Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We already have too many problems in this thread. Let's look at your other post which I'll get to now.
That's not excess wealth when the consumer has other ways to maximize his own personal abilities or get into another field of production/service.
You're being over simplistic and/or intellectually dishonest. Or you just don't know any better.
Freedom of movement. Freedom of association. Freedom of currency. Freedom of buying and selling your labor.
All of these things completely rule out monopolies acting badly. In fact, the only way a monopoly can exist under real capitalism is if they are so good and so fair to the overwhelming majority of people nobody chooses to use their labor to compete with it. Or they are simply making something nobody wants for s-hits and giggles which would be odd but whatever floats your boat.
Don't get me wrong: scarcity is real. It's just that you don't understand how force initiation, at any point in the socialization of humans, creates artificial scarcity.
Nobody knows the true price of anything right now. That's because we don't have freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of currency, and freedom of buying and selling our labor. You've never seen a legit supply and demand for a product/service in your life. Regulation ends that immediately.
Now, getting back to scarcity...legit scarcity. If it should come to pass that one person is able to attain the last of a resources in its current form from anywhere on the globe that would indeed count as legit scarcity.
1. Very unlikely to happen.
2. Your problem, like all the other statists, is with the paradigm of existence/nature.
If supply is down to one due to consumption and that lone person refuses to sell the rest will simply have to do without. The last tree is the last tree my friend. This is probably why the earth is 4.5 billion years old, there have been 5 billion species of life to exist, and over 99% of those species have gone extinct.
*shrug* You'll have to take that up with Mother Nature, god, buddha, your sacred rock, the God of dandelions, etc.
Natural scarcity is simply part of life. You are part of life...not above it. You are the means...not the ends.
1. Not everyone has the same access to tools/ownership that allows them to expand their own abilities. Yes, someone may be able to expand their power beyond their original point but that would be incomparable to what someone else (a capitalist) may be able to do leaving a deficit in production abilities.
2. Not everyone in a society becomes a business owner, nor would that be financially acceptable. When "freedom of association" is limited by accessibility to public resources. Even if those resources were owned by separate private entities the workers needed to use them to their full extent would be subjugated to labor control and management with no say anywhere in the production cycle. Your next claim would be that the workers have freedom of movement so they will naturally go to the competition that offers better terms. The problem here is that freedom of production and a right to self-management are not decided by what corporate leaders offer, but by equal say and democracy.
3. Now Monopolies. Outside of the realm of scarcity, monopolies will exist (especially regionally) with increasing control. Say a monopoly were to first grow from producing the best toys (a market item). Once the supply line is set facilities used to assemble the toys won't face competition as the resources and locations needed to make the supply appear can't be reproduced without other persons having ownership to the same facilities and needed components. The same thing happened with Carnegie steel, it had nothing to do with how the workers were being treated.
4. Now the 'markets' which control supply/demand, as you claim, won't allow for a permanent monopoly for once people want something else the entire model of the company will fall apart. Here the existence of the 'markets' become problematic. Rather than providing for the needs of the masses production is geared towards profits. Once you have the desired goal of increased profits the 'market' becomes a tool in which companies through advertisement, etc. create a demand. An economy based on wants instead of needs then leads to a control over resources that could be otherwise used to create societal benefits.
5. Scarcity: Environmental resources would not be used up if the need for growth wasn't present in their production (or extraction). Humans don't need the excess amount of oil, water, etc. used in capitalism but as the markets are based off of finding ways to grow the demand require maximized production. The sources should never be depleted in the first place.
As for company control of commodities, ground production, once owned, can't be taken away. Consumers don't have a say nor do workers as it is the capitalist who decide the scale of production. The capitalist will eventual (like always) want a monopoly control over these resources and then the workers will become the slaves. That is why, no matter where you look, the capitalist system was owned by a handful of men regardless of state intervention. Carnegie, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, they always used their excess control built off of original innovations to keep the economy under authorized control. Always.
History is on my side.
whos property, is it not?? or its not the property of who??
my mind is MY property
my skill is MY property
what I build is MY property
what I create is MY property
who the F are you to INVADE my AO, under threat of the commune to take my property and enslave me
Marxism (communism) aka (the next step after socialism)... is the most evil, (which is understandable since anything from the left is evil) way of any form of society
1. Not everyone has the same access to tools/ownership that allows them to expand their own abilities. Yes, someone may be able to expand their power beyond their original point but that would be incomparable to what someone else (a capitalist) may be able to do leaving a deficit in production abilities.
2. Not everyone in a society becomes a business owner, nor would that be financially acceptable. When "freedom of association" is limited by accessibility to public resources. Even if those resources were owned by separate private entities the workers needed to use them to their full extent would be subjugated to labor control and management with no say anywhere in the production cycle. Your next claim would be that the workers have freedom of movement so they will naturally go to the competition that offers better terms. The problem here is that freedom of production and a right to self-management are not decided by what corporate leaders offer, but by equal say and democracy.
3. Now Monopolies. Outside of the realm of scarcity, monopolies will exist (especially regionally) with increasing control. Say a monopoly were to first grow from producing the best toys (a market item). Once the supply line is set facilities used to assemble the toys won't face competition as the resources and locations needed to make the supply appear can't be reproduced without other persons having ownership to the same facilities and needed components. The same thing happened with Carnegie steel, it had nothing to do with how the workers were being treated.
4. Now the 'markets' which control supply/demand, as you claim, won't allow for a permanent monopoly for once people want something else the entire model of the company will fall apart. Here the existence of the 'markets' become problematic. Rather than providing for the needs of the masses production is geared towards profits. Once you have the desired goal of increased profits the 'market' becomes a tool in which companies through advertisement, etc. create a demand. An economy based on wants instead of needs then leads to a control over resources that could be otherwise used to create societal benefits.
5. Scarcity: Environmental resources would not be used up if the need for growth wasn't present in their production (or extraction). Humans don't need the excess amount of oil, water, etc. used in capitalism but as the markets are based off of finding ways to grow the demand require maximized production. The sources should never be depleted in the first place.
As for company control of commodities, ground production, once owned, can't be taken away. Consumers don't have a say nor do workers as it is the capitalist who decide the scale of production. The capitalist will eventual (like always) want a monopoly control over these resources and then the workers will become the slaves. That is why, no matter where you look, the capitalist system was owned by a handful of men regardless of state intervention. Carnegie, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, they always used their excess control built off of original innovations to keep the economy under authorized control. Always.
History is on my side.
Downright scary. Thank God it's so fringe that it make anarcho-capitalism seem mainstream and will never occur.
Based solely on controlling people and you as king.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
