Competition and Privatisation Within The Market A Good Thing?

[PoliticalNightmare]

I've placed this thread here because I want to give the libertarian right wing a chance to defend their reduced state/stateless/whatever market policies. A nicely developed debate going on would be pretty neat. (The laissez-faire among us: expose yourself!) Just for clarification I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist. Don't be too harsh on me for errors in my post as I would have posted this in Learning had I not wanted a right wing perspective point. Please give further clarification to any mistakes within this post.

The laissez-faire's justification for wage labour and poor working conditions seem to based around opposition to corporatism, taxation and regulation. Essentially they seem to argue that since the government owns so many industries this takes away the incentives for the managers to make the business work. E.g. the economic crisis was a result of banking industries being owned by the government and they were getting rewarded with beefy bonuses, etc. for doing poor jobs.

As for taxation: if a company is taxed it has less money to spend on workers and less money to spend on goods and services for society. If the company is not taxed it will 'give back to society' and improve wages, worker's conditions, etc., etc.

As for government interference: the minimum wage is most harmful to the poorest in society. This is because the poorest cannot get jobs etc. if the value of their productivity is lower than that of the market.

As for government regulation: small businesses get shut down when they can't meet the demands of regulation. This harms the workers.

As for regulation and stifled competition: regulation helps big businesses by reducing competition from smaller businesses. So does government bail outs etc. for big banks. This is bad for society because it does not provide any incentive for businesses to improve services or to improve working conditions/wages for workers.

As for competition: competition between companies will provide them with incentive to improve working conditions/wages and to improve their services for society.

Forgive me if I have misrepresented or left out any of the key right wing libertarian arguments in this field.

Fellow comrades: how does one refute these arguments? (Obviously neoliberalism is an extremely bad thing but we also need to find criticisms and know the arguments of the libertarian-right).

I also have some questions for the libertarian right wing:

1. Do you not think that people are entitled to basic entities for free (e.g. free NHS, free police/fire brigade/ambulance service) when they need it? Do you really think competition is going to lower these services? If they can't afford insurance or forgot to pay it are you not entitled to be rescued from a burglar or a fire or a heart attack?

2. What is to stop bureacracy in national security? E.g. I phone up the police and they have to check first whether I've paid my insurance before they can come and rescue me.

3. Under anarcho-capitalism won't privatised police forces/military forces just replace the state, making it into lots of mini states that are only accessible to the capitalists who own.

4. Again, under anarcho-capitalism what is to stop a privatised police and military force from turning into a protection racket? E.g. you pay insurance for protection for the fire brigade or they'll be the ones starting the fire!

5. Who is going to pay insurance for a military.

6. Under anarcho-capitalism, what if capitalists owning military/police services don't agree with each other and get into a war?

I had loads of other points but they've all gone from my mind now. Ah well never mind.

[RGacky3]

As for taxation: if a company is taxed it has less money to spend on workers and less money to spend on goods and services for society. If the company is not taxed it will 'give back to society' and improve wages, worker's conditions, etc., etc.


A company will spend the least amount on workers possible no matter what, which means the taxes wont take away from the labor force, if you capitalist has more money, its not like he's just gonna give more to the workers, he's gonna pocket it.

Obviously capitalists will say "ohh competition for labor" yeah, but that does'nt change with taxation.


Essentially they seem to argue that since the government owns so many industries this takes away the incentives for the managers to make the business work. E.g. the economic crisis was a result of banking industries being owned by the government and they were getting rewarded with beefy bonuses, etc. for doing poor jobs.



Where were the "owned by the government"???? You have to make some logical connection, what industrials does the government own that takes away incentives? The post office???


As for government interference: the minimum wage is most harmful to the poorest in society. This is because the poorest cannot get jobs etc. if the value of their productivity is lower than that of the market.


Again, companies only hire what they need, no matter what the cost of labor.


As for government regulation: small businesses get shut down when they can't meet the demands of regulation. This harms the workers.



Big buisinesses eay up small buisinesses without regulation, government regulation is like the law, it can go both ways, its not all the same.


As for regulation and stifled competition: regulation helps big businesses by reducing competition from smaller businesses. So does government bail outs etc. for big banks. This is bad for society because it does not provide any incentive for businesses to improve services or to improve working conditions/wages for workers.


Competition acually drives down wages because of hte need to lower cost.

As for regulation again, it depends on the regulation.

As far as incentives, the market does'nt give ANY incentives, think about what the incentives are in the financial industry? Look at how the morgage market worked, or derivatives or credit default swaps, these were all deregulated, look at the incentives that it created, it incentivised fruad, debt, and high risk, hell it incentivised bankrupting the freaking world.


As for competition: competition between companies will provide them with incentive to improve working conditions/wages and to improve their services for society.


Not when you hae 10% unemployment and a demand for lower costs. Comeptition incentivises spending the least amount and getting the most work out of it.

[ContrarianLemming]

As for taxation: if a company is taxed it has less money to spend on workers and less money to spend on goods and services for society. If the company is not taxed it will 'give back to society' and improve wages, worker's conditions, etc., etc.

this legally can't be true, corporations must make there shareholders profits there first goal, it's not left wing propaganda that they only care about profit, it's law. Any action a corporation takes must be for the shareholders, even if it's simply to make the corporation look good - like giving to charity, it must always be with the intention of profit for shareholders.
States, on the other hand, do legally have to serve people, so they are indeed more trustworthy with money, corporations cannot be altruistic and caring for workers generally isn't something they do since they know they don't have to.


As for government interference: the minimum wage is most harmful to the poorest in society. This is because the poorest cannot get jobs etc. if the value of their productivity is lower than that of the market.

Arguing this is like arguing that slavary is better then social service, it's an argument that people should be able to get jobs that pay slave wages instead of being inemployed, and that that would be fair and good.
It's sort of awful. the poorest of the poor should receive minimum wage because those sort of people are exactly those it has in mind, the minimal value people.


