ComradeFelix
26th August 2011, 02:37
I was reading and I came across this:
Exploitation occurs not in the free market, but where the coercer exploits his victim. In the long run, coercion is a negative-sum game that leads to reduced production, saving, and investment; a depleted stock of capital; and reduced productivity and living standards for all, perhaps even for the coercers themselves. (It says that I'm not allowed to post the link yet)
The page continues to criticize Socialism as the ultimate form of legal government sponsored coercion.
I'm at a loss as to how exactly free-market capitalism doesn't include coercion at all. I was under the distinct impression that the entire premise of capitalism was based on the principle that if one person is willing to buy an item for a sum set by another person, whether the price be more or less than the actual "worth" of the item, then the seller increases his wealth and the buyer decreases his need. From what I've heard from free-market capitalists is that both parties are able to increase their wealth without one person being defrauded by the other one into paying more than they should for a desired item.
If coercion doesn't exist, how do they increase their wealth? For example, if I have a box of plain white paper that is worth €20 and another person has €20, then we can exchange them. The transaction was coercion-less because I didn't make the buyer pay any more than the item was worth. If, in true capitalist fashion, I wanted to make a profit and increase my wealth, I would have to make the buyer pay more than €20 for that paper. That fits the definition of fraud. I can't increase my wealth without charging more for my box of printer paper than it's actually worth.
It sorta seems to me like free-market capitalism doesn't create wealth at all since fraud and coercion are necessary for it. The only time I see this as somewhat doable is in the case of intangibles or in the case of things that have limited usability. Labor, for instance, can be bought but since labor isn't a quantifiable thing, the increase of wealth on either side seems dubious at best. Also, if someone buys food, which vanishes after use, isn't their wealth considered greatly diminished since the only benefit they derived from purchasing it at it's natural "value" was sustenance?
(P.S. I think the terms "fraud" and "coercion" may be somewhat confusing but they're the ones that free-market capitalists like throwing around)
Exploitation occurs not in the free market, but where the coercer exploits his victim. In the long run, coercion is a negative-sum game that leads to reduced production, saving, and investment; a depleted stock of capital; and reduced productivity and living standards for all, perhaps even for the coercers themselves. (It says that I'm not allowed to post the link yet)
The page continues to criticize Socialism as the ultimate form of legal government sponsored coercion.
I'm at a loss as to how exactly free-market capitalism doesn't include coercion at all. I was under the distinct impression that the entire premise of capitalism was based on the principle that if one person is willing to buy an item for a sum set by another person, whether the price be more or less than the actual "worth" of the item, then the seller increases his wealth and the buyer decreases his need. From what I've heard from free-market capitalists is that both parties are able to increase their wealth without one person being defrauded by the other one into paying more than they should for a desired item.
If coercion doesn't exist, how do they increase their wealth? For example, if I have a box of plain white paper that is worth €20 and another person has €20, then we can exchange them. The transaction was coercion-less because I didn't make the buyer pay any more than the item was worth. If, in true capitalist fashion, I wanted to make a profit and increase my wealth, I would have to make the buyer pay more than €20 for that paper. That fits the definition of fraud. I can't increase my wealth without charging more for my box of printer paper than it's actually worth.
It sorta seems to me like free-market capitalism doesn't create wealth at all since fraud and coercion are necessary for it. The only time I see this as somewhat doable is in the case of intangibles or in the case of things that have limited usability. Labor, for instance, can be bought but since labor isn't a quantifiable thing, the increase of wealth on either side seems dubious at best. Also, if someone buys food, which vanishes after use, isn't their wealth considered greatly diminished since the only benefit they derived from purchasing it at it's natural "value" was sustenance?
(P.S. I think the terms "fraud" and "coercion" may be somewhat confusing but they're the ones that free-market capitalists like throwing around)