Those are all anti-capitalist positions. That depends. Do we function in a perfect capitalistic society where instantaneous adjustements to market are possible? No? Then we don't have a true capitalistic model, and we have to make subtle adjustments to compensate. Do we function in a perfect capitalistic society where there is enough competition to employ a given skill set that the pay scale for that skill set will fluxuate in a natural manner? No? Then we don't have a true capitalistic model.
I believe in capitalism, but we do not have true capitalism. Even if every bit of governmental regulation were dropped, we would not have true capitalism. Capitalism is the ideal we should shoot for, but markets do not shift quickly enough to compensate for people lives. And that's exactly what we are talking about: People's LIVES. I do not support letting people die on the streets.. I do not support child labor.. I do not support laissez-faire. We've seen how it works, and it is detremental to the well-being of society.
Let's be realistic. We do not live in a world where someone who comes up with a good idea is guaranteed a chance to market and sell that product. We have no guarantee that solid market models won't be undercut by a competitor at the expense of a more profitable devision. Barriers to entry in markets are creating a world where we are dealing with more oligarchical market models, and the ability to compete requires SIGNIFICANT investment... investment capital that is only at the disposal of those who have no desire for competition. I WORSHIP capitalism... but it cannot be separated from competition. There are parts where the system breaks down. It is not perfect. Do we scrap the whole project? HELL NO, but we compensate for the areas where it breaks down.
Freedom from coercion is a great ideal... I shoot for that as well. But that goes more than one way. Suppose all the avenues of production are controlled by a small group of individuals. In an ideal market, unfair business models at that point will be challenged by a new company with better standards. This is probably not what will actually happen. There has to be a counterbalance to the power of organized money. That is one of the points of government, to be that voice. The willing sacrifice of competition in markets is what breaks down these models. I really wish the libertarians would stop buying into that Mises smoke screen that monopolies are acceptable market trends. People's lives don't have the ability to compensate for these issues.
I respect where you are coming from, and lived in that zone for quite a while, but I am also accepting that coercion by the dollars is coercion none the less. It's not always willing trades in our market. Sometimes people don't have any choices. I am always willing to debate these issues with you, but I can't subscribe to the belief in the John Galt world. I wish it WAS that black and white, though... I'd be on your side in a heartbeat.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:49 pm (UTC)That depends. Do we function in a perfect capitalistic society where instantaneous adjustements to market are possible? No? Then we don't have a true capitalistic model, and we have to make subtle adjustments to compensate. Do we function in a perfect capitalistic society where there is enough competition to employ a given skill set that the pay scale for that skill set will fluxuate in a natural manner? No? Then we don't have a true capitalistic model.
I believe in capitalism, but we do not have true capitalism. Even if every bit of governmental regulation were dropped, we would not have true capitalism. Capitalism is the ideal we should shoot for, but markets do not shift quickly enough to compensate for people lives. And that's exactly what we are talking about: People's LIVES. I do not support letting people die on the streets.. I do not support child labor.. I do not support laissez-faire. We've seen how it works, and it is detremental to the well-being of society.
Let's be realistic. We do not live in a world where someone who comes up with a good idea is guaranteed a chance to market and sell that product. We have no guarantee that solid market models won't be undercut by a competitor at the expense of a more profitable devision. Barriers to entry in markets are creating a world where we are dealing with more oligarchical market models, and the ability to compete requires SIGNIFICANT investment... investment capital that is only at the disposal of those who have no desire for competition. I WORSHIP capitalism... but it cannot be separated from competition. There are parts where the system breaks down. It is not perfect. Do we scrap the whole project? HELL NO, but we compensate for the areas where it breaks down.
Freedom from coercion is a great ideal... I shoot for that as well. But that goes more than one way. Suppose all the avenues of production are controlled by a small group of individuals. In an ideal market, unfair business models at that point will be challenged by a new company with better standards. This is probably not what will actually happen. There has to be a counterbalance to the power of organized money. That is one of the points of government, to be that voice. The willing sacrifice of competition in markets is what breaks down these models. I really wish the libertarians would stop buying into that Mises smoke screen that monopolies are acceptable market trends. People's lives don't have the ability to compensate for these issues.
I respect where you are coming from, and lived in that zone for quite a while, but I am also accepting that coercion by the dollars is coercion none the less. It's not always willing trades in our market. Sometimes people don't have any choices. I am always willing to debate these issues with you, but I can't subscribe to the belief in the John Galt world. I wish it WAS that black and white, though... I'd be on your side in a heartbeat.
blah... I rambled.. sorry.