As for government regulation: small businesses get shut down when they can't meet the demands of regulation. This harms the workers.

I rarely hear of this happening, I've never actually heard of this ever happening, monopolies destroy small business.


As for regulation and stifled competition: regulation helps big businesses by reducing competition from smaller businesses. So does government bail outs etc. for big banks. This is bad for society because it does not provide any incentive for businesses to improve services or to improve working conditions/wages for workers.

regulation damages big business, we know this by simply looking at how big business reacts: they fight it tooth and nail.

Statistics on small business are hard to come by, perhaps this is why right libertarians love to champion the little man, they don't have online records.


As for competition: competition between companies will provide them with incentive to improve working conditions/wages and to improve their services for society.

I don't see how this would even theoretically be true.

[PoliticalNightmare]

A company will spend the least amount on workers possible no matter what, which means the taxes wont take away from the labor force, if you capitalist has more money, its not like he's just gonna give more to the workers, he's gonna pocket it.

Obviously capitalists will say "ohh competition for labor" yeah, but that does'nt change with taxation.

I suppose the capitalist could argue that by giving them tax, the owners of a company will take a bit more for themselves but that at least some of the money will go into the business (better workers wages/working conditions, better equipment, better services for society) because the owner will want to improve his trade so he can get more profit from it.


Where were the "owned by the government"???? You have to make some logical connection, what industrials does the government own that takes away incentives? The post office???

Ok, if a bank is owned by the government, it's owner doesn't particularly have to deliver particularly good services because he is getting paid by the government no matter what (to an extent, obviously). On the other hand if he is having to rely on society to pay for his services he is going to have to do a better job to please his consumers.


Again, companies only hire what they need, no matter what the cost of labor.

I think that the standard right-winger would argue here that the capitalist will employ more staff to improve the business, etc., meaning more money for themselves.


Big buisinesses eay up small buisinesses without regulation, government regulation is like the law, it can go both ways, its not all the same.

I think most of the laissez-faire argue that big businesses only get big because of government coercion - bail outs, funding from tax money, pushing down prices, etc.


Competition acually drives down wages because of hte need to lower cost.

It's probable that a rightist would agree with you here but argue that it works both ways: that whilst a business needs to push down prices it also needs to compete with other businesses to provide better working conditions for its staff.


As for regulation again, it depends on the regulation.

I think the argument here is that take power away from another man to coerce and you won't have coercion. In other words, giving the state power to regulate provides the possibility of coercion given how few people are given this power.


As far as incentives, the market does'nt give ANY incentives, think about what the incentives are in the financial industry? Look at how the morgage market worked, or derivatives or credit default swaps, these were all deregulated, look at the incentives that it created, it incentivised fruad, debt, and high risk, hell it incentivised bankrupting the freaking world.

According to the typical right wing-libertarian, the market doesn't give incentives because the big businesses are all funded by tax whether they do a good job or not.


Not when you hae 10% unemployment and a demand for lower costs. Comeptition incentivises spending the least amount and getting the most work out of it.

Could I have more detail on this point please?

[PoliticalNightmare]

this legally can't be true, corporations must make there shareholders profits there first goal, it's not left wing propaganda that they only care about profit, it's law. Any action a corporation takes must be for the shareholders, even if it's simply to make the corporation look good - like giving to charity, it must always be with the intention of profit for shareholders.
States, on the other hand, do legally have to serve people, so they are indeed more trustworthy with money, corporations cannot be altruistic and caring for workers generally isn't something they do since they know they don't have to.

I'm not sure on this but perhaps the libertarian right would be in favour of getting rid of this law? In either case I still believe that the capitalist would want to deliver money to his shareholders but I suppose there would still be money left over to fund the business. There must be in fact because how else would a business get bigger? Forgive me on this one - I know very little about shareholds, etc., just waiting for an actual right winger to come along.


Arguing this is like arguing that slavary is better then social service, it's an argument that people should be able to get jobs that pay slave wages instead of being inemployed, and that that would be fair and good.
It's sort of awful. the poorest of the poor should receive minimum wage because those sort of people are exactly those it has in mind, the minimal value people.

I suppose the point here is that they'd be better of on £3 the hour (if that's their 'market value' - lol) than £0 the hour and that buy making the minimum wage £6 the hour, they can't get a job and therefore have no way of gaining the experience to improve their market value.


I rarely hear of this happening, I've never actually heard of this ever happening, monopolies destroy small business.

Well they force them out of business through competition, I guess. Actually have you really not heard of it? It just seems its like the sort of thing that we leftists are constantly opposing I guess.

E.g. a small bookshop sells books at £10 each. One day a huge, megastore comes along and forces them out of business because it has the capital behind it to be able to sell books much cheaper at £2.50 each. All the consumers go there instead because it is much cheaper.

EDIT - I just re-read my post, that's not what I meant. I meant that government (not monopolies) sometimes shuts down small businesses because they don't have the money to meet up to the demands of regulation.


regulation damages big business, we know this by simply looking at how big business reacts: they fight it tooth and nail.

Yeah, thats true but its not to say that it doesn't damage small businesses as well.


Statistics on small business are hard to come by, perhaps this is why right libertarians love to champion the little man, they don't have online records.

:laugh: That's true, lol.


I don't see how this would even theoretically be true.

E.g. Business A gives his employers £8 per hour. Business B comes along and offers them all £10 per hour. They go to business B. Business A suffers as a result of losing all its workers so offers them all £12 per hour, etc., etc.

Other arguments include the fact that it is "morally wrong" to use coerciveness and tax big businesses. (This one makes me laugh). Also if a worker agrees to go along with shitty working conditions, etc. then it is a "voluntary agreement" so that makes it OK.

