachs.

States will always have their hand in big business, and if we have a free market "without a state" then those functions will be performed by other capitalist entities because they are so instrumental in the maintenance of capitalist hegemony.

Your complete ignorance about the massive conglomeration around 1900 says a lot about how little you consider these issues - and yet they are critical to your ideology! In fact, the massive cartels in the late 1800s really underlines that government intervention occurred after-the-fact in order to maintain power structures that the free market created.

Quit reading your fairy tale theory and start focusing on the real world:

http://exiledonline.com/
http://www.csmonitor.com/
http://ipsnews.net/
http://english.aljazeera.net/

Seriously, please start paying attention to some real shit. All you ever do is cite anachronistic mutualist and austrian theory which is either:
-propertarian idealism
-capitalist propaganda (Austrian shit, mostly - mutualists tend to at least have decent goals in mind)

It's agonizing to read post-after-post where you have nothing but the most rudimentary points to make, and no concept about how capitalist economies allow the purchasing of services which serve their hegemony - across much more than just the state.

Everything is for sale! It's all negotiable. The media is a great example - the "free press" is really the "free market" press, and that's why access journalism provides a pay-to-play service for favorable media coverage. This is completely a market phenomenon (just like fract. reserve banking)and it must be understood as nothing more than the ptp fact of free markets.

More capital to invest in security or media translates into "artificial" advantages (that is undeserved, since these help capitalist firms without providing better worker or consumer value). This fact is quite simple, and really, I think you understand it - you're too smart not to. I know it ruins the entire notion of the "free market utopia," but shit, utopia doesn't exist. That's why it means "over there."

Our best option is cooperative organization, and that is totally contradictory toward competition, and competition is a fundamental fact of free markets, since competition provides for more efficient acquisition of resources, market shares, etc..

[Havet]

Um, no. I don't know why I even engage you. I cited an article which supports my opinion.

What does it mean when I say they're libertarians? It means that even the most contrary sources provide supporting evidence. It would be ad hominem if I opposed their point, but I don't - contrary, I used it to strengthen my argument.

Whether it supports your argument or not, its pointless to mention that it was libertarians who wrote it when you have absolutely no proof of that fact.

And when I said "wrong", I meant that conglomerations are definitely cartels.


Power structures work together to maintain hegemony. This is why the media is incredibly instrumental for Goldman Sachs.

Agreed


States will always have their hand in big business, and if we have a free market "without a state" then those functions will be performed by other capitalist entities because they are so instrumental in the maintenance of capitalist hegemony.

I agree partly. If you abolish the privileged agents (politicians, capitalists, etc) you remove their "instruments" of maintenance of capitalist hegemony. This is why I think a free-market will not be overtaken by big business and greedy capitalists, and why the absence of a State won't create a power vaccum, provided alternative institutions are already in place.


Your complete ignorance about the massive conglomeration around 1900 says a lot about how little you consider these issues - and yet they are critical to your ideology! In fact, the massive cartels in the late 1800s really underlines that government intervention occurred after-the-fact in order to maintain power structures that the free market created.

You will find that in every case where those power structures were formed - and continued in existence for a prolongued time - there was the state direct/indirect action, as I have shown so many times.


Seriously, please start paying attention to some real shit. All you ever do is cite anachronistic mutualist and austrian theory which is either:
-propertarian idealism
-capitalist propaganda (Austrian shit, mostly - mutualists tend to at least have decent goals in mind)

I never cite austrian shit. Just so you know.


It's agonizing to read post-after-post where you have nothing but the most rudimentary points to make, and no concept about how capitalist economies allow the purchasing of services which serve their hegemony - across much more than just the state.

Oh I do realize it. But I tend not to ignore how they achieved such privileged position.


Everything is for sale! It's all negotiable. The media is a great example - the "free press" is really the "free market" press, and that's why access journalism provides a pay-to-play service for favorable media coverage. This is completely a market phenomenon (just like fract. reserve banking)and it must be understood as nothing more than the ptp fact of free markets.

*sigh...*

Airwaves are "public" (aka state) property, which means that there are regulations which decrease the barrier to entry. This means that the holders of such current licenses are far more privileged and are able to control a greater market share far more easily.

In contrast, you don't see the same with, say, internet radio/video shows. Just in Itunes alone there are far more different genres of music radio and shows that it would take a lifetime to listen to them all. Not to mention all the podcasts in the web, all the youtube/vimeo shows, all the free content, etc.


More capital to invest in security or media translates into "artificial" advantages (that is undeserved, since these help capitalist firms without providing better worker or consumer value). This fact is quite simple, and really, I think you understand it - you're too smart not to. I know it ruins the entire notion of the "free market utopia," but shit, utopia doesn't exist. That's why it means "over there."

Agreed


Our best option is cooperative organization, and that is totally contradictory toward competition, and competition is a fundamental fact of free markets, since competition provides for more efficient acquisition of resources, market shares, etc..

Hmm...you do realize that competition requires cooperation, right? If you want an example, and trust me it's been ages since I've last quoted Friedman on this, check out this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8) video. Forget everything he says and just focus on the cooperation argument he is making.

Anywho, even in a completely communist society, competition is never really abolished. People compete for votes when there is an election going on in a direct democratic manner.

[Dean]

Whether it supports your argument or not, its pointless to mention that it was libertarians who wrote it when you have absolutely no proof of that fact.

Wales is a self-avowed "Objectivist to the core";[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#cite_note-fastcompany-56) Objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29) being an individualist philosophy developed by writer Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) in the 20th century. Wales first encountered the philosophy through reading Rand's novel The Fountainhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead) while an undergraduate,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#cite_note-qanda-0) and in 1992 founded an electronic mailing list devoted to "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".
Now, I never said he wrote it - but that's what "wikipedia libertards say." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Wikipedia

But the fat remains that it was nothign more than a light jab at them, and you were too dense to see the quote for what it is - supportive of my position.


And when I said "wrong", I meant that conglomerations are definitely cartels.
Are you kidding me? This is patently false. Seriously??

Cartel - "A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers that agree to coordinate prices, marketing and production"

Conglomeration - "A corporation made up of a number of different companies that operate in diversified fields."
to be fair, I was using the term slightly incorrectly. But the fact remains that they are wholly different.


I agree partly. If you abolish the privileged agents (politicians, capitalists, etc) you remove their "instruments" of maintenance of capitalist hegemony. This is why I think a free-market will not be overtaken by big business and greedy capitalists, and why the absence of a State won't create a power vaccum, provided alternative institutions are already in place.
The free market has tools available for purchase to maintain hegemony. Security firms are the first and most explicit example.




You will find that in every case where those power structures were formed - and continued in existence for a prolongued time - there was the state direct/indirect action, as I have shown so many times.
This doesn't implicate the state as the sole reason for the accumulation of wealth - furthermore, the state provides services to the capitalist which will gladly be taken over by private firms to the same ends.



Oh I do realize it. But I tend not to ignore how they achieved such privileged position.
What, exploitation of wage-labor wouldn't exist under a "free market"? Sure, keep dreaming.




*sigh...*

Airwaves are "public" (aka state) property, which means that there are regulations which decrease the barrier to entry. This means that the holders of such current licenses are far more privileged and are able to control a greater market share far more easily.

In contrast, you don't see the same with, say, internet radio/video shows. Just in Itunes alone there are far more different genres of music radio and shows that it would take a lifetime to listen to them all. Not to mention all the podcasts in the web, all the youtube/vimeo shows, all the free content, etc.
There is not a wide array of opinions in these media. It means fuck-all to have a bunch of different independent artists.




Hmm...you do realize that competition requires cooperation, right? If you want an example, and trust me it's been ages since I've last quoted Friedman on this, check out this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8) video. Forget everything he says and just focus on the cooperation argument he is making.

Anywho, even in a completely communist society, competition is never really abolished. People compete for votes when there is an election going on in a direct democratic manner.
What? How can people compete in an election under direct democracy?


All your arguments stem from the ridiculous premise that the state is the sole arbiter of privilege. But we need to understand what function the state plays to really get o the bottom - after all, "state" is nothing more than an arbitrary distinction between different methods of organization.

But, any analysis of the states indicates its for profit character, and its this character which drives it to provide for the highest bidder.

Fundamentally, the state provides for the highest bidder.

Fundamentally, markets provide for the highest bidder.

They act on the same premise. They are driven by capital.

You do nothing more than mystify the state - to you, every single instance of economic empowerment is solely due to state privilege. You forget that the state doesn't grant privilege to a single amongst many competing firms - in almost all cases, it grants privilege to the firm which has proven itself more powerful than the others.

The railroad elites were engorged regimes before the state decided to protect their privilege.

You've proven nothing more than that the state protects capitalists. Big fucking deal - every power structure relies on other structures.

"*sigh* - here's the state, you see that also means that its all their fault. Markets don't accumulate wealth centers" despite the fact that the free market has always existed as an enabler of capitalism.

And it is this for profit character that defines all power structures.

You see, you narrowly look at the state because it serves your erroneous point - private companies are never responsible for their own privilege.

However, the afore-mentioned pay-to-play character of the state indicates that someone is willing to pay for state services. What does this mean to anybody with even marginal understanding of markets? Simply put, so long as there is a for-profit system in place, so, too will people be there to provide this service - its nothing but another way to get currency in a market.

Answer me this: why won't security firms practice the accumulation and centralization of wealth with the force available to them?

[Skooma Addict]

Fundamentally, the state provides for the highest bidder.

Fundamentally, markets provide for the highest bidder.

They act on the same premise. They are driven by capital.


No they don't. Modern markets are comprised of firms attempting to maximize profits. They do this by offering demanded products for wealthy and poor individuals.

The State however functions on completley different premises which differ depending on the form of government in place.



However, the afore-mentioned pay-to-play character of the state indicates that someone is willing to pay for state services. What does this mean to anybody with even marginal understanding of markets? Simply put, so long as there is a for-profit system in place, so, too will people be there to provide this service - its nothing but another way to get currency in a market.


Anyone with a marginal understanding odf markets would realize that an institution which monopolizes many different services is going to have demand that it otherwise wouldn't have had merely becasue it is the sole provider of those services. Also, the state mainly recieves its revenue through taxation and inflation. Not exactly market transactions...



Answer me this: why won't security firms practice the accumulation and centralization of wealth with the force available to them?


Security firms will most likely accumulate wealth along with every other successful company. As far as centralization of wealth goes, wealth would be far more decentralized in the security industry than it is now. That should be obvious.

[Dean]

No they don't. Modern markets are comprised of firms attempting to maximize profits. They do this by offering demanded products for wealthy and poor individuals.

