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.
Mom and pop stores were destroyed by the demands of capitalism causing them to charge high prices and sell mass manufactured goods.
Mom & Pop stores were destroyed by federal, State, county and municipal regulations, not Capitalism.
Capitalism makes no demands.
You don't even understand what Capitalism is. It's a property theory. Property theories answer one and only one question: Who should control Capital -- the means of production.
Capitalist Property Theory suggests that all Capital is best left in the hands of individuals, instead of governments, non-governmental organizations, unions, guilds, trade associations, cartels or other groups, due to the proven fact that individuals are more responsive to the demands of the Market, which is Consumers of all classes, including you, your household, your neighborhood, community, business, industry and government.
Socialist Theory says the government or quasi-government organization should control Capital, and Communist Theory says the people-at-large.
Property theories are paired with Economic Systems. There are two: the Free Market System and the Command Market System. There are hybrids of each running the entire gamut from most-like a Free Market to most-like a Command Market.
An Economic System answers three basic questions, and the System is the answer to the questions:
1) What shall we produce? Blue jeans? The Free Market will decide and there's a market for blue jeans and so the US produced and sold them. In the Soviet Union, which had a Command Economy, the Command Group -- the Soviet bureaucracy in this instance -- decided not to produce or sell blue jeans. The Soviets needed money, and they cannot make money exporting blue jeans, so cotton was used to produce items for export other than blue jeans. When I was on Druzba '86, I bought extra blue jeans to bring with me, because I knew I could trade them to the Soviet army officers I was with. They wanted blue jeans, but you can't get them in the Soviet Union, and they're a huge status symbol if you have them, so they were willing to pay just about anything to have them.
2) How shall we produce it? That's not a dumb question. Can you not farm using modern, neo-traditional or organic methods? Yes, you can. Is there a market for organic foods in the US? Yes, there is, and you have organic foods precisely because you employ Capitalist Property Theory with the Free Market System. The Soviets produced organic nothing. Organic wheat crop yields are far less than modern farming methods, and the Soviets needed to produce as much wheat as possible to feed everyone and export it on the global market for cold hard cash, specifically for US Dollars. If you recall, when the Soviets couldn't produce enough wheat, there was a famine