EDIT - any actual right wingers for the taking of the thread?

[Revolution starts with U]

Here's the ultimate argument. You can claim to be anti state and pro capitalism all you want. But who creates, funds, and controls the state? Capitalists! Give them the power over law and the richest ones will just create new states to protect themselves.
Another point they won't concede is the gross advantage one gets through inheritance. They claim productive people profit, but its simply not true, wealthy people profit; you gotta have money to make money.
Another point is that they have this marginal hypothesis of wages that completely disconnects the labor movement from the gains it has made. In fact, they will attempt to claim that labor movements, against aLL EVIDENCE, actually harm labor as a whole. Because capitalists will just give their money away without people demanding it... what a joke :rolleyes:
I could go on, but I have to eat dinner

[RGacky3]

but that at least some of the money will go into the business (better workers wages/working conditions, better equipment, better services for society) because the owner will want to improve his trade so he can get more profit from it.


If it was profitale for him to do that he would have done it anyway, having more money at the top does'nt change the market. If it was profitable he would have gotten the capital to do it.


Ok, if a bank is owned by the government, it's owner doesn't particularly have to deliver particularly good services because he is getting paid by the government no matter what (to an extent, obviously). On the other hand if he is having to rely on society to pay for his services he is going to have to do a better job to please his consumers.


What Bank is owned by the government???

BTW if you do a bad job in a government job you'll loose your job too, also its not rely on society, its rely on the market, 2 different things.

If you work for hte public, in the public sector, then you are democratically accountable, thats the difference.


I think that the standard right-winger would argue here that the capitalist will employ more staff to improve the business, etc., meaning more money for themselves.


Hiring more staff =/= more profits, if it did they would do it anyway.


I think most of the laissez-faire argue that big businesses only get big because of government coercion - bail outs, funding from tax money, pushing down prices, etc.


Make the connection, where is it?


that whilst a business needs to push down prices it also needs to compete with other businesses to provide better working conditions for its staff.


10% Unemployment, also the fact that workers have much less saved up capital to live off then capitalists.


I think the argument here is that take power away from another man to coerce and you won't have coercion. In other words, giving the state power to regulate provides the possibility of coercion given how few people are given this power.



Capitalism is based on coercion, property laws are coercion, if I see an apply tree the only thing stopping me from picking the apple is property laws.

The state is democratically accountable, capitalists are not, I'm much rather give power to those who are accountable to me than to those who are not.

I'd be happy to give up regulation, as long as the state stops enforcing property laws.

But again, how does this tie in with your previous post?


According to the typical right wing-libertarian, the market doesn't give incentives because the big businesses are all funded by tax whether they do a good job or not.



Taxes don't fund buisinesses.

the market doesnt give incentives because the market does'nt work that way.


Could I have more detail on this point please?

When you have high unemployment, the competition for workers is almost non existant, so workers for fear of being in that 10%, will have to work more for less.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Obviously, playing devil's advocate I can't do as good a job but here goes:


If it was profitale for him to do that he would have done it anyway, having more money at the top does'nt change the market. If it was profitable he would have gotten the capital to do it.

Could I have some sort of statistics please which prove this?

[/QUOTE]What Bank is owned by the government???


I was just using it as an example. Would it not be theoretically possible then, to nationalise the banking industry?

[QUOTE]BTW if you do a bad job in a government job you'll loose your job too, also its not rely on society, its rely on the market, 2 different things.

If you work for hte public, in the public sector, then you are democratically accountable, thats the difference.

Ok.


Hiring more staff =/= more profits, if it did they would do it anyway.

Why doesn't it? If I own a cookie making factory and I want to make more profit then I need sell more cookies which means I need to employ more staff to make more cookies, surely? If you're business is being taxed by the government then you have less money to employ more staff.


Make the connection, where is it?

I presume you mean about how the government can help big business. Ok, here goes:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/eu-loophole-gives-big-business-a-licence-to-pollute-1.1019853

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5852319/EU-farm-subsidies-paid-to-big-business.html


10% Unemployment, also the fact that workers have much less saved up capital to live off then capitalists.

I don't fully understand what you mean by "10% unemployed". In fact I don't understand the rest of the point either.


Capitalism is based on coercion, property laws are coercion, if I see an apply tree the only thing stopping me from picking the apple is property laws.

Could I have more information about the kinds of property laws the state passes that are coercive? Cheers.


The state is democratically accountable, capitalists are not, I'm much rather give power to those who are accountable to me than to those who are not.

Agreed but the argument here was in regards to regulating small businesses.


I'd be happy to give up regulation, as long as the state stops enforcing property laws.

As for regulation under social anarchism, wouldn't there be regulation by directly democratic communes to prevent a workers' co-operative from harming the environment or other human beings?


But again, how does this tie in with your previous post?

I don't know what you mean.


Taxes don't fund buisinesses.

Actually most of the libertarian right are against corporatism because it takes a 'big businesses are too big too fail' stance so too speak. For instance Gordon Brown bailed out the banking industry when it was on the verge of collapsing.


the market doesnt give incentives because the market does'nt work that way.

All I mean is that if your business gives good services, then you are more likely to get customers and more likely to get profits, correct? If you are to provide good services then you need to put all your energy into the business. If the government funds your business you're less likely to be pulling out all the stops.

[RGacky3]

Could I have some sort of statistics please which prove this?


Well, how did the Bush Tax Cuts go, what statistics do you want? pretty much the widening gap between the rich and the poor are proof.


I was just using it as an example. Would it not be theoretically possible then, to nationalise the banking industry?


yes it would, and if they did banks would work in the interest of the public (by mandate) instead of their own profits (by mandate), but look at private banking system, when a CEO screws up, he still gets paid, keeps his job, and gets a bonus, why? Because hes accountable to ... himself, if he's democratically accountable things would be different.