The State however functions on completley different premises which differ depending on the form of government in place.
Not really.


Anyone with a marginal understanding odf markets would realize that an institution which monopolizes many different services is going to have demand that it otherwise wouldn't have had merely becasue it is the sole provider of those services. Also, the state mainly recieves its revenue through taxation and inflation. Not exactly market transactions...
Anyone with a marginal understanding of the history of capital in relation to the state understands that the tax code has been systematically reorganized towards the interests of capital by senators paid off by the same corporations that the changes benefit.


Security firms will most likely accumulate wealth along with every other successful company. As far as centralization of wealth goes, wealth would be far more decentralized in the security industry than it is now. That should be obvious.
So, they will accumulate wealth in a free market? Sounds to me like your "contradiction" is quickly turning to reinforce my point rather than hayenmill's.

What's really preposterous is that you have some strange notion that states don't serve the highest bidder. In fact, that is precisely what we saw with Goldman Sachs, something I point out in another thread (or a post in this thread?). Here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/04/goldmans-campaign-coin-which-senate-questioners-got-money.html

Oops! Looks like the highest bidder won. You were saying?

[Havet]

Now, I never said he wrote it - but that's what "wikipedia libertards say." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Wikipedia

But the fat remains that it was nothign more than a light jab at them, and you were too dense to see the quote for what it is - supportive of my position.

Fine


Are you kidding me? This is patently false. Seriously??

Cartel - "A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers that agree to coordinate prices, marketing and production"

Conglomeration - "A corporation made up of a number of different companies that operate in diversified fields."
to be fair, I was using the term slightly incorrectly. But the fact remains that they are wholly different.

Of course there are semantic and physical differences, but from my understanding of your post, you were using the terms as both examples of centralization of power and wealth, and in that sense they are similar terms.


The free market has tools available for purchase to maintain hegemony. Security firms are the first and most explicit example.

Show me proof of those examples then. Historical records for example. Remmember, they must be from a really free-market (you don't have to find examples of completely free markets, just near-free-market examples are okay), and you cannot have entities with state-granted direct/indirect privilege. Good luck.


This doesn't implicate the state as the sole reason for the accumulation of wealth - furthermore, the state provides services to the capitalist which will gladly be taken over by private firms to the same ends.

Of course it doesn't implicate to; but it's a reasonable assumption. Check this (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html) mutualist synthesis of *gasp!* austrian and *gasp!* marxist theories on monopoly capital.


What, exploitation of wage-labor wouldn't exist under a "free market"? Sure, keep dreaming.

Strawman


There is not a wide array of opinions in these media. It means fuck-all to have a bunch of different independent artists.

Ah...ignorance....

You can find "Liberty Radio", "Free Capitalist Radio", "Progressive Radio", community radios, "No Rules Radio", "rant radio", "Psychic Radio", "African Nationalist Radio", conservative radios, democrat radios, "commercial-free independent and progressive radio", and thousands more. I didn't find an explicit communist radio, but i'm sure if someone really wanted they could make one easily.

As you can see, there is PLENTY of opinion variety, which makes sense, given that the barrier to entry aproximates natural entry. There's basically a radio for almost every possible niche, both in music as in political ideas.


What? How can people compete in an election under direct democracy?

Are you not competing when you try to convince others that your point of view is better? Are votes not scarce? Remmember! 1 person 1 vote!


You do nothing more than mystify the state - to you, every single instance of economic empowerment is solely due to state privilege. You forget that the state doesn't grant privilege to a single amongst many competing firms - in almost all cases, it grants privilege to the firm which has proven itself more powerful than the others.

It usually grants privilege to the firm which has proven itself to have better connections than the others, regardless of their economic performance in the market they operate in.


The railroad elites were engorged regimes before the state decided to protect their privilege.

Show me the evidence


You see, you narrowly look at the state because it serves your erroneous point - private companies are never responsible for their own privilege.

Private companies are ALWAYS responsible because they collaborated with the State! Do you not understand that I'm not defending companies!

What I defend is that anybody, whether a company or state, do not prevent others from working for themselves, whether individually or collectively. But we see that happening in today's society, because of wage-subjection. Historically, we can trace back the privilege of current companies to their bribery of the State. But of course that those companies are as much guilty as the State!


Answer me this: why won't security firms practice the accumulation and centralization of wealth with the force available to them?

You should ask an-caps about it. I'm not really a fervorous defendant of for-profit PDAs.

[Skooma Addict]

Not really.

You are going to need to come up with something better than that.


Anyone with a marginal understanding of the history of capital in relation to the state understands that the tax code has been systematically reorganized towards the interests of capital by senators paid off by the same corporations that the changes benefit.

You are again being too vague. There are no set interests of "capital." The tax code/benefits will usually but not always favor groups which can be influential over or beneficial for the goverenmnt. Take labor unions for example. But anyways, this is a problem with the state stepping out of its boundaries, not the market.


So, they will accumulate wealth in a free market? Sounds to me like your "contradiction" is quickly turning to reinforce my point rather than hayenmill's.

Yes, the successful ones will accumulate wealth, as all the other successful businesses accumulate wealth. This is the way we would want it to happen. We don't want companies which waste resources to accumulate wealth.


What's really preposterous is that you have some strange notion that states don't serve the highest bidder. In fact, that is precisely what we saw with Goldman Sachs, something I point out in another thread (or a post in this thread?). Here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...got-money.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/04/goldmans-campaign-coin-which-senate-questioners-got-money.html)

Oops! Looks like the highest bidder won. You were saying?

States do usually serve the highest bidder. But they will also serve other interests as well.

[Dean]

Of course there are semantic and physical differences, but from my understanding of your post, you were using the terms as both examples of centralization of power and wealth, and in that sense they are similar terms.
Your understanding of my post? Initially, I never brought cartels up! You did in order to "prove" that conglomerations aren't efficient structures (turns out that there is some truth to that depending on the market, but I really meant consolidations anyways).


Show me proof of those examples then. Historical records for example. Remmember, they must be from a really free-market (you don't have to find examples of completely free markets, just near-free-market examples are okay), and you cannot have entities with state-granted direct/indirect privilege. Good luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junius_S._Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.P._Morgan_%26_Co.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is one of the oldest financial services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_services) firms in the world. It has operations in 60 countries. It is a leader in financial services with assets of $2 trillion, and the largest market capitalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase#cite_note-0) and third largest deposit base U.S. banking institution behind Wells Fargo and Bank of America.


Strawman
No its not, I was asking you a question. How could that possibly be a strawman? If you don't believe that it will exist, fine, but I'm just pointing out what great leaps of faith you have to take to believe that a market wont centralize.




Ah...ignorance....

You can find "Liberty Radio", "Free Capitalist Radio", "Progressive Radio", community radios, "No Rules Radio", "rant radio", "Psychic Radio", "African Nationalist Radio", conservative radios, democrat radios, "commercial-free independent and progressive radio", and thousands more. I didn't find an explicit communist radio, but i'm sure if someone really wanted they could make one easily.
Wow, that sounds like the same shit on cable TV. How is that an example of decentralized media?


As you can see, there is PLENTY of opinion variety, which makes sense, given that the barrier to entry aproximates natural entry. There's basically a radio for almost every possible niche, both in music as in political ideas.

Are you kidding me? I literally have to dig for dissenting views from the 6 o'clock media.


Are you not competing when you try to convince others that your point of view is better? Are votes not scarce? Remmember! 1 person 1 vote!
Well, I'm not competing for election when there exists direct democracy. Once again, basic terminology fails you.




It usually grants privilege to the firm which has proven itself to have better connections than the others, regardless of their economic performance in the market they operate in.
How ironic the "best ties" were made with the largest baking firm at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs)! It couldn't have been because they bought off the government, because hayenmill doesn't believe that government is paid off! Its true because he says so, centuries of contrary fact be damned.


Show me the evidence
Can't find evidence either way, so lets drop that (though its worth noting that banking firms like JP Morgan were primary stakeholders in railroads).




Private companies are ALWAYS responsible because they collaborated with the State! Do you not understand that I'm not defending companies!

What I defend is that anybody, whether a company or state, do not prevent others from working for themselves, whether individually or collectively. But we see that happening in today's society, because of wage-subjection. Historically, we can trace back the privilege of current companies to their bribery of the State. But of course that those companies are as much guilty as the State!
There you go about guilt. Big deal! I don't care who's guilty, but what systems enable that centralization of power.

Those systems are always pay-to-play systems of capitalist control.

This is a necessary character of a free market, since capitalist systems always enable more efficient acquisition of market shares, and subsequently dominance over markets, then dominance over the character of the economy.


You should ask an-caps about it. I'm not really a fervorous defendant of for-profit PDAs.
Well, how do you expect the free market to defend private property?

This is why I characterize people like you as insane hippies: you think that people can compete and so long as "everything's cool, man, no state!" that competition will be "fair" or something and people won't accumulate capital.

But the fact is that methods of accumulation of capital are very lucrative - in a competitive paradigm, they will always win! Especially without state regulation, which we see very interestingly that major corporations - which buy the state, like UBS and Goldman Sachs - constantly call for deregulation.

The banking milieu which has achieved incredibly intricate methods of wealth accumulation wants deregulation. It's not because they want a "level playing field": if centralized systems of economic control want a free market, that indicates very clearly who benefits from the market game.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I think this thread just shows the frankly, quite pathetic, lengths that liberals will go to deny that rich people might have an incentive to use their wealth to secure their power even WITHOUT the state around.

Basically, hayenmill, you just seem to be insisting that in a free market the powerful wouldn't be able to use their wealth in such a way cause there isn't any state? But obviously if there is demand for one.....then the market will provide it, no?

[Skooma Addict]

The banking milieu which has achieved incredibly intricate methods of wealth accumulation wants deregulation. It's not because they want a "level playing field": if centralized systems of economic control want a free market, that indicates very clearly who benefits from the market game.

The major banks that you are referring to do not want a free market at all. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard any of them advocating abolishing the Federal Reserve.

[Dean]

The major banks that you are referring to do not want a free market at all. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard any of them advocating abolishing the Federal Reserve.

Oh, really? "Determined to cut red tape and regulatory burden are:..." (http://www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/report/2003annualreport/section1.pdf)

Bankers calling for deregulation... don't want a free market? What exactly is the free market if it is not the stripping away of regulation in any given industry?

[Dean]

I think this thread just shows the frankly, quite pathetic, lengths that liberals will go to deny that rich people might have an incentive to use their wealth to secure their power even WITHOUT the state around.

