accumulation of wealth

[abbielives!]

tell me if you think this is accurate:



the nature of capitalism is a competative one, and as such it produces winners and loosers, from the winners it produces more winners and loosers etc. and the more you win the easier it is to win, the more you loose the easier it is to loose.

if this is accurate, does it mean that unregulated capitalism ('free' market) naturally produces monopolies/oligopolies?

[CornetJoyce]

It's not all that competitive. Adam Smith noted that wherever two or three merchants in the same business gather, they conspire against the public.

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by abbielives!@June 30, 2007 08:05 pm
tell me if you think this is accurate:

the nature of capitalism is a competative one, and as such it produces winners and loosers, from the winners it produces more winners and loosers etc. and the more you win the easier it is to win, the more you loose the easier it is to loose.

No, i do not think this is accurate. Loser only has one "O" haha....

Anyway, on a serious note, I have to agree with Cornet. There is no competition if all of the competetors start working together. It's pretty much just a legal monopoly. Like most anything you buy, the prices are usually exactly the same between sellers because they get together and agree on prices to set (i.e. gas, video games, movie prices, etc.)

I do, though, agree that when you win, it becomes much easier to do so in the future. The same goes for losing.

[abbielives!]

so do you guys agree that capitalism produces monoplies?

[Janus]

Based on the historical examples of such models, there is generally a strong correlation between unregulated capitalism and monopolies as well as economic/market problems.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by abbielives!@June 30, 2007 09:18 pm
so do you guys agree that capitalism produces monoplies?
Yes, it is a classical marxist position. Competition engenders monopolies (or rather oligopolies, as from certain point on, capitalists will settle thing by negotiations among them instead of competing each other into destruction).

Luís Henrique

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:25 am
No, I don't think it is accurate. Contrary to what most people think, capitalism requires a state to regulate itself.

In an 'absolute' free market system, there can be no profit and that's against the nature of capitalism.

the state is often used to encourage monopoly with subsidies and the like, see railroads in the old west

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:25 am
No, I don't think it is accurate. Contrary to what most people think, capitalism requires a state to regulate itself.

In an 'absolute' free market system, there can be no profit and that's against the nature of capitalism.
But "free market" and "unregulated capitalism" - the liberal position - do not equate to stateless capitalism - the 'libertarian' fantasy.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:17 pm
Based on the historical examples of such models, there is generally a strong correlation between unregulated capitalism and monopolies as well as economic/market problems.
^^^ Actually, it's a conundrum. :P

There is also a strong correlation between highly regulated capitalism and monopolies. The initial, unregulated capitalism leads to monopoly. Why so? Because, under regulated capitalism, there are indeed only a few firms in each strategic market competing.

Although there are laws and regulations against price-fixing, there are other creative and unintended means to fix prices (whether the competing parties want to or not).



And the title is VERY misleading: it should say "accumulation of CAPITAL." Marx wasn't interested very much in wealth per se (just like I don't care about celebrity entertainers and celebrity athletes).

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:09 pm
just like I don't care about celebrity entertainers and celebrity athletes
Though they're not helping the situation any...

[Janus]

There is also a strong correlation between highly regulated capitalism and monopolies.
That depends on the nature of the state and its structure so there are exceptions in how monopolies typically arise. We've seen examples of how certain states particularly the fascist ones do promote monopolies while other states have sought to thwart and even break up monopolies.

[( R )evolution]

As others have said unregulated capitalism does indeed lead to monopolies/ oligopolies because the bourgeois and their corporations would rather deal with each other through negations than competing with each other which would probably lead to the death of the company.