Why doesn't it? If I own a cookie making factory and I want to make more profit then I need sell more cookies which means I need to employ more staff to make more cookies, surely? If you're business is being taxed by the government then you have less money to employ more staff.


First there needs to be a market for more cookies, if there were a market you would hire more people eitherway, secondly even with a bigger market chances are your gonna work the workers you have more first anyway. The taxes arn't cutting out of your employment, because your gonna hire the lowest amount possible to make the most profit (the cookie demand is not infinate).


I presume you mean about how the government can help big business. Ok, here goes:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/t...lute-1.1019853 (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/eu-loophole-gives-big-business-a-licence-to-pollute-1.1019853)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-business.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5852319/EU-farm-subsidies-paid-to-big-business.html)



I don't mean how it CAN, I mean how over all, more regulation and more taxing HELPS buisiness more than it hurts them? If it does, than those buisinesses must be really dumb paying lobbyists to try and get rid of those regulations and taxes that aparently help them.


I don't fully understand what you mean by "10% unemployed". In fact I don't understand the rest of the point either.


If there are 100 people, and 10 of them have no job, the 90 people are working hard to keep their job and not be amung the ones with no jobs, if they want hire wages, maybe the boss will fire them and just replace them with someone without a job.

I mean of 10% of the population is unemployed.

The point is if there are that many unemployed then competition for labor is pretty much non existant.


Could I have more information about the kinds of property laws the state passes that are coercive? Cheers.


All property laws are coercive, in the same way monarchies are coercive, the only reason I can hold a piece of land and decided what is done, is becuase people on that land are afraid of the law enforcing what I want.


Agreed but the argument here was in regards to regulating small businesses.


Some regulations apply to some buisinesses, some do not, some apply to small buisinesses some do not, are there some regulations that don't make sense? Yeah, but thats not a problem with regulation as a principle.


As for regulation under social anarchism, wouldn't there be regulation by directly democratic communes to prevent a workers' co-operative from harming the environment or other human beings?


Probably.


I don't know what you mean.


You said regulation helps big buisinesses, I said its not all the same, then you go into coersion, they arn't related.


Actually most of the libertarian right are against corporatism because it takes a 'big businesses are too big too fail' stance so too speak. For instance Gordon Brown bailed out the banking industry when it was on the verge of collapsing.


In theory they are against it, but in practice they suppert polecies that would strengthen corporatism.

Too Big to fail is a market strategy.


All I mean is that if your business gives good services, then you are more likely to get customers and more likely to get profits, correct? If you are to provide good services then you need to put all your energy into the business. If the government funds your business you're less likely to be pulling out all the stops.

FIrst of all, it depends on the money the costomers have, so costomers WITH a lot of money are the ones that run the economy, i.e. the rich. Second many times its MORE in the interest of executives to milk the company of what its worth and then get out with a golden parachute.

If the government funds your buisiness, AND controls it, your buisiness is now democratically accountable rather than accountable to the rich, i.e. investors and consumers (the more money a consumer or investor has the more important he is), which means it will be in your interest to serve society better, rather than just make a profit (because it will help you electorally).

[Revolution starts with U]

It seems to me you are much more knowledgable about these positions than a "devil's advocate" but either way.




Could I have some sort of statistics please which prove this?

You don't need statistics, just think of what you would do as a businees owner. Sure, there will be some investment into expanding your business, but only as much as need be. Remember, the whole point is to make a profit, and as large as one as possible. Business' in capitlaism are required to have profit in mind for every decision they make; even charity has to be for the purpose of creating a good image.
If one does not need the extra labor, just extra profits, one will either fire workers or lower wages, not expand in new jobs.

[/QUOTE]What Bank is owned by the government???


Actually, the better question would be "what government isn't owned by the banks?

[QUOTE]
Why doesn't it? If I own a cookie making factory and I want to make more profit then I need sell more cookies which means I need to employ more staff to make more cookies, surely? If you're business is being taxed by the government then you have less money to employ more staff.

Or, you could increase hours. This is much harder in our modern societies because you will be forced to pay overtime wages. But, in a free market, that would be, and was, a capitalists first choice for increasing productivity.
When America was laissez faire unemployment still hovered around 10% (except in the frontiers, but all frontiers have 100% employment).
Also (im not a coercive tax supporter) but governments tax net profits, not gross. They tax the income that was going into pockets, not back into businesses.




I presume you mean about how the government can help big business. Ok, here goes:

look up Robber Baron era, and laissez faire. Do we forget that the Robber Baron era was in the pinnacle of laissez faire? Of course governments can help business with subsidies, that's why we oppose the state.. duh.
But nothing about the free market says that one company cannot gain a natural monopoly, in fact, for certain industries, it is likely (energy, etc).



I don't fully understand what you mean by "10% unemployed". In fact I don't understand the rest of the point either.

Capitalist economies rarely dip below 10% unemployment. It has been a common staple of capitalism since its inception. This 10% unemployed serves as a boogeyman for the proletariat, keeping them under the submission of ownership.



Could I have more information about the kinds of property laws the state passes that are coercive?
I think he meant all of them. Property laws only exist because of governments. In a state of nature, property is largely, if not entirely, communal.

Cheers.
^ that makes me think you are more than just a "devil's advocate." Perhaps you are a right winger who thinks commies are stupid and you would pull one over on us by pretending to be on our side?
I hope I'm being paranoid. But even if you are, I hope you see the errors of your beliefs.



As for regulation under social anarchism, wouldn't there be regulation by directly democratic communes to prevent a workers' co-operative from harming the environment or other human beings?

The business would likely be owned by the community, or at the least by the workers/people (meaning more than just a small ownership class). The need for regulation would be a part of the business plan to begin with.