Basically, hayenmill, you just seem to be insisting that in a free market the powerful wouldn't be able to use their wealth in such a way cause there isn't any state? But obviously if there is demand for one.....then the market will provide it, no?

This is precisely the obvious fact which is anathema to them. Its not that they don't believe it - they can't! If they did accept these obvious facts - that is that demand begets provision of services in a market - it would completely undermine their whole political philosophy.

And then, that's the crux: there is no legitimate political or economic theory, but rather a slavish philosophy obsessively concerned with meaningless conventions (the state versus private security) assuming that removing "state" structures in the stead of capitalist ones will somehow provide for a better system for the people.

It wont! Feudalism was the competition of security firms, and this led to constant violence often by people who had no animosity towards each other, but were just flexing the muscle of their own security branch (aka fief).

[Skooma Addict]

Oh, really? "Determined to cut red tape and regulatory burden are:..." (http://www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/report/2003annualreport/section1.pdf)

Bankers calling for deregulation... don't want a free market? What exactly is the free market if it is not the stripping away of regulation in any given industry?

I am not going to read a pdf unless if proves that large banks lobby for the elimination of the Federal Reserve. The fact that these banks don't want to end the federal reserve means they do not want a free market. They only want deregulation where it helps them, just like they want regulation where it is beneficial for them. It is a simple concept to grasp really.


This is precisely the obvious fact which is anathema to them. Its not that they don't believe it - they can't! If they did accept these obvious facts - that is that demand begets provision of services in a market - it would completely undermine their whole political philosophy.

No it wouldn't.

[Dean]

I am not going to read a pdf unless if proves that large banks lobby for the elimination of the Federal Reserve. The fact that these banks don't want to end the federal reserve means they do not want a free market. They only want deregulation where it helps them, just like they want regulation where it is beneficial for them. It is a simple concept to grasp really.

Well, its hard to prove the opinions of corporate entities, but we can prove that they want systematic deregulation. That is what the banker-backed administrations have does since Ford (and if you weren't aware, it was the cause of the late 1970s inflation crisis).

A few companies do make their opinions known more than just calling for deregulation: http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/


In 2008, Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes) called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill)) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries#cite_note-forbes-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries#cite_note-2) If it were a public company, it would rank about sixteenth in the Fortune 500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_500).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries#cite_note-american-3)

So we know-
Companies frequently call for deregulation
companies rarely call for more regulation (do they ever? theres gotta be a few marginal cases)
companies have no reason to make their opinion known if it wont become policy

You have this asinine smugness: "if companies don't call for the abolition of the FedReserve, then market forces aren't to blame for the character of the market today."

But the fact is simple: if capitalists demand a federal reserve, there will be one when the unicorns usher in the age of the free market.

Have you ever taken economics? If a service is demanded by a propertied individual, there will be an economic actor to provide that service. And it will almost certainly be some bank/security conglomerate (since the two work so well together to control an economy!) and what will be represented in this entity will be:

the interests of private firms rather than the interests of politicians beholden in part to the public.

It will be nothing more and a more totalitarian banking regime. Your whiny "federal reserve" example means nothing in terms of the resultant character of a "free market."

You're too easy Skooma. Where did hayenmill go?

[Skooma Addict]

[/URL]

Well, its hard to prove the opinions of corporate entities, but we can prove that they want systematic deregulation. That is what the banker-backed administrations have does since Ford (and if you weren't aware, it was the cause of the late 1970s inflation crisis).

A few companies do make their opinions known more than just calling for deregulation: [URL="http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-hi...arty-movement/"]http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-hi...arty-movement/ (http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/)

If they wanted systematic deregulation, then they would want to abolish the Federal Reserve. That is the single biggest and most important piece of regulation.


So we know-
Companies frequently call for deregulation
companies rarely call for more regulation (do they ever? theres gotta be a few marginal cases)
companies have no reason to make their opinion known if it wont become policy


It is not rare for companies to call for more regulation. Walmart for example recently called for an increase in the minimum wage. Or there is the number of tariffs on different products.


You have this asinine smugness: "if companies don't call for the abolition of the FedReserve, then market forces aren't to blame for the character of the market today."

If banks don't want to abolish the fdederal reserve, then they don't want a free market in banking.


But the fact is simple: if capitalists demand a federal reserve, there will be one when the unicorns usher in the age of the free market.


If you look at the historical record, there is no reason to believe that would be the case.



Have you ever taken economics? If a service is demanded by a propertied individual, there will be an economic actor to provide that service.


I have. Have you? Because what you said is incorrect.

[Dean]

If they wanted systematic deregulation, then they would want to abolish the Federal Reserve. That is the single biggest and most important piece of regulation.
They demand it and they get it. One example doesn't disprove 30 years of financial policy.


It is not rare for companies to call for more regulation. Walmart for example recently called for an increase in the minimum wage. Or there is the number of tariffs on different products.
This pales in comparison to calls for deregulation.


If banks don't want to abolish the fdederal reserve, then they don't want a free market in banking.
That's right. Just like the sate, the presence of one factor defines the entire system for you. Pitiful.


If you look at the historical record, there is no reason to believe that would be the case.
The pinkertons were a private security force which acted to defend capital. When they were outlawed/disbanded, the state took over this function.


I have. Have you? Because what you said is incorrect.
Wow! It's incorrect?! That's a real argument there buddy!

:laugh:

[Havet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junius_S._Morgan

No relevant information is displayed on that Wikipedia Link.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan

As i've already explain he attempted to form an association (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D03E3DE143AEF33A2575BC0A9619C94689FD7CF) to control rates. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where it had been before he intervened.

The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldace_F._Walker), one of the original appointees to the ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the board of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe.

Your link does not show much relevant information. A peer-reviewed journal or a historical book on him would be more useful in proving your point.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.P._Morgan_%26_Co.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase

Again id recomend you quoting particular instances of those links or, if possible, some better links to help your case, otherwise i dont know what im supposed to be looking for.


No its not, I was asking you a question. How could that possibly be a strawman? If you don't believe that it will exist, fine, but I'm just pointing out what great leaps of faith you have to take to believe that a market wont centralize.

It was a strawman because the question had nothing to do with your initial statement. I've explained countless times that, under certain conditions, markets won't centralize to a degree where they are harmful to society. I have shown reasonable arguments for my beliefs, mostly through Carson's books.


Wow, that sounds like the same shit on cable TV. How is that an example of decentralized media?

Are you kidding me? I literally have to dig for dissenting views from the 6 o'clock media.

Ok, you like to play fucking semantic games? let's do it.

How the hell do you define "decentralized"? Until you answer that i'm not writing anything else on the subject


Well, I'm not competing for election when there exists direct democracy. Once again, basic terminology fails you.

Ad hominem

You think I don't know the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy? I? Who do you think you are talking to, a newcomer to revleft?

In direct democracy, whether you are voting on how to manage the labor force of a factory or how to organize the production of certain tools, you are competing with your fellow voters because everyone has different interests. If you think that after a communist revolution dissent is gone just like that *snaps fingers*, then either you support the oppresive regime of stalinism or you are very naive, especially for a moderator.


How ironic the "best ties" were made with the largest baking firm at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs)! It couldn't have been because they bought off the government, because hayenmill doesn't believe that government is paid off! Its true because he says so, centuries of contrary fact be damned.

Will you please stop with the sarcasm? Do you think it helps the discussion to keep attacking me over and over again? Do you get a fucking hard-on for doing it, or something?

OF FUCKING COURSE companies can buy governments! They do this all the time! They do this far more often than you are willing to admit! That IS NOT the question being discussed here. The question being discussed is HOW THE FUCK did those companies get so privileged and wealthy in order to pay off a government, and whether they could get so privileged and wealthy in an environment where there isn't an agency with the monopoly on force which uses it to protect a RULING CLASS!!!


There you go about guilt. Big deal! I don't care who's guilty, but what systems enable that centralization of power.

Well that is an easy answer: The state and the privileged market.


This is a necessary character of a free market, since capitalist systems always enable more efficient acquisition of market shares, and subsequently dominance over markets, then dominance over the character of the economy.

You are STILL thinking of free-markets inside a capitalist system. Drop it or else there is no point in continuing this discussion.


Well, how do you expect the free market to defend private property?

It depends on how you define private property.


This is why I characterize people like you as insane hippies: you think that people can compete and so long as "everything's cool, man, no state!" that competition will be "fair" or something and people won't accumulate capital.

Ad hominem, comrade.


But the fact is that methods of accumulation of capital are very lucrative - in a competitive paradigm, they will always win! Especially without state regulation, which we see very interestingly that major corporations - which buy the state, like UBS and Goldman Sachs - constantly call for deregulation.

The banking milieu which has achieved incredibly intricate methods of wealth accumulation wants deregulation. It's not because they want a "level playing field": if centralized systems of economic control want a free market, that indicates very clearly who benefits from the market game.

How can it be so difficult to udnerstand that deregulation in a capitalist society IS harmful, but abolition of regulation and the very structure of the State itself, and all the privileged capitalists, removes their source of tools of exploitation?

[Dean]

How can it be so difficult to udnerstand that deregulation in a capitalist society IS harmful, but abolition of regulation and the very structure of the State itself, and all the privileged capitalists, removes their source of tools of exploitation?

No, it does not. As I pointed out earlier, Pinkertons are an example of a structure defending private property via market methods.

It has been explained time and time again how capitalists exploit laborers to have an unfair advantage (not the least of which is by specializing in trade whereas laborers specialize in their craft) so I think it is ludicrous that you think that state is the only structure granting privilege.

The state is everywhere, of course, but the issue is one of the "chicken or the egg," or rather if exploitation would exist in the context of a "free market."

I also don't know what you mean by "abolishing .. capitalists." Shouldn't your free market somehow equalize them to the level of everyone else, anyways?

Or don't you believe that equalization is necessary (a concept we've alluded to in another thread). If not, why? How can disparity of wealth - economic power - exist where exploitation somehow doesn't? Those with more resources will always buy off private security (as issue you conveniently ignore as "uninteresting" to you :laugh:) which will exist in a free market (unless the free market is convenient in that "nobody wants to steal" either!).

Why the hell do you think it is easy to swallow that a free market wont engender the same exploitation we've seen across many different economies and under many different regimes throughout the last 200 years? If they didn't act as a market toward profit interests, I could see your point.

But these have been market forces driving the exploitation - notably the market expression of the interests of the highest echelon of the capitalist caste.

The market is pay to play. Those with more will pay-more to play-more. It's incredibly simple, and basic inequalities like chronic illness will immediately imbalance the system.

[Skooma Addict]

They demand it and they get it. One example doesn't disprove 30 years of financial policy.


