Capitalism forces better quality...?

[Drace]

If you had taken any Economics course, you would know that the private companies are FAR more efficient than government programs. Capitalism causes the free market to do what's best for everyone.

What arguments do you guys have against that?

[rednordman]

In theory this could be the case, but in reality I think you only need to look at the world and ask yourself does free market provide what is best for people? If anything the quality will go down as companies try to compete with each other for better profits by resorting to desparate measures (using poor quality materials, lowering wages etc..) which will ultimately affect to workers moral and alienate them from their labour so they will not be very inclined to do the best job they can (have seen this in real life many times).

Also, if a company is so much better than its competition (quality and cheap), eveyone will most likely just use that product and their wouldnt really be a 'free' market as any competition wouldnt stand a chance. From my experience, this hits the workers worst as there is less jobs and the 'winner' company is in a position to do what they like as far as workers rights and wages (Tescos anyone?). It sounds all great and 'free' but you must always consider that things under capitalism are always made for profit first, if it happens to be a good service than thats a bonus (and very rarelly the case). Thats my take on it so far (hopeing someone who is a bit better versed in marxist economics will also answer for you:))
+ nowadays people often mistake what is the best produce/service for the best presented one (Good advertisment). Obviously good presentation doesnt often equall a good produce, but most people tend to go with a better presented regardless of quality.
..Also what evidence is their to prove that private services are FAR better than public ones?

[davidbrooke]

But what we have to remember is that we as socialists recognise the inefficiencies of a nationalised, centralised organisation providing service, but advocate workers democractic control of the service itself. Democratic control is by far the most efficient service potentially, as it is the people who are involved in the workings of the organisation, entailing a greater understanding of what is needed and the most productive way of providing it.

A nationalised oprganisation in the loosest sense is accountable to the public. If it's badly run then people will question those at the top, however anything privatised that makes a complete mess of the service (Railway service) is not accountable to the electorate, and as a private business can do what it wants, although main goal is to make profit.

The biggest distinction is the motivation, profit in some senses doies appear efficient, if the profit margins are rising and competition is high, but anything that hinders this can cause (and always does) the attacking of wages, job losses, higher prices... A government service is that in itself a service, but it has to make the money to the state and provide an efficient service.

All socialists/communists recognise that both cannot do this properly, and both sections cannot take society further anymore. In the past they were building railway lines and roads to transport goods, but now the system has completely stagnated. A democractic workers control would meet the demands and be able to provide a decent wage and a lot of jobs within a 35 hour week.

[GPDP]

Indeed, I would not argue in favor of bureaucratic state control of goods and services. I would argue in favor of democratic worker control of the aforementioned.

I'd imagine the less well-versed capitalist ideologues (your libertarians, ancaps, etc.) would be baffled at the suggestion, but the more experienced would merely throw the idea away as just another front for tyranny, this time from the majority. You should explain, however, that tyranny is exactly what a private company becomes, and though highly competitive markets sound nice, they almost never stay that way. Monopoly and oligopoly are the tendencies towards which firms move to, regardless of how much these ideologues cry about them being the result of state intervention (something they will ALWAYS put the blame on when their dear and perfect free market does not seem to be working up to par).

[Catbus]

Capitalism causes the free market to do what's best for the consumer is what that quote should have said, and even half the time that isn't true.

[Drace]

And what about there being no motivation?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Government programs are run like monopolistic corporations. This is a case of arguing market capitalism over state capitalism. Of course monopolies are less efficient.

If this person took an English course, he or she would realize that economics is not capitalized, regardless of how many people want to worship the same invisible hand that prods their assholes.

[Demogorgon]

It is nonsense, according to neoclassical theory a perfectly competitive market will render the best results. That might very well be true, but as such a thing is impossible to achieve, it is entirely irrelevant.

Indeed, capitalism prevents perfect competition and prevents the market from achieving quality, that is to say a market without capitalists can achieve better result than a market with capitalists. The reason for this is that capitalist firms have a drive towards expansion. This means that, in the short run they will move past the level of production that is most efficient (this will happen even under perfect competition) and in the long run they will consume each other so that the result is oligopoly or even monopoly. Such circumstances do not, as a rule, provide the best quality.