All I mean is that if your business gives good services, then you are more likely to get customers and more likely to get profits, correct?
Or if you have some inside connection and are the only local provider. Or, you purposefully stamp out your competition mafia style. Or you could just flat out lie a la Direct TV (this is an anectdotal personal experience one :D)


If you are to provide good services then you need to put all your energy into the business. If the government funds your business you're less likely to be pulling out all the stops.

Why? The point of business isn't to just make a profit and stop. It is to make the largest profit economically possible. Corporate welfare does not create an incentive problem (neither does regular welfare for most people but that's beside the point). In fact, I would venture to guess that those who recieved the most welfare are the ones that are thriving now, because the other companies had to take more chances to keep up.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Well, how did the Bush Tax Cuts go, what statistics do you want? pretty much the widening gap between the rich and the poor are proof.


yes it would, and if they did banks would work in the interest of the public (by mandate) instead of their own profits (by mandate), but look at private banking system, when a CEO screws up, he still gets paid, keeps his job, and gets a bonus, why? Because hes accountable to ... himself, if he's democratically accountable things would be different.


I don't mean how it CAN, I mean how over all, more regulation and more taxing HELPS buisiness more than it hurts them? If it does, than those buisinesses must be really dumb paying lobbyists to try and get rid of those regulations and taxes that aparently help them.


All property laws are coercive, in the same way monarchies are coercive, the only reason I can hold a piece of land and decided what is done, is becuase people on that land are afraid of the law enforcing what I want.

Can't argue with the above points. Again just waiting for a right winger to come along.


First there needs to be a market for more cookies, if there were a market you would hire more people eitherway, secondly even with a bigger market chances are your gonna work the workers you have more first anyway. The taxes arn't cutting out of your employment, because your gonna hire the lowest amount possible to make the most profit (the cookie demand is not infinate).


Some regulations apply to some buisinesses, some do not, some apply to small buisinesses some do not, are there some regulations that don't make sense? Yeah, but thats not a problem with regulation as a principle.

Can't argue against this on the grounds that whilst money will go back into the business, the capitalist will try and minimise costs to increase profit.


If there are 100 people, and 10 of them have no job, the 90 people are working hard to keep their job and not be amung the ones with no jobs, if they want hire wages, maybe the boss will fire them and just replace them with someone without a job.

Ok. I think the libertarian right winger would argue that

(a) another company will give those workers higher wages (if they can afford it) to expand
(b) whilst competition occurs amongst workers for higher wages, competition occurs in the market as well.


The point is if there are that many unemployed then competition for labor is pretty much non existant.

"But wouldn't competition amongst businesses reduce/eliminate levels of unemployment?"


You said regulation helps big buisinesses, I said its not all the same, then you go into coersion, they arn't related.


In theory they are against it, but in practice they suppert polecies that would strengthen corporatism.


Too Big to fail is a market strategy.

Could I have more details on the above points?


FIrst of all, it depends on the money the costomers have, so costomers WITH a lot of money are the ones that run the economy, i.e. the rich. Second many times its MORE in the interest of executives to milk the company of what its worth and then get out with a golden parachute.

But in the long term, are they not going to want the business to be successful so they can make more money?


If the government funds your buisiness, AND controls it, your buisiness is now democratically accountable rather than accountable to the rich, i.e. investors and consumers (the more money a consumer or investor has the more important he is), which means it will be in your interest to serve society better, rather than just make a profit (because it will help you electorally).

But you would prefer it if the means of production were common ownership of society than the state, right?


It seems to me you are much more knowledgable about these positions than a "devil's advocate" but either way.

:laugh: LOL. Are you suggesting that I'm a closet capitalist?

FYI I am semi-knowledgable about these positions because I spend a lot of time debating with the libertarian right. I feel it is important to know the arguments of one's opponents.


You don't need statistics, just think of what you would do as a businees owner. Sure, there will be some investment into expanding your business, but only as much as need be. Remember, the whole point is to make a profit, and as large as one as possible. Business' in capitlaism are required to have profit in mind for every decision they make; even charity has to be for the purpose of creating a good image.
If one does not need the extra labor, just extra profits, one will either fire workers or lower wages, not expand in new jobs.

Ok.



What Bank is owned by the government???

Actually, the better question would be "what government isn't owned by the banks?

Hahaha.


Or, you could increase hours. This is much harder in our modern societies because you will be forced to pay overtime wages. But, in a free market, that would be, and was, a capitalists first choice for increasing productivity.

Even a capitalist can only get away with increasing hours, etc., to a certain degree before the workers go on strike or whatever.


When America was laissez faire unemployment still hovered around 10% (except in the frontiers, but all frontiers have 100% employment).

Ok (did it decrease or increase and by this laissez faire period, are you referring to the Bush tax cuts?). Cheers.


Also (im not a coercive tax supporter) but governments tax net profits, not gross. They tax the income that was going into pockets, not back into businesses.

Ok, I didn't realise this. I think a right winger would still argue that there is less incentive for the capitalist to put his back out for the company if he is being taxed too much (and therefore not earning so much anyway). Obviously this argument conveniently favours the rich.


look up Robber Baron era, and laissez faire. Do we forget that the Robber Baron era was in the pinnacle of laissez faire? Of course governments can help business with subsidies, that's why we oppose the state.. duh.
But nothing about the free market says that one company cannot gain a natural monopoly, in fact, for certain industries, it is likely (energy, etc).

Cool.


Capitalist economies rarely dip below 10% unemployment. It has been a common staple of capitalism since its inception. This 10% unemployed serves as a boogeyman for the proletariat, keeping them under the submission of ownership.

Huh?


I think he meant all of them. Property laws only exist because of governments. In a state of nature, property is largely, if not entirely, communal.


Perhaps you are a right winger who thinks commies are stupid and you would pull one over on us by pretending to be on our side?