But you haven't proven that for the past 30 years banks have systematically deregulated. Regardless, my point stands. Banks do not want to abolish the federal reserve, which means they do not want a free market in banking. Banking is actually a heavily regulated industry, and according to your logic, that could only have occered if the banks demanded it, right? After all, they get what they demand.


This pales in comparison to calls for deregulation.

I won't take your word for it.


That's right. Just like the sate, the presence of one factor defines the entire system for you. Pitiful.

It just disporves the claim that banks want to deregulate the entire industry. One point is all I need, even though there are more.


The pinkertons were a private security force which acted to defend capital. When they were outlawed/disbanded, the state took over this function.

But we were talking about banking, and the history of free banking shows that it is not true that just because bankers want a federal reserve, that a federal reserve would then be created.


Wow! It's incorrect?! That's a real argument there buddy!

Well it should be obvious. Just because something is demanded doesn't mean there will be a supplier to satisfy that demand. I demand a VIP flight to Mars.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Look this shit is going way of topic, if you want my opinion on it, you guys are just strawmanning Dean, but clearly discussing so many minor details is not really condusive to working this shit when its a very simple question.

If markets respond to demand, why in a "free market" will the rich not demand the privilege the state gives them now (And more, if they can get away with it.)

[Skooma Addict]

Look this shit is going way of topic, if you want my opinion on it, you guys are just strawmanning Dean, but clearly discussing so many minor details is not really condusive to working this shit when its a very simple question.

If markets respond to demand, why in a "free market" will the rich not demand the privilege the state gives them now (And more, if they can get away with it.)

You are going to have to get into more detail here. Are you worried that rich people will hire some thugs, take over, and form some kind of dictatorship?

[Havet]

No, it does not. As I pointed out earlier, Pinkertons are an example of a structure defending private property via market methods.

Just because there are agencies defending private property doesn't mean capitalist have the same tools they have today to exploit people.


It has been explained time and time again how capitalists exploit laborers to have an unfair advantage (not the least of which is by specializing in trade whereas laborers specialize in their craft) so I think it is ludicrous that you think that state is the only structure granting privilege.

I've never said it was only the state.


I also don't know what you mean by "abolishing .. capitalists." Shouldn't your free market somehow equalize them to the level of everyone else, anyways?

It will - after the present system is abolished. Until then they still have privilege.


Or don't you believe that equalization is necessary (a concept we've alluded to in another thread). If not, why? How can disparity of wealth - economic power - exist where exploitation somehow doesn't? Those with more resources will always buy off private security (ad hominem :laugh:) which will exist in a free market (irrelevant drivel).

I hope you don't mind that I quote my other thread on this:


"You misunderstand me if you think we wish to take from or give to any one. We have no scheme for regulating distribution. We substitute nothing, make no plans. We trust to the unfailing balance of supply and demand. We say that with equal opportunity to produce, the division of product will necessarily approach equitable distribution, but we have no method of 'enacting' such equalization."


Why the hell do you think it is easy to swallow that a free market wont engender the same exploitation we've seen across many different economies and under many different regimes throughout the last 200 years? If they didn't act as a market toward profit interests, I could see your point.

The free-market is not responsible for the exploitation in the last 200 years. You should know better by now.


But these have been market forces driving the exploitation - notably the market expression of the interests of the highest echelon of the capitalist caste.

Market forces originated by privileged entities which used state-sanctioned force to maintain their status.

[Havet]

Look this shit is going way of topic, if you want my opinion on it, you guys are just strawmanning Dean, but clearly discussing so many minor details is not really condusive to working this shit when its a very simple question.

If markets respond to demand, why in a "free market" will the rich not demand the privilege the state gives them now (And more, if they can get away with it.)

Nobody would want to supply such privilege because it would go against all the worker's co-ops self-interests, all the sole proprietorships self-interest, all community-owned enterprises self-interest, etc. Most of the times human beings act according to their self-interest, so it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Unless, of course, they enact such privilege by force. Again its reasonable to assume there will be mechanisms (the same mechanisms that overthrowed the previous system) to prevent that from happening.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

You are going to have to get into more detail here. Are you worried that rich people will hire some thugs, take over, and form some kind of dictatorship?

I'm saying there will be people trying to provide services, and some of those services will be harmful to others.

This could be enforcing some kind of minor regulatory privilege, or getting the rules changed in some district, or as far as forming some kind of dictatorship.

[Dean]

But you haven't proven that for the past 30 years banks have systematically deregulated. Regardless, my point stands. Banks do not want to abolish the federal reserve, which means they do not want a free market in banking. Banking is actually a heavily regulated industry, and according to your logic, that could only have occered if the banks demanded it, right? After all, they get what they demand.



I won't take your word for it.



It just disporves the claim that banks want to deregulate the entire industry. One point is all I need, even though there are more.



But we were talking about banking, and the history of free banking shows that it is not true that just because bankers want a federal reserve, that a federal reserve would then be created.
Actually you need more points to prove that the free market wouldn't benefit large banking firms. Its not unlikely that contemporary bankers would reject reorganization to their benefit due to the short term costs.

The fact is rather simple, though, and I provided IRS evidence which you refused to read. So, you don't have to "take my word," rather the ball is in your hands and you actually have to take the initiative.


Since the 70s, there's been massive deregulation due to banker lobbying and graft with the state. It's well documented, and primarily is seen as starting with Ford (in conjunction with massive interest hikes at the same time). Just because you refuse to believe that your ideology does in fact support large private firms has no bearing on its character as manifested in the political world.


Well it should be obvious. Just because something is demanded doesn't mean there will be a supplier to satisfy that demand. I demand a VIP flight to Mars.
Sure... great tangent there kid. First off, private security - as well as all the other services of the state - are tangible services with fairly basic resource requirements.

If there is effective demand for such services - that is demand that reasonably makes up for the cost of the seller in a timely manner - there will be a pay-to-play system that primarily benefits the wealthy class.

Why wouldn't people take these opportunities? Because it "wouldn't be fair?" :laugh:

[Dean]

Just because there are agencies defending private property doesn't mean capitalist have the same tools they have today to exploit people.

I've never said it was only the state.
That's the mantra you've been repeating for a few months now. If not the state, what?


It will - after the present system is abolished. Until then they still have privilege.
We appreciate you giving your opinions. But if you don't have any good reason why you don't think capital contributes to exploitative power, then you shouldn't be repeating it.




I hope you don't mind that I quote my other thread on this:
Hah! So you don't even redistribute resources? A bunch of bloated capitalist maintain their capital, but not "privilege"?

Because money isn't economic power in a market, right? :laugh:


The free-market is not responsible for the exploitation in the last 200 years. You should know better by now.



Market forces originated by privileged entities which used state-sanctioned force to maintain their status.

What does it matter? We both know that those who have capital will contract out security work in order to maintain their capital.

What is so special about money that makes you think it would allow people to exploit others, but state-sanctioned incentives will?

Do you not have a response to the Pinkerton example?

Also, I was thinking about this:

No relevant information is displayed on that Wikipedia Link.
The relevant fact is that there is no evidence of state intervention.

You see, you are dealing with massive flaws in your logic. To you the state is always the catalyst for privilege. Furthermore, any instance of state intervention is instantly defined as the only reasonable explanation for disparate wealth.

Firms don't manage capital "more efficiently." Capitalists don't use their added wealth to secure their place. It's just the state. What a joke! The state is just an abstraction anyways! It exists, but there is nothing about the state that fundamentally differs from any other organization that would grant it the power to solely define privilege.

Furthermore, you use the above example - where I point out there is no apparent evidence of state intervention - as "lacking decisive evidence." No, shit. But you don't have decisive evidence anywhere to point to the state as the sole arbiter of privilege.

You just blame "the state" where ever it exists - how convenient!

Furthermore, we need to think of what the state is. Typically, it is the primary provider of security services. When it goes away, what happens to security?

More importantly, how is security disbursed without resulting in the same state-privileges as we see today? Your response: "I'm not interested in private security."

Really, we see that you're not interested in fundamental issues relating to your ideology. It hinges on the "non-privilege-granting" character of private security. You can't just shrug this off as if it doesn't matter.

Furthermore, you can't simply reject cases where you can't find examples of state intervention. The fact is that blaming the state where you see it intervenes as a compelling force in a system is nothing but conjecture. But so is a lot of what we're discussing, so, whatever. But refuting my example simply because you can't find the state is nothing but cynical intellectual dishonesty.

You don't care about fundamental issues facing the free market.

You refuse examples just as valid as yours if they don't confer evidence supporting your claims.

This is why I call you a propertarian idealist. You don't have the interest in even rudimentary materialist analysis - just hysterical obsession with proving your brand of idealism as "possible."

[Havet]

That's the mantra you've been repeating for a few months now. If not the state, what?

The state is not the only entity which grants privilege. THis should be obvious, since it's what you keep repeating over and over again as if I believe the contrary. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples.


We appreciate you giving your opinions. But if you don't have any good reason why you don't think capital contributes to exploitative power, then you shouldn't be repeating it.

Where have I denied that capital controbutes to exploitative power???


Hah! So you don't even redistribute resources? A bunch of bloated capitalist maintain their capital, but not "privilege"?

Because money isn't economic power in a market, right? :laugh:

*sigh...*

They won't maintain their capital because capitalist firms are dependent on state interventionism for their continued existence.



Do you not have a response to the Pinkerton example?

What example? You just showed an historical example of a private security company. What do you want me to reply to?


The relevant fact is that there is no evidence of state intervention.

On that wikipedia article, yes. But wikipedia articles aren't everything.


To you the state is always the catalyst for privilege. Furthermore, any instance of state intervention is instantly defined as the only reasonable explanation for disparate wealth.

Here you are contradicting me. The state is the historical catalyst for privilege. That doesn't mean it's the only one, but it means it's the one that appears in greatest quantity and "quality" of actions. It only doesn't mean it's the only reasonable explanation for disparate wealth. Disparate wealth can be explained by capitalist enterprises working within the privileged market. The products of the state are what cause disparate wealth, the state itself is both the catalyst and an active participant.


Firms don't manage capital "more efficiently." Capitalists don't use their added wealth to secure their place. It's just the state. What a joke! The state is just an abstraction anyways! It exists, but there is nothing about the state that fundamentally differs from any other organization that would grant it the power to solely define privilege.

Read above.


Furthermore, you use the above example - where I point out there is no apparent evidence of state intervention - as "lacking decisive evidence." No, shit. But you don't have decisive evidence anywhere to point to the state as the sole arbiter of privilege.