Your opponent might very well respond to this with the dreary old rubbish about monopolies coming about from state intervention, not because of market forces. You can try arguing that it is irrelevant because all economies are mixed economies or indeed that it isn't true, there are plenty of examples of monopolies forming with the Government's help. However best of all you can just throw his or her insult back. If they say that, they certainly won't have taken an economics class either!

[Die Neue Zeit]

In addition to the remarks above:

Planned obsolescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)

[#FF0000]

You could also point to the recent bacterial outbreaks in the United States with Salmonella in Tomatoes and spinach and all that. Dr. Bassler, a prof at Princeton University says:
outbreaks of bacteria, (for example, the recent salmonella tomato scare, last year's spinach crisis,) are not the result of pathogens necessarily becoming stronger: the salmonella was still regular salmonella. The problem lies in the set up of our food system, in which any contamination is immediately spread over a wide area, making it difficult to control or even track it.Now, that's part of it. The other part of it is profit motive and lack of accountability. The people who run the production of tomatoes and spinach aren't going to take extra measures to make sure that food is safe (thereby cutting into their profit) if they do not have to. It helps them that the government doesn't hold them to do so. Not that this would help incredibly, because then you would have the issue of government inefficiency and bureaucratic absurdity.

It also helps the producers that the workers under them only know their own role in production, and they know nothing of the big picture, so the only ones that can say "hey, what we're doing isn't safe or right" are the ones who profit from these unsafe products.

If production of food was based on need and not profit, there would be no reason to cut corners when it comes to safety and sanitation, would there?

EDIT:


If this person took an English course, he or she would realize that economics is not capitalized, regardless of how many people want to worship the same invisible hand that prods their assholes.


lol ^

[Lost In Translation]

What arguments do you guys have against that?
Your quote says private companies are more efficient, but your thread says it forces better quality... Those two things are not dependent on each other. In the heat of competition, two companies may choose to outsell each other by placing more products on the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean the quality is the same, or better...

[ashaman1324]

if a capitalist marketer claims to produce an item of higher quality than the norm its only a temporary achievement and will be replaced by another product of quality better by enough of a degree or marketed well enough that it could perhaps develop a monopoly in its specific market it will fall in enough due to changes in demand and eventually become in low enough in demand that they can no longer employ so many workers and putting the workers out of work, hardly beneficial except to the few CEOs who rake in more money by far than the workers who will continue to cut jobs to maintain their nice fat paycheck

[bobroberts]

Capitalism produces money for capitalists at any cost. If they can do it by building a quality product, they'll do it. If they can do it by building a dangerous or inferior product, they will do it. If they can do it by skirting regulations and endangering the workforce, they will do it. If it means bribing the government to stifle competition, they will do it. I guess that's what they mean by efficiency.

[RadioRaheem84]

If you had taken any Economics course, you would know that the private companies are FAR more efficient than government programs.


Not always. Most of the time, capitalists will try to compare the WORST of a state run institution, with the BEST of a private one. Public school is the first thing they target. Well, to be honest, I would much rather go to the University of California-Berkeley and receive a superb education, then some of the more astute private instituions.

[trivas7]

"Free" markets are a bourgeois fantasy, in reality corporate planning is ubiquitous.

[Drace]

Lets not forget that capitalists will make up crap products that we don't really need and sell it to us. We buy them because there items are "attractive".

We can live without the many things we have. Its just made most of us lazy.

[RHIZOMES]

I love how much libertarians confuse efficiency with equity.

[Lynx]

And what about there being no motivation?
One incentive is to reward managers (and hopefully workers) within departments that come in under budget.

[JazzRemington]

I think the argument the OP posted is a logical fallacy. I can't think of the exact fallacy, but I'm pretty sure saying something like "if you read X, you would see that Y is the case" is fallacy.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think the argument the OP posted is a logical fallacy. I can't think of the exact fallacy, but I'm pretty sure saying something like "if you read X, you would see that Y is the case" is fallacy.

The logic is simple. They presuppose that the free market is infallible and operates on a natural order. Anything that hinders it must come from outside the natural order. If a government program is faulty its because its government run and not private. If a private institution is faulty, its because the government is somehow interfering with it. If a government program is succeeding, its because "private" initiatives were introduced or its following a private model.