I don't see how this tactic would work, somehow. If so, enlighten me and I will penetrate the Ludwig von Mises institute :D


I hope I'm being paranoid. But even if you are, I hope you see the errors of your beliefs.

:confused:


The business would likely be owned by the community, or at the least by the workers/people (meaning more than just a small ownership class). The need for regulation would be a part of the business plan to begin with.

You mean that businesses would voluntarily agree to regulation when they agree to exchange goods and services with the commune?


Or if you have some inside connection and are the only local provider. Or, you purposefully stamp out your competition mafia style. Or you could just flat out lie a la Direct TV (this is an anectdotal personal experience one :D)

Cool. I suppose the typical Rothbardist might argue that privatised companies would be employed to expose dodgy business dealings.


Why? The point of business isn't to just make a profit and stop. It is to make the largest profit economically possible. Corporate welfare does not create an incentive problem (neither does regular welfare for most people but that's beside the point). In fact, I would venture to guess that those who recieved the most welfare are the ones that are thriving now, because the other companies had to take more chances to keep up.

Ok.

[Revolution starts with U]

(a) another company will give those workers higher wages (if they can afford it) to expand

Maybe. Nothing makes this neccesarily true.


(b) whilst competition occurs amongst workers for higher wages, competition occurs in the market as well.

Marginal utility theory is actually a race to the bottom for wages. Wages, according to it, are determined by the amount of possible productivity gained by hiring a new worker. If no sophistication of capital occurs (new techs that make work/ers more productive) wages will continue to fall due to competition for profits. Competition for labor is a moot point as no capitalist society ever reaches full employement on its own.




"But wouldn't competition amongst businesses reduce/eliminate levels of unemployment?"

Historically no. Theoretically this is true, but it has never worked out that way.



But you would prefer it if the means of production were common ownership of society than the state, right?

Of course, as an anarchist. Some marxists may prefer a state.




:laugh: LOL. Are you suggesting that I'm a closet capitalist?

FYI I am semi-knowledgable about these positions because I spend a lot of time debating with the libertarian right. I feel it is important to know the arguments of one's opponents.

Lol so do I. I merely got the feeling you were being subversive. As I said later, I hope/d I was mistaken.



Even a capitalist can only get away with increasing hours, etc., to a certain degree before the workers go on strike or whatever.

Sure. And maybe possibly this would hold in stateless capitalism, tho I doubt it. But historically, this would be when the wealthy capitalists use their power and wealth to get the government to step in and protect their interests. This is why many say it is just contradictory to be a anarcho-capitalist.




Ok (did it decrease or increase and by this laissez faire period, are you referring to the Bush tax cuts?).

Well, actually big businesses did grow tremendously as a result of the Bush cuts... they grew "too big to fail." Yet as far as I know, small business remained stagnant.
But no, I was referring to the pinnacle of laissez faire, the late 1800s. You can even go back further than that. I once wrote an article critiquing Rothbard's book on the panic/crash of 1819 (or somewhere close to that) showing how even in an almost completely free market, the same problems remained. Banks still nedlessly expanded the money supply and gambled away people's money.



Ok, I didn't realise this. I think a right winger would still argue that there is less incentive for the capitalist to put his back out for the company if he is being taxed too much (and therefore not earning so much anyway).

Sure. But he's still pulling in millions if not billions a year. He can fuck off for all I care. Greedy prick ;)



I don't see how this tactic would work, somehow. If so, enlighten me and I will penetrate the Ludwig von Mises institute :D

Its called playing to the crowd. Bill Clinton was a master of it. "I agree with you but (you are completely wrong). Perhaps the real answer is (the opposite position of yours)."



You mean that businesses would voluntarily agree to regulation when they agree to exchange goods and services with the commune?

Not really. I mean that what the regulation would need to be there for in a capitalist society, would be a part of the business plan in a socialist one. Therefore, you wouldn't neccesarily need regulation at all.




Cool. I suppose the typical Rothbardist might argue that privatised companies would be employed to expose dodgy business dealings.

They could be, but they wouldn't be profitable. So in a profit driven society, they would never arise.


Ok.[/QUOTE]

[PoliticalNightmare]

Well, actually big businesses did grow tremendously as a result of the Bush cuts... they grew "too big to fail." Yet as far as I know, small business remained stagnant.
But no, I was referring to the pinnacle of laissez faire, the late 1800s. You can even go back further than that. I once wrote an article critiquing Rothbard's book on the panic/crash of 1819 (or somewhere close to that) showing how even in an almost completely free market, the same problems remained. Banks still nedlessly expanded the money supply and gambled away people's money.

Interesting. Any chance you could provide me with a link to that article?

Cheers.

[RGacky3]

(a) another company will give those workers higher wages (if they can afford it) to expand
(b) whilst competition occurs amongst workers for higher wages, competition occurs in the market as well.


When you have 10% unemployed, people that are desperate for a job, who will probably work for less why would other ocmpanies give those workers higher wages?


"But wouldn't competition amongst businesses reduce/eliminate levels of unemployment?"


No, why would it?


But in the long term, are they not going to want the business to be successful so they can make more money?


Not if you can make MORE money by crashing it, and then move on, most CEOs are also on the board of directors of other companies too.


But you would prefer it if the means of production were common ownership of society than the state, right?


Sure, but if the state is democratic, then its indirectly common ownership.

[Revolution starts with U]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7263/115963.aspx#115963

"Problems inherent in Human Nature"

THis was like 6 years ago, maybe more, so I was kind of clueless about politics tho :D
But the point is still valid

[Baseball]

Sure, there will be some investment into expanding your business, but only as much as need be

Why would a socialist community seek to enlarge an industry if there was no need to? There seems to be no reason that they would, so why condemn capitalism for the same?


Remember, the whole point is to make a profit, and as large as one as possible

True. Its how capitalists measure the measure the value of its production.
Socialism, too, needs a way to measure the value of its production.