Strawman. I never claimed the state as the sole arbitrer of privilege. I claimed he was the greater one. And i have plenty of evidence to support that:

Walter Adams and James Brock. The Bigness Complex (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986).

Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy. Monopoly Capitalism: An Essay in the American Economic and Social Order. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966)

Walden Bello. "Structural Adjustment Programs: 'Success' for Whom?" in Mander and Goldsmith, eds., The Case Against the Global Economy.

Hilaire Belloc. The Servile State (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1913, 1977).

Harry Braverman. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century.
25th Anniversary Edition (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998).

Nikolai Bukharin. Imperialism and World Economy. (International Publishers, 1929 (written 1915-1917). Available online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/ (captured October 28, 2003).

Sean Corrigan. "You Can't Say That!" August 6, 2002. http://www.lewrockwell.com/corrigan/corrigan13.html

G. William Domhoff. The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).

Domhoff. The Power Elite and the State: How Policy is Made in America (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990).

Domhoff. Who Rules America Now? (Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 1983, 1997).

William M. Dugger. Corporate Hegemony (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989).

David W. Eakins. "Business Planners and America's Postwar Expansion," in Horowitz, ed., Corporations and the Cold War pp. 143-172.

"Editorial" International Socialist Review XIII, No. 6 (December 1912).

Gary Elkin. "Benjamin Tucker--Anarchist or Capitalist?" http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/an_or_cap.html (captured October 28, 2003).

Friedrich Engels. Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science (Anti-Duhring) (New York: International Publishers, 1939).

Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers. Right Turn (New York: Hill and Wang, 1986).

Thomas Ferguson. Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).

Bruce Franklin. "Debt Peonage: The Highest Form of Imperialism?" Monthly Review 33:10 (March 1982) pp. 15-31.

Thomas Friedman. "What the World Needs Now," New York Times, March 28, 1999.

John Kenneth Galbraith. The New Industrial State (New York: Signet Books, 1967).

Mark J. Green, et al., eds. The Closed Enterprise System. Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on Antitrust Enforcement. (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1972).

Daniel Gross. "Socialism, American Style: Why American CEOs covet a massive European-style social-welfare state" Slate Aug. 1, 2003 http://slate.msn.com/id/2086511/ (captured October 23, 2003).

Jurgen Habermas. Legitimation Crisis. Translated by Thomas McCarthy (United Kingdom: Polity Press, 1973, 1976).

Rudolf Hilferding. Finance Capital. Edited and translated by Tom Bottomore (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1910 (1981)).

J. A. Hobson. Imperialism: A Study (London: Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd, 1905).

David Horowitz, ed. Corporations and the Cold War. (New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1969).

Ivan Illich. Deschooling Society (1970). Online version at http://philosophy.la.psu.edu/illich/deschool/intro.html (captured October 28, 2003).

Illich. Tools for Conviviality (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).

Warren Johnson. Muddling Toward Frugality (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1978).

Frank Kofsky. Harry Truman and the War Scare of 1948 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993).

Gabriel Kolko. The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History 1900-1916 (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963).

Robert Rives La Monte. "You and Your Vote" International Socialist Review XIII, No. 2 (August 1912).

Christopher Layne and Benjamin Shwartz. "American Hegemony Without an Enemy," Foreign Policy 92 (Fall 1993).

William Lazonick. Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

Lazonick. Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Vladimir Lenin. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (New York: International Publishers, 1916, 1939).

Leonard P. Liggio. "American Foreign Policy and National Security Management," in Rothbard and Radosh, eds.

Oliver MacDonagh. "The Anti-Imperialism of Free Trade," The Economic History Review Second Series, vol. XIV, No. 3 (1962) pp. 489-501.

Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds. The Case Against the Global Economy (and for a turn toward the local) (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996).

Steven A. Marglin. "What Do Bosses Do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production--Part I" Review of Radical Political Economics 6:2 (Summer 1974).

Karl Marx. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (New York: International Publishers, 1970).

Paul Mattick. "The Economics of War and Peace," Dissent 111:4 (Fall 1956).

John P. McCarthy. Hilaire Belloc: Edwardian Radical (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1978).

Seymour Melman. The Permanent War Economy

Melman. Profits without Production. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983).

C. Wright Mills. The Power Elite. (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000 (1956).

David Montgomery. The Fall of the House of Labor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

Montgomery. Workers' Control in America. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

Charles E. Nathanson. "The Militarization of the American Economy" In Horowitz, ed. Corporations and the Cold War pp. 205-235.

Kwame Nkrumah. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism (New York: International Publishers, 1965).

David Noble. America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977).

Noble. Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984).

James O'Connor. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973).

George Orwell. 1984. Signet Classics reprint (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1949, 1981).

Cheryl Payer. The Debt Trap: The International Monetary Fund and the Third World (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974).

Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward. Regulating the Poor (New York: Vintage Books, 1971, 1993).

Ronald Radosh. "The Myth of the New Deal" in Rothbard and Radosh, eds.

Chakravarthi Raghavan. Recolonization: GATT, the Uruguay Round & the Third World. (Penang, Malaysis: Third World Network, 1990).

Patrick Renshaw. The Wobblies (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1967).

Murray Rothbard and Ronald Radosh, eds. A New History of Leviathan: Essays on the Rise of the American Corporate State. (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1972).

Rothbard. "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal," in Henry J. Silverman, ed., American Radical Thought: The Libertarian Tradition (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1970).

Rothbard. "War Collectivism in World War I" in Rothbard and Radosh, eds., pp. 66-110.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The Age of Jackson (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1946).

Joseph Schumpeter. "Imperialism." Imperialism, Social Classes: Two Essays by Joseph Schumpeter. Translated by Heinz Norden. Introduction by Hert Hoselitz. (New York: Meridian Books, 1955).

Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter. "Shaping a New World Order: The Council on Foreign Relations' Blueprint for World Hegemony, 1939-1945" in Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management (Boston: South End Press, 1980) pp. 135-156.

Martin J. Sklar. "Woodrow Wilson and the Political Economy of Modern United States Liberalism." In Rothbard and Radosh, eds., pp. 7-65.

Robert Freeman Smith. "American Foreign Relations, 1920-1942" in Barton J. Bledstein, ed., Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History (New York: Vintage Books, 1967, 1968).

L. S. Stavrianos. The Promise of the Coming Dark Age (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1976).

Barry Stein. Size, Efficiency, and Community Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Community Economic Development, 1974).

Robert Stinnett. Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Free Press, 1999).

Joseph R. Stromberg. "Free Trade, Mercantilism and Empire" February 28, 2000. At http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s022800.html (captured October 28, 2003).

Stromberg. The Political Economy of Liberal Corporatism. (Center for Libertarian Studies, 1977). Available online at http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/stromberg.html (captured Sept. 23, 2002).

Stromberg. "The Role of State Monopoly Capitalism in the American Empire" Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 15, no. 3 (Summer 2001), pp. 57-93. Available online at http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_3/15_3_3.pdf (captured October 28, 2003).

Paul M. Sweezy. "Competition and Monopoly" Monthly Review 33:1 (May 1981) pp. 1-16.

Benjamin Tucker. Instead of a Book, By a Man Too Busy to Write One. Gordon Press facsimile of second edition (New York: 1897/1973)

William English Walling. Socialism as it Is: A Survey of the World-Wide Revolutionary Movement (New York: MacMillan & Co., Ltd., 1912).

James Weinstein. The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State: 1900-1918 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968).

William Appleman Williams. The Contours of American History (Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company, 1961).

Williams. The Tragedy of American Diplomacy. (New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1959, 1962).

"World Oil Supplies Running Out Faster than Expected" Oil and Gas Journal, August 12, 2002.

And yes, if you are wondering, those are the sources from Carson's mutualist synthesis on Monopoly Capital.


Furthermore, we need to think of what the state is. Typically, it is the primary provider of security services. When it goes away, what happens to security?

It depends on how it goes away.


More importantly, how is security disbursed without resulting in the same state-privileges as we see today? Your response: "I'm not interested in private security."

I replied "i'm not interested in discussing PROFIT-DRIVEN PRIVATE SECURITY". OBVIOUSLY that there are other forms of security. Ever heard of mutual-aid? Community-owned voluntary defense "armies"?


This is why I call you a propertarian idealist. You don't have the interest in even rudimentary materialist analysis - just hysterical obsession with proving your brand of idealism as "possible."

lol

[Dean]

*sigh...*

They won't maintain their capital because capitalist firms are dependent on state interventionism for their continued existence.



What example? You just showed an historical example of a private security company. What do you want me to reply to?

:laugh: Do you not even realize how contradictory the two are?

So, lets get it straight:

You believe that without a state, corporations will be incapable of paying off private security to exact the same methods of control. Not because their capital will be redistributed (you've disavowed that position) but for some other reason.

Right? So, what reason? What are these strange market forces that disallow accumulated capital from defending itself and expanding?

[Skooma Addict]

Actually you need more points to prove that the free market wouldn't benefit large banking firms. Its not unlikely that contemporary bankers would reject reorganization to their benefit due to the short term costs.

What short term costs? I pointed out many times that if banks wanted a free market in banking, then they would want to end the Federal Reserve. Yet, they don't.

A free market would not benefit large banks because there would be more competition and there would be no Federal Reserve to act as a lender of last resort. Nor would there be any legal tender laws. Why don't you just research the history of free banking for yourself so you actually know what it is you are talking about?


The fact is rather simple, though, and I provided IRS evidence which you refused to read. So, you don't have to "take my word," rather the ball is in your hands and you actually have to take the initiative.

Because you were supposed to be proving that large banks want to eliminate the federal reserve.


Since the 70s, there's been massive deregulation due to banker lobbying and graft with the state. It's well documented, and primarily is seen as starting with Ford (in conjunction with massive interest hikes at the same time). Just because you refuse to believe that your ideology does in fact support large private firms has no bearing on its character as manifested in the political world.

You want to see some regulations? Here you go.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/17417/

There is plenty more detail we can go into as well.


If there is effective demand for such services - that is demand that reasonably makes up for the cost of the seller in a timely manner - there will be a pay-to-play system that primarily benefits the wealthy class.

Darn! You were soooo close to getting something right for once. Prove to me that the "wealthy" will always benefit more than any other income group with the introduction of a product/service which is demanded.

[Dean]

What short term costs? I pointed out many times that if banks wanted a free market in banking, then they would want to end the Federal Reserve. Yet, they don't.

A free market would not benefit large banks because there would be more competition and there would be no Federal Reserve to act as a lender of last resort. Nor would there be any legal tender laws. Why don't you just research the history of free banking for yourself so you actually know what it is you are talking about?
Why would they need a federal reserve if they can lend without reserves anyways?


