10 Sep 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat are you talking about? The assertion is hardly controversial. "Capitalism" is about there being competition. Competition is about beating competitors. The more successful a capitalist entity it is, the more competitors it has put out of business and the more it comes to dominate the market place. The more it dominates the market place, the more able it is to nulify the remaining competition. The logical outcome is that the domination eventually precludes competition and we are left with a monopoly. Unless you believe that there is some sort of 'rule' hardwired into the ideology that says that a capitalist entity will stop trying to beat competitors just short of there being a monopoly, then anti-trust regulations and protections of citizens are needed.
Why are you afraid to support your assertation?
10 Sep 09
Capitalism does not naturally lead to monopolies because new firms can innovate.
As long as the government does not favor a firm / monopoly, then monopolies are a rarity in most industries and in most markets, especially for prolonged periods of time. In capitalism there are still a few exceptions with potentially socialist-like results, like for example high barrier-to-entry industries that require heavy government infrastructure support (think rails and utilities) which tend towards monopolies. In pure capitalism (unlike in pure socialism) you trend towards greater competition and innovation more often.
10 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusI am not claiming that there are not ways to avoid monopolies or niches and specialties that preclude 100% monopolies. I am simply saying that the logical conclusion of competition is a winner. Capitalism does naturally lead to monopolies if new firms cannot innovate or if they cannot get a foothold in some other way in a market dominated by a firm or very few firms. Clearly capitalism needs to be regulated and monopolistic tendecies are a threat to economies and their citizens. As the OP said, I think we can all agree, monopolies are a bad thing..
Capitalism does not naturally lead to monopolies because new firms can innovate.
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFWrong, examples that prove predominance of monopolies in capitalism? They are the exception, not the prescribed rule.
I am not claiming that there are not ways to avoid monopolies or niches and specialties that preclude 100% monopolies. I am simply saying that the logical conclusion of competition is a winner. Capitalism does naturally lead to monopolies if new firms cannot innovate or if they cannot get a foothold in some other way in a market dominated by a firm or very few f ...[text shortened]... omies and their citizens. As the OP said, I think we can all agree, monopolies are a bad thing..
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusWho's talking about a "prescribed rule"? Don't be silly. "Rule"? LOL. "Predominance of monopolies in capitalism"? Don't be silly. I never said that. Read my posts. I know you like to poo on certain people from a height on this forum but you always miss. There's no angle for you here. We agree monolpolies are bad. All of them. Labour. Public sector (except where it's obvious that you have to have them). Private sector. Monopolies = bad. They should be avoided. And where they occur they should resisted and dismantled. Where they might occur, restrictions and protections should be put in place. Is there some part of this you disagree with?
Wrong, examples that prove predominance of monopolies in capitalism? They are the exception, not the prescribed rule.