Business' in capitlaism are required to have profit in mind for every decision they make; even charity has to be for the purpose of creating a good image.


Well, it is true that capitalism seeks production where the value of what it produces is greater than its costs (profit). I suppose charity could fall in that realm as well.
But why would a socialist community be indifferent as to whether the value of its production is greater, equal to, or less, than the costs of that production?



If one does not need the extra labor, just extra profits, one will either fire workers or lower wages, not expand in new jobs.


Again, what sense would it make to use labor it does not need? The result of such a policy would seem to be that labor would not be available for where it was needed.

[RGacky3]

Why would a socialist community seek to enlarge an industry if there was no need to? There seems to be no reason that they would, so why condemn capitalism for the same?


They would'nt, but if there was more workers than work, they would just have everyone work less.

The argument here is more money to the rich means more jobs, which is untrue.


True. Its how capitalists measure the measure the value of its production.
Socialism, too, needs a way to measure the value of its production.


Capitalists use money, Socialists would use democracy.


Well, it is true that capitalism seeks production where the value of what it produces is greater than its costs (profit). I suppose charity could fall in that realm as well.
But why would a socialist community be indifferent as to whether the value of its production is greater, equal to, or less, than the costs of that production?


The "value" system in Capitalism is way way different than in Socialism, thats why in Capitalism a rolex watch is valued more than food, even though people are starving, its because those starving people have no money and the millionaire who wants the watch has money.

Production in Sociaism is not for the purpose of growth, or profit, its to fulfill human needs, you can't think of it in terms of profit because there is none.

Think of it this way, you pay a guy to cut down some trees, then pay some guys to build a cabin, then you sell the cabin to a friend for a profit.

In socialism you and some people cut down some trees, build some cabins and then live in them, no profit.


Again, what sense would it make to use labor it does not need? The result of such a policy would seem to be that labor would not be available for where it was needed.

It would'nt, socialism would'nt use labor we would'nt need. which is why in Socialism everyone would have more free time, thanks for making the arugment for us :).

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE=Baseball;1903179]Why would a socialist community seek to enlarge an industry if there was no need to? There seems to be no reason that they would, so why condemn capitalism for the same?

The question was, would a business that profits create more jobs. The answer was not neccesarily, because of the above. A socialist business model's excess intake (if there were any) would go directly back into the company to expand it, no questions/profits.




True. Its how capitalists measure the measure the value of its production.
Socialism, too, needs a way to measure the value of its production.

As was answered above, democracy. Businesses would still be measured by the utlitiy/value they provide to society (probably even better because purchasing power is not a 1man 1vote phenomenon), there would just be no profits going into someone's pockets).




Well, it is true that capitalism seeks production where the value of what it produces is greater than its costs (profit). I suppose charity could fall in that realm as well.

If I remember correctly, you will have to prove me wrong, business' are not legally allowed to donate to charity if it is not for the purpose of bringing in new consumers. Business in capitalism has a legal responsiblity to maximize its profits for the shareholders.


But why would a socialist community be indifferent as to whether the value of its production is greater, equal to, or less, than the costs of that production?

It wouldn't. It would be pushing for it to be equal, and any excess intake (profits in capitalism) would go directly back into the business, as opposed to some inheritor's pockets.




Again, what sense would it make to use labor it does not need? The result of such a policy would seem to be that labor would not be available for where it was needed.

You just work the labor you have less. Involuntary unemployment would be unnacceptable in socialism. If industry needs no more work, there is always parks to clean up, roads to pave, flowers to plant, woods to clear of brush, etc. There is always something that needs done.

[PoliticalNightmare]

[QUOTE]Business in capitalism has a legal responsiblity to maximize its profits for the shareholders

Would this be the case under anarcho-capitalism? Cheers.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not neccessarily, an cap is based on polycentric law. There would be no society wide laws that hold for all places. Private courts would have their own laws they prosecuted for, and people would shop around to try and reach a mutual court.
The problem is, these court's profits would be directly tied to the profits of the companies and people that fund them. And anybody looking at it rationally should see that purchasing power is not a 1man 1vote phenomenon.
In ancap, court systems would only further favor the wealthy.

[Baseball]

The question was, would a business that profits create more jobs. The answer was not neccesarily, because of the above. A socialist business model's excess intake (if there were any) would go directly back into the company to expand it, no questions/profits.


Would it be a benefit to the company, and to the workers of that company, to produce "excess intake"?




As was answered above, democracy. Businesses would still be measured by the utlitiy/value they provide to society (probably even better because purchasing power is not a 1man 1vote phenomenon), there would just be no profits going into someone's pockets).


Yes. But how is the business utility/value measured? Democracy doesn't measure it. That is simply the result making determinations of the value/utility.




If I remember correctly, you will have to prove me wrong, business' are not legally allowed to donate to charity if it is not for the purpose of bringing in new consumers. Business in capitalism has a legal responsiblity to maximize its profits for the shareholders.


Businesses can donate to charity. There is no law against it.


It wouldn't. It would be pushing for it to be equal

Why is it sensible to produce goods and services whose benefit to the community is the same as its costs to the community?




You just work the labor you have less. Involuntary unemployment would be unnacceptable in socialism. If industry needs no more work, there is always parks to clean up, roads to pave, flowers to plant, woods to clear of brush, etc. There is always something that needs done.

All of which has a cost as well.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1903326]They would'nt, but if there was more workers than work, they would just have everyone work less.


Why? What's the advantage?




The "value" system in Capitalism is way way different than in Socialism, thats why in Capitalism a rolex watch is valued more than food,

Perhaps because a capitalist community has progressed beyond figuring out how to feed people.




Think of it this way, you pay a guy to cut down some trees, then pay some guys to build a cabin, then you sell the cabin to a friend for a profit.