Because you were supposed to be proving that large banks want to eliminate the federal reserve.
No, I wasn't. The federal reserve doesn't represent the single regulatory agency in the US economy.


You want to see some regulations? Here you go.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/17417/

There is plenty more detail we can go into as well.
Oh, no, I can't follow links. Remember? You can't read my evidence, why should I read yours?


Darn! You were soooo close to getting something right for once. Prove to me that the "wealthy" will always benefit more than any other income group with the introduction of a product/service which is demanded.
Here's the proof: the wealthy, as the primary holders of currency, will have the most buying power, and subsequently the market will chiefly seek to serve them.

It's not complicated. At all. It just doesn't support your precious ideology, so sorry! :crying:

[Skooma Addict]

Why would they need a federal reserve if they can lend without reserves anyways?

Why don't you just research this yourself? I already listed a few reasons anyways. How about this, why would legal tender laws help banks who's currency is losing value?


No, I wasn't. The federal reserve doesn't represent the single regulatory agency in the US economy.

Correct. But you claimed that banks want a free market in banking, and I used the Federal Reserve to disprove that point. You then presented that PDF as if it refuted my point. But fine, I will read it and most likely waste my time in the process.


Oh, no, I can't follow links. Remember? You can't read my evidence, why should I read yours?

Well you wanted more examples besides the Federal Reserve. So there you go. I don't really care if you read it or not. It most likely won't make a difference until you brush up on the topic anyways.


Here's the proof: the wealthy, as the primary holders of currency, will have the most buying power, and subsequently the market will chiefly seek to serve them.

Just because you have the most money, that does not mean you will benefit more than someone with less money from the introduction of a new product into the economy. I am pretty sure poor Europeans benefited more from the introduction of the Potato than rich Europeans.

[Havet]

You believe that without a state, corporations will be incapable of paying off private security to exact the same methods of control. Not because their capital will be redistributed (you've disavowed that position) but for some other reason.


Corporations are entities with special (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) state privilege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood).

There's an image i'd like to show to help you visualize better, but I can't find it ATM.

And capital will be redistributed naturally by the market, not by some "people's centralized state". Read below.


Right? So, what reason? What are these strange market forces that disallow accumulated capital from defending itself and expanding?

Competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition#Economics_and_business), diseconomies of scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale) and no artificial barriers of entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry)/exit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_exit)

[La Comédie Noire]

I am not going to read a pdf unless if proves that large banks lobby for the elimination of the Federal Reserve. The fact that these banks don't want to end the federal reserve means they do not want a free market. They only want deregulation where it helps them, just like they want regulation where it is beneficial for them. It is a simple concept to grasp really.

I don't see why Skooma Addict and Dean can't agree on this. A leftist wouldn't be out of place saying this.

[Dean]

Corporations are entities with special (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) state privilege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood).
Sure, change that to "companies." They'll keep their capital after your glorious revolution, so its no biggie.


And capital will be redistributed naturally by the market, not by some "people's centralized state". Read below.
Why should it be? Capitalists will throw up their hands and say "well, game's over - there's no way we could possibly pay off the private sector firms to get what we need to maintain hegemony"? That's preposterous and you know it.




Competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition#Economics_and_business), diseconomies of scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale) and no artificial barriers of entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry)/exit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_exit)
-States compete and maintain hegemony over people
-diseconomics of scale is a very limited phenomenon typically applied to conglomerates or organizations which produce too much. We're talking about finance capital these days in any case.
-Barriers of entry will always exist where large sums of capital are required for a start up. This is accurate even in your idealist "free" market, for obvious reasons.

[Dean]

Correct. But you claimed that banks want a free market in banking, and I used the Federal Reserve to disprove that point. You then presented that PDF as if it refuted my point. But fine, I will read it and most likely waste my time in the process.
Actually, I said they consistently push for deregulation (which they do) and that the free market would benefit them.

The fact that your pet issue - the fed - apparently contradicts this rule doesn't change the 30+ years of financial deregulation committed by bank-owned administrations.


Just because you have the most money, that does not mean you will benefit more than someone with less money from the introduction of a new product into the economy. I am pretty sure poor Europeans benefited more from the introduction of the Potato than rich Europeans.

The potato is really the phenomenon of advanced capital, isn't it? You get more ludicrous every day.

In any case, consumers are only consumers because they have purchasing power. More purchasing power is translated from more wealth. This is one of the most basic economic facts, and its factuality is incredibly obvious. Your position would be correct if markets weren't managed by buying and selling commodities and goods. But it is, of course, and those with more buying power are the primary constituency of the market.

You'd be a complete moron to think that this isn't the case. Why would capitalists seek to sell to those who can't buy?

[Dean]

I don't see why Skooma Addict and Dean can't agree on this. A leftist wouldn't be out of place saying this.
The emboldened part is accurate. The mystification of the "free market" into a federal-reserve-opposed regime is inaccurate and misleading.

Bankers, representing the interests of advanced finance capital, want the liberation of the market because theirs are the interests represented by that primary market force - wealth.

Oblivion boy wants to define the "free market" as some liberating force for human beings, so hes trying to distance himself from the obvious fact - that is that expansion of market power directly empowers holders of accumulated wealth.

The fed represents something similar to a candy dish or a guard dog for finance capital. So long as it benefits their interests, it will be supported. but the false notion that abolition of the fed will lead to some revolutionary economic paradigm wherein the present leaders of industry are dethroned (the only meaningful reason why someone would solely obsess over that fact) should be rejected, since it mystifies market forces from their real character: that is the representation of the interests of accumulated capital, such accumulation which happens under any free-market paradigm as a result of exploitative activities required for the efficient accumulation of capital in a competitive paradigm.

[Havet]

Why should it be? Capitalists will throw up their hands and say "well, game's over - there's no way we could possibly pay off the private sector firms to get what we need to maintain hegemony"? That's preposterous and you know it.

Oh really? Do you have any idea how terribly inefficient big corporations are? Just to give you an example, consider Wal-mart and how it manages to spread across the united states: through subsidies (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/)

Or consider how EU farm subsidies are paid to multinationals like Coca-Cola (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5852319/EU-farm-subsidies-paid-to-big-business.html)

Or how Microsoft tries to use Intellectual Property rights to maintain their market dominance (http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/recdevs/canetti.pdf) (which was achieved by IP rights (http://www.zdnet.com/news/intel-exec-ms-wanted-to-extend-embrace-and-extinguish-competition/100925), *gasp!*).


-States compete and maintain hegemony over people

States use force; normal business operations do not use force, and more especially, they do not have the monopoly on its use, so everyone is capable of defending themselves from agression.


-diseconomics of scale is a very limited phenomenon typically applied to conglomerates or organizations which produce too much. We're talking about finance capital these days in any case.

Proof?

Anyway, i'm starting to believe that concepts such economies (or diseconomies) of scale is ultimately a productivist concept. Modern capitalism has moved beyond the limits of industrial units (the unit that these forces act upon) and neat little materialist examples of inputs and outputs, to purely pecuniary business units such as multinational multi-industry conglomerates.


The second difficulty with the common rationale is that large-scale production is a sound business practice only if it serves to raise profits – yet contrary to popular conviction one does not necessarily imply the other. Since the 1890s, the modern corporation has outgrown its largest industrial unit, suggesting that economies of scale are no longer the paramount determinant of business size, if they ever were (Scherer 1975: 334–36 (http://books.google.com/books?id=R_DiQKjNgPwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false); Edwards 1979: 217– 18 (http://books.google.com/books?id=r6R4nNcnVUUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false)). A typical modern firm now owns numerous, in some cases hundreds of industrial establishments, often in unrelated industries. And while the corporation continues to grow in size, its industrial units do not. [According to the Statistics of U.S. Business program (SUSB), the size of establishments (defined as production locations) does not differ much between super-large firms (with over 10,000 employees) and medium-sized ones (with 100–999 employees): in 2005, both groups had an average establishment size of 52 employees. The real difference was in the number of establishments: in that year, a typical large firm owned an average of 658 establishments, whereas its medium-sized counterpart had only 4.6 (U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census).] The fact that industrial size is not a necessity for business success has been demonstrated forcefully with the growing significance of outsourcing. Many of today’s corporate giants have successfully reinstated the putting out system of the industrial revolution, with the typical result being rising profit coupled with falling payroll. The rise of the corporation of course is related to the emergence of large-scale industry, but causality may well run opposite to what mainstream economics argues: the corporation emerged not to enable large-scale industry, but rather to prevent it from becoming ‘excessively’ productive.

This ability to grow beyond the forces of scale barriers at the level of industry is the natural result, it seems, of the ability to treat the firm as a property right that can be moved around in mergers and acquisitions, helped by problematic notions like the capitalization of "goodwill" (http://bit.ly/9Fo2xD). Unfortunately for the story that it's all about the state privileges (and that certainly plays a role that has no excuse), it's unclear how much M&A would disappear simply by "pushing Rothbard's button." The belief in anarcho-libertarian circles that such things are allowed by principle is strong. Artificial scarcity is one (big and common) way to get differential power, but it's not the only way. I'd like to imagine that a free market in commercial law would reject these features, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. That's not a call for conceding something back to the state regulators, but it's a warning against apathy.

There is a parallel to "diseconomies of scale" in the realm of amalgamation of capital because the "depletion of takeover targets, the negative effect on growth associated with lower levels of green-field investment and the emergence of counter-forces suggest that corporate amalgamation cannot possibly run smoothly and continuously." Yet it has managed to charge ahead, albeit with cycles to release the pressure. But that is because capital keeps breaking out of its "envelope" from local to national to global. Where things are going to get "interesting" is when these negative barriers can no longer be overcome by going to the next higher geographical level, i.e. when capitalism maxs out the Earth's capacity for amalgamation. The inflation will be the only tool in the belt. Call it a capitalist singularity....and I'm not sure it will turn out well without a change in the way we relate to industry.


-Barriers of entry will always exist where large sums of capital are required for a start up. This is accurate even in your idealist "free" market, for obvious reasons.

Did you even read what I said? I said ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS TO ENTRY.

[Dean]

Oh really? Do you have any idea how terribly inefficient big corporations are? Just to give you an example, consider Wal-mart and how it manages to spread across the united states: through subsidies (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/)

Or consider how EU farm subsidies are paid to multinationals like Coca-Cola (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5852319/EU-farm-subsidies-paid-to-big-business.html)

Or how Microsoft tries to use Intellectual Property rights to maintain their market dominance (http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/recdevs/canetti.pdf) (which was achieved by IP rights (http://www.zdnet.com/news/intel-exec-ms-wanted-to-extend-embrace-and-extinguish-competition/100925), *gasp!*).

That's like saying that AIPAC is inefficient because it needs the state to accomplish its goals. A completely speculative point, and in fact, it indicates to me that organizations which successfully lobby the government are actually efficient in regards to their goals.

Furthermore, you don't even address my point at all! The propertied class will pay off people like the Pinkertons to maintain their hegemony if the state ceases to do so. What say you, besides harping on these firms "inefficiencies"? :laugh:


States use force; normal business operations do not use force, and more especially, they do not have the monopoly on its use, so everyone is capable of defending themselves from agression.
Normal business operations do in many instances (look at Mexico - interestingly, a nation where the state and security is devolved to the market in many places) and furthermore, in the absence of a state, the market will have to deal with the inevitable aggression in a competitive system of property.

Besides, the point was that states do in fact compete for security. Its largely what wars are about, especially contemporary proxy wars.


Proof?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale



Diseconomies of scale are the forces that cause larger firms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) to produce goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29) at increased per-unit costs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_cost). They are less well known than what economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) have long understood as "economies of scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale)", the forces which enable larger firms to produce goods and services at reduced per-unit costs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_cost).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

Anyway, i'm starting to believe that concepts such economies (or diseconomies) of scale is ultimately a productivist concept. Modern capitalism has moved beyond the limits of industrial units (the unit that these forces act upon) and neat little materialist examples of inputs and outputs, to purely pecuniary business units such as multinational multi-industry conglomerates.

This ability to grow beyond the forces of scale barriers at the level of industry is the natural result, it seems, of the ability to treat the firm as a property right that can be moved around in mergers and acquisitions, helped by problematic notions like the capitalization of "goodwill" (http://bit.ly/9Fo2xD). Unfortunately for the story that it's all about the state privileges (and that certainly plays a role that has no excuse), it's unclear how much M&A would disappear simply by "pushing Rothbard's button." The belief in anarcho-libertarian circles that such things are allowed by principle is strong. Artificial scarcity is one (big and common) way to get differential power, but it's not the only way. I'd like to imagine that a free market in commercial law would reject these features, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. That's not a call for conceding something back to the state regulators, but it's a warning against apathy.

There is a parallel to "diseconomies of scale" in the realm of amalgamation of capital because the "depletion of takeover targets, the negative effect on growth associated with lower levels of green-field investment and the emergence of counter-forces suggest that corporate amalgamation cannot possibly run smoothly and continuously." Yet it has managed to charge ahead, albeit with cycles to release the pressure. But that is because capital keeps breaking out of its "envelope" from local to national to global. Where things are going to get "interesting" is when these negative barriers can no longer be overcome by going to the next higher geographical level, i.e. when capitalism maxs out the Earth's capacity for amalgamation. The inflation will be the only tool in the belt. Call it a capitalist singularity....and I'm not sure it will turn out well without a change in the way we relate to industry.

Sure. And simply "abolishing the state" will keep all of those propertied interests from achieving these ends, right? It just takes turning out the light on one security firm - it would be impossible for them to use the exact same capital to extract the same services from whichever companies specialize in security in the advent of the new violent anarchism, right?

It's bollocks and you know it. The only way to achieve popular control over the economy (and therefore represent the interests of the population in general) is the systematic devolution of state and economic power to the working class, and the expansion of the working class to destitute communities.


Did you even read what I said? I said ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS TO ENTRY.

Did you read what I wrote? There is nothing about "non-artificial" barriers that makes them any more or less "barriers" to entry. They must be seen as systemic flaws which lead to hegemony of private companies regardless of additional barriers which the state may incur.

Shit's real, hayenmill! Nothing "artificial" about extant systems of state control which the propertied class demands!
...and so long as they keep their property (that is your pet regime doesn't redistribute wealth) they'll pay people to maintain their hegemony.

[Skooma Addict]

Actually, I said they consistently push for deregulation (which they do) and that the free market would benefit them.

The fact that your pet issue - the fed - apparently contradicts this rule doesn't change the 30+ years of financial deregulation committed by bank-owned administrations.


Banks don't consistently push for deregulation, and a free market would not benefit todays large mega banks. You can't merely declare there has been 30+ yeas of deregulation. I gave you a link with examples of regulations. You are just repeating yourself now, time to move on.

If a free market would benefit the large banks, then these banks would want to abolish the FED. But they don't.

How about this. Explain theoretically why a free market in banking would help todays gigantic banks.


The potato is really the phenomenon of advanced capital, isn't it? You get more ludicrous every day.

Conditions don't change when we get to "advanced capital." You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just making ad hoc qualifications because what you say initially is always wrong.


In any case, consumers are only consumers because they have purchasing power. More purchasing power is translated from more wealth. This is one of the most basic economic facts, and its factuality is incredibly obvious. Your position would be correct if markets weren't managed by buying and selling commodities and goods. But it is, of course, and those with more buying power are the primary constituency of the market.

You'd be a complete moron to think that this isn't the case. Why would capitalists seek to sell to those who can't buy?

Yes, a wealthy person can afford to buy more than a poor person. But it does not follow that the wealthy person will benefit more from the introduction of a new product into the economy ("advanced capital or otherwise") than a poor person.


The emboldened part is accurate. The mystification of the "free market" into a federal-reserve-opposed regime is inaccurate and misleading.

Bankers, representing the interests of advanced finance capital, want the liberation of the market because theirs are the interests represented by that primary market force - wealth.

Oblivion boy wants to define the "free market" as some liberating force for human beings, so hes trying to distance himself from the obvious fact - that is that expansion of market power directly empowers holders of accumulated wealth.

The fed represents something similar to a candy dish or a guard dog for finance capital. So long as it benefits their interests, it will be supported. but the false notion that abolition of the fed will lead to some revolutionary economic paradigm wherein the present leaders of industry are dethroned (the only meaningful reason why someone would solely obsess over that fact) should be rejected, since it mystifies market forces from their real character: that is the representation of the interests of accumulated capital, such accumulation which happens under any free-market paradigm as a result of exploitative activities required for the efficient accumulation of capital in a competitive paradigm.

This doesn't even make sense. Learn how to make your points clearly.

Banks favor regulation which benefits them, and oppose regulation which does not. It really is that simple.

[Dean]

Banks don't consistently push for deregulation, and a free market would not benefit todays large mega banks. You can't merely declare there has been 30+ yeas of deregulation. I gave you a link with examples of regulations. You are just repeating yourself now, time to move on.

If a free market would benefit the large banks, then these banks would want to abolish the FED. But they don't.

How about this. Explain theoretically why a free market in banking would help todays gigantic banks.
On the first hand, by removing all regulations on how much currency must be in reserves to lend out money.


Conditions don't change when we get to "advanced capital." You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just making ad hoc qualifications because what you say initially is always wrong.
Its the advancement of capital, that is into the finance stage, which has clearly shifted the focus of capital from production and sale to strictly financial profiteering for an increasing sector of the economy.


Yes, a wealthy person can afford to buy more than a poor person. But it does not follow that the wealthy person will benefit more from the introduction of a new product into the economy ("advanced capital or otherwise") than a poor person.
I don't see capitalists pandering to African and S. Asian markets, but I do see them catering to European markets.

Unsurprisingly, its because buying power is low in the aforementioned regions.

Let's say this slowly:

Capitalists will not produce goods for populations which cannot compensate them as much as they will for rich populations.

It's the same reason why the state primarily serves the interests of propertied companies which have enough revenue to successfully lobby the government.

What you are suggesting is that money does not drive the economy. Sorry, kid, it does.



This doesn't even make sense. Learn how to make your points clearly.
I'm not too surprised that my - fairly simple - language escapes you.

It's not worht rephrasing because you're not interested in hearing my points, which is precisely why you erroneously contend that banks somehow don't demand deregulation. I don't think you even read the paper!


Banks favor regulation which benefits them, and oppose regulation which does not. It really is that simple.
That's an obvious point which does nothing but obfuscate the issue at hand.

[Havet]

That's like saying that AIPAC is inefficient because it needs the state to accomplish its goals.

No because AIPAC is not a business; it does not produce wealth.


A completely speculative point, and in fact, it indicates to me that organizations which successfully lobby the government are actually efficient in regards to their goals.

Efficiency in bribing =/= efficiency in productiveness


Furthermore, you don't even address my point at all! The propertied class will pay off people like the Pinkertons to maintain their hegemony if the state ceases to do so. What say you, besides harping on these firms "inefficiencies"? :laugh:

There won't be a properties class because people will not be able to acquire ownership in the same way they do today. And as for those which currently own a lot of wealth, if corporations had to cover all the costs which are currently exported towards the public, they would not be able to compete with local alternatives (case in point: walmart).

Barring such a scenario, however, I suspect these industries might be "communalized" through either an employee buyout or through implementation of a general strike for worker self-management. There is also the possibility of a buyout by federations of community, environmental, consumer and other types of popular organizations. Saul Alinsky once envisioned an industrial system where large groups of small shareholders meet in stadiums to determine corporate policy. Whether this would be feasible or not, I’m not sure. But it’s an interesting idea.


Normal business operations do in many instances (look at Mexico - interestingly, a nation where the state and security is devolved to the market in many places) and furthermore, in the absence of a state, the market will have to deal with the inevitable aggression in a competitive system of property.

Yes, Mexico, a nation with brutal state repression to illegal drugs businesses (which grew into brutal cartels due to the subtances being illegal in the first place...:rolleyes:)

And yes, I know the market will have to deal with protection from aggression. Like I said before, there are alternatives to for-profit PDAs. If you want to debate for-profit PDAs, i'm not the best person largely because I know very little about it.


Besides, the point was that states do in fact compete for security. Its largely what wars are about, especially contemporary proxy wars.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with what we were discussing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale

Nowhere in that link is it claimed that it's "a very limited phenomenon". What is claimed is that its less well known to economists.


it would be impossible for them to use the exact same capital to extract the same services from whichever companies specialize in security in the advent of the new violent anarchism, [/B]right?

Right, for the reasons explained above


It's bollocks and you know it. The only way to achieve popular control over the economy (and therefore represent the interests of the population in general) is the systematic devolution of state and economic power to the working class, and the expansion of the working class to destitute communities.

In one word: decentralization; which i favour. Congrats for agreeing with me.


Did you read what I wrote? There is nothing about "non-artificial" barriers that makes them any more or less "barriers" to entry. They must be seen as systemic flaws which lead to hegemony of private companies regardless of additional barriers which the state may incur.