In socialism you and some people cut down some trees, build some cabins and then live in them, no profit.


So why are you cutting down trees and building cabins to begin with?



It would'nt, socialism would'nt use labor we would'nt need.

You have already said you would.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Would it be a benefit to the company, and to the workers of that company, to produce "excess intake"?

Yes. Money would go back into the company and/or the workers' pockets rather than into the pockets of the capitalist/shareholders who contribute sweet FA.


Yes. But how is the business utility/value measured? Democracy doesn't measure it. That is simply the result making determinations of the value/utility.

Communes democratically decide what is productive and what is not. Put it this way: if you were in a commune, would you decide to give someone a TV when they just sit around all day doing nothing? The workers will give reports on one another. If one worker gets fed up with the other workers' decisions/laziness/incompetence he can go join another business (or commune, if need be).


Businesses can donate to charity. There is no law against it.

No-one's saying that that is a bad aspect of capitalism we're just saying that (a), charity will not provide for everyone's needs and (b), when companies provide charity under present day society it is usually with a profit motif.


Why is it sensible to produce goods and services whose benefit to the community is the same as its costs to the community?

Because goods and services may be exchanged for other goods and services. E.g. Billy makes bread and Jack makes apples. Billy can't eat nothing but bread and Jack can't eat nothing but apples so Billy and Jack exhanges x bread for y apples.


All of which has a cost as well.

Yeah and these services would be funded for by society :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

Would it be a benefit to the company, and to the workers of that company, to produce "excess intake"?

Well, it would mean somewhere along the way a transaction was not mutually beneficial. But if "profits" are made, it is not a bad thing, if it goes either back into the company for expansion, or at least to the members of the company as a whole (instead of just some privelaged group that has "ownership.").





Yes. But how is the business utility/value measured? Democracy doesn't measure it. That is simply the result making determinations of the value/utility.

Purchasing power is a democratic form of decision; bottom up. It is not hard democracy; 1 man 1 vote, but it still works by the same process. In socialism one makes their vote with their vote, not their wallet.
I do have my own problems with the price mechanism, and therefore find it will be one of the last things to go. It is in my view a "necessary evil" as of now, but that will not hold up long as technology makes scarcity a thing of the past.





Why is it sensible to produce goods and services whose benefit to the community is the same as its costs to the community?

Because then you're not paying anything extra for meaningless stuff like middlemen?
Take an apt complex. In a capitalist system some wealthy person owns it, and rents the space out to the occupants (probably getting govt subsidies to do so, if a low-income community). The occupants are now paying for the upkeep, energy, furnishings, and a profit to the owner, just because he claims ownership of it. He is nothing but a worthless middleman making a profit. In a socialist system it would be a wash, the people would pay nothing more for their domicile as was necessary for its upkeep.





All of which has a cost as well.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and the modern manufacturing systems and other sophistications of capital make these costs very reasonable. If this were not the case, we would not have wealthy people owning 5 million dollar houses with 8 big screen TVs and 4 cars in each.
We produce way more wealth than is neccessary for the basic civilized upkeep of the communities.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=PoliticalNightmare;1904857]Yes. Money would go back into the company and/or the workers' pockets rather than into the pockets of the capitalist/shareholders who contribute sweet FA.


OK. So it would make sense then for this socialist firm to drive to make a profit in its production.



Communes democratically decide what is productive and what is not. Put it this way: if you were in a commune, would you decide to give someone a TV when they just sit around all day doing nothing? The workers will give reports on one another. If one worker gets fed up with the other workers' decisions/laziness/incompetence he can go join another business (or commune, if need be).

Well, you are now trying to solve the prouction question by threatening people. The political ramifications are not pleasant.
The economic ramifications seem to be that people are being told what they should, and should not, value.




Because goods and services may be exchanged for other goods and services. E.g. Billy makes bread and Jack makes apples. Billy can't eat nothing but bread and Jack can't eat nothing but apples so Billy and Jack exhanges x bread for y apples.


Barter??? You mean socialism would advance humanity to a barter system??? Good lord, man!!




Yeah and these services would be funded for by society :rolleyes:


Something like- "you fill that pothole, and I'll do your laundry."
Good God!

[PoliticalNightmare]

OK. So it would make sense then for this socialist firm to drive to make a profit in its production.

Depends what you mean by profit. I'm not denying folks wouldn't be rewarded by their labour but at least they would have to work in the interests of society (part of the voluntary agreement with the commune).


Well, you are now trying to solve the prouction question by threatening people. The political ramifications are not pleasant.
The economic ramifications seem to be that people are being told what they should, and should not, value.

No, I am not at all. Communes would democratically decide what is and what isn't productive. "My" opinion of what is productive would just be one voice amongst the many present in the commune. I don't see how they'd be being threatened or whatever. Ultimately they'd have a debate then go along with whatever they personally felt was best for the community.


Barter??? You mean socialism would advance humanity to a barter system??? Good lord, man!!

Depends on the branch of socialism. Some advocate money but that is allocated by the commune or whatever and doesn't have interest added on to/taken away from it or stock markets to invest in. Otherwise, what I forgot to mention is that in this 'bartering system', for convenience, Billy and Jack may decide to trade their goods via the commune, making the system more organised.


Something like- "you fill that pothole, and I'll do your laundry."
Good God!

Yeah but this would all be organised by the commune so it would be highly efficient.

Your argument is essentially Mises' Economic Calculation Debate. Values can be attached to products without the subjective, profit incentivised values derived from money.

[RGacky3]

Why? What's the advantage?


The advantage is no unemployment and everyone gets to work less for the same thing.


Perhaps because a capitalist community has progressed beyond figuring out how to feed people.


Yeah, by just by letting them starve.


So why are you cutting down trees and building cabins to begin with?



To live in them .... Thats the REASON for building production in socialism.


You have already said you would.

Do you really not get this?