Natural barriers to entry are the consequence of a market. Even in the internet, a "free-market" you experience this (ie: if you make a movie on youtube about a certain subject, there is a barrier to entry on the numbers of viewers you will get because other videos have set a "higher standard" on that subject. It's a very crude example, but you get the point). All this bullshit talk about "systemic flaws" are weasel words you use in order to evade explanations. Please proceed to analize things in a more individual manner or else explain more carefully and in detail whatever the hell you want to explain.

[Dean]

No because AIPAC is not a business; it does not produce wealth.
It produces political / military capital. You fail to see its value, and that's too bad, because this keeps you from understanding a lot of systems in the world.

Then of course there's that fact that your failing to see the value in lucrative practices does not in fact make them less lucrative.

Efficiency in bribing =/= efficiency in productiveness
Neither does efficiency in finance. In fact, in many ways they can be contrary. But does this make it "less lucrative"? Nope. It's easy for you to apply moral value to production, but its hard to say that this will translate into market value in terms of the interests of the ruling class.

There won't be a properties class because people will not be able to acquire ownership in the same way they do today. And as for those which currently own a lot of wealth, if corporations had to cover all the costs which are currently exported towards the public, they would not be able to compete with local alternatives (case in point: walmart).
Oh, I forgot! They're just going to disappear once one method of privilege is done away with. What a perfect system you've devised!

Barring such a scenario, however, I suspect these industries might be "communalized" through either an employee buyout or through implementation of a general strike for worker self-management. There is also the possibility of a buyout by federations of community, environmental, consumer and other types of popular organizations. Saul Alinsky once envisioned an industrial system where large groups of small shareholders meet in stadiums to determine corporate policy. Whether this would be feasible or not, I’m not sure. But it’s an interesting idea.
Right. Because the capitalists would be too daft to pay private security firms to defend their positions. Oh I forgot! You're not interested in them so they won't exist. How can I be so obtuse??

Yes, Mexico, a nation with brutal state repression to illegal drugs businesses (which grew into brutal cartels due to the subtances being illegal in the first place...:rolleyes:)
You're telling me that the police in Mexico are only brutally supportive of the cartels because "they're supposed to be arresting" those they get money from?

Are you kidding me? Besides, there's a little nugget of truth you need:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_economy

Agorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism) and some other proponents of the free market argue that the black market is the most free market.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_economy#cite_note-newlibman-25) Other regulated markets, they claim, suffer one way or another from undue interference in the general working of a free market.

And yes, I know the market will have to deal with protection from aggression. Like I said before, there are alternatives to for-profit PDAs. If you want to debate for-profit PDAs, i'm not the best person largely because I know very little about it.
That's because you're willfully ignorant about the "market solution" which will replace what you view as the "single cause of privilege" in a free market. I don't know how your mind operates, but frankly its disappointing.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Wait - so a competitive market solution isn't relevant to you when we're discussing market solutions to security? Oh right... you "don't care" about the issue.

Nowhere in that link is it claimed that it's "a very limited phenomenon". What is claimed is that its less well known to economists.
There's a reason its less well known.

Right, for the reasons explained above
'Reasons' which ignore the vast amount of capital, privilege and lucrativeness which exist as fraudulent, exploitative or otherwise unproductive, capital-accumulating acts.


In one word: decentralization; which i favour. Congrats for agreeing with me.
I haven't seen where you support this in any way. You do support a mystical notion of the state and marketplace which support a (poorly constructed, hackneyed) theory of why the market will "decentralize."

Natural barriers to entry are the consequence of a market. Even in the internet, a "free-market" you experience this (ie: if you make a movie on youtube about a certain subject, there is a barrier to entry on the numbers of viewers you will get because other videos have set a "higher standard" on that subject. It's a very crude example, but you get the point). All this bullshit talk about "systemic flaws" are weasel words you use in order to evade explanations. Please proceed to analize things in a more individual manner or else explain more carefully and in detail whatever the hell you want to explain.
-you correctly point out that barriers to entry are natural and will always be there (thus solidifying the power of those who don't suffer that poverty)
-you claim that I'm using "weasel words" but nowhere explain that I'm wrong, or that I'm saying something wrong.

Great argument!

OK, we've established that the largest private company in the 90s supports libertarianism: http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/


Now, lets look at its successor - today's largest privately-owned company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill


Cargill is an active proponent of free trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade) policies. It lobbied for China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)'s membership in WTO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO), as well as for increased trade with Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba) and Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil). Cargill's position is based on its strong support of neo-liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal) economic principles. First, lesser trade barriers in countries where Cargill does business will lower prices on Cargill's products, and likely increase their volume of business. Second, the decreases in the cost of food in developing countries theoretically result indirectly in higher income per capita but lower income for local farmers. Cargill benefits from increases in consumer income, because better-paid consumers become inclined to eat a diet higher in wheat, protein, vegetable oil, and processed foods.

But government intervention has to be there. So lets analyze it:


The MacMillans' aggressive management style led to a decades long feud with the Chicago Board of Trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Board_of_Trade). The feud began in 1934, when Cargill was denied membership by the Board. The U.S. government overturned the Board's ruling and forced them to accept Cargill as a member. The 1936 corn corp failed and with the 1937 crop unavailable until October, the Chicago Board of Trade ordered Cargill to sell some of its corn. Cargill refused to comply. Cargill was then accused of trying to corner the corn market by the U.S. Commodity Exchange Authority and Chicago Board of Trade. In 1938. the Chicago Board of Trade suspended Cargill and three of its officers from the trading floor. When the Board lifted its suspension a few years later, Cargill refused to rejoin. Cargill instead traded through independent traders. In 1962, Cargill did rejoin the Chicago Board of Trade, two years after the death of John MacMillan, Jr. During World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), MacMillan, Jr., continued to expand the company, which boomed as it stored and transported grain and built ships for the United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill#cite_note-Forbes1102-5)

You got me! The government intervened in their favor... when other companies colluded to bar them from trading. Wait... that sounds like the state is actually defending free trade. And apparently, they decided it wasn't even in their interests to be in the trading regime (which sounds an awful lot like a cartel/trust).

What's this? More individual cases? Interesting how your one defense was some obscure mutualist store in Chicago. My examples of market forces are the dominant forces of today, which have taken their crowns from power systems existent for ages, the two above borne of free market enterprise.

During your hiatus, I was really hoping you were reading up on shit, or maybe collecting your thoughts. Turns out you're as confused as ever.

Shit's real, Hayenmill.

[Havet]

It produces political / military capital. You fail to see its value, and that's too bad, because this keeps you from understanding a lot of systems in the world.

We were talking of examples of how corporations were inneficient, and you make an analogy to a "political/military capital producer". Nice going derailing the argument.


Then of course there's that fact that your failing to see the value in lucrative practices does not in fact make them less lucrative.

Like I said, we were discussing corporations and big business. Your analogy is stupid in that it tries to draw a parallel between industrial profit and political profit.


Neither does efficiency in finance. In fact, in many ways they can be contrary. But does this make it "less lucrative"? Nope. It's easy for you to apply moral value to production, but its hard to say that this will translate into market value in terms of the interests of the ruling class.

I'm not in the mood for semantic games. Have fun on your own.


Oh, I forgot! They're just going to disappear once one method of privilege is done away with. What a perfect system you've devised!

There are other methods of privilege, and they will be done with soon. If you weren't so hilariously naive you would have specified what other methods of privilege i'm leaving out so we can get on with the discussion already. But no. You like to play little games. Fine.


Right. Because the capitalists would be too daft to pay private security firms to defend their positions. Oh I forgot! You're not interested in them so they won't exist. How can I be so obtuse??

*sigh*

Would you mind explaing how the fuck will capitalists pay PDAs to defend their positions if:
- they will not be able to get rich enough to afford them, hence no market for that business in the first place
- there are democratic institutions in place (in the community) which would likely prevent those sorts of things


You're telling me that the police in Mexico are only brutally supportive of the cartels because "they're supposed to be arresting" those they get money from?

"brutally supportive"? Are you kidding me? They fight to the death with them. The fault of that mess is because the drugs are illegal in the first place.


Are you kidding me? Besides, there's a little nugget of truth you need:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_economy

Your ignorance of other ideologies never ceases to astound me:


Strategically, agorists are advocates or conscious practitioners of counter-economics (peaceful black and grey markets).[7]

[7]http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm5.html


That's because you're willfully ignorant about the "market solution" which will replace what you view as the "single cause of privilege" in a free market. I don't know how your mind operates, but frankly its disappointing.

ad hominem, besides complete lack of argumentation


Wait - so a competitive market solution isn't relevant to you when we're discussing market solutions to security? Oh right... you "don't care" about the issue.

As i've explained above, there are no reasons to believe a market for security will exist let alone pose a dangerous threat.


There's a reason its less well known.

What is it, captain smartypants? Or are you going to continue with silly games? Why the hell don't you tell that reason NOW? Why the hell do you continue to postpone the explanation as if you're some sort of god?


I haven't seen where you support this in any way. You do support a mystical notion of the state and marketplace which support a (poorly constructed, hackneyed) theory of why the market will "decentralize."

Well then you need to pay more attention


-you correctly point out that barriers to entry are natural and will always be there (thus solidifying the power of those who don't suffer that poverty)
-you claim that I'm using "weasel words" but nowhere explain that I'm wrong, or that I'm saying something wrong.

And you nowhere explain why natural barriers of entry solidify the power of those who don't suffer from "that" poverty. You like to make statements as if your opinion is a fact, without the requirement of further explanation. If you don't stop this there is no point in continuing any discussion with you.


OK, we've established that the largest private company in the 90s supports libertarianism: http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/

So what?


But government intervention has to be there. So lets analyze it:

You got me! The government intervened in their favor... when other companies colluded to bar them from trading. Wait... that sounds like the state is actually defending free trade. And apparently, they decided it wasn't even in their interests to be in the trading regime (which sounds an awful lot like a cartel/trust).

Government intervention was there mostly by indirect action: artificial barriers to entry, regulations which restrict competition, special corporate privilege, etc. These have existed since mid 19th century and throughout all the 20th/21st century, in increasing scale and scope. This is a documented fact. DEAL WITH IT


What's this? More individual cases? Interesting how your one defense was some obscure mutualist store in Chicago. My examples of market forces are the dominant forces of today, which have taken their crowns from power systems existent for ages, the two above [I]borne of free market enterprise.

Negative, they were not born of free-market enterprise. You contradict youtself. Power systems have indeed been existent for ages, so how could there be complete market enterprise? As long as there will be an agency with enough power to grant privileges by forces everyone will try to take advantage from that fact

And stop it with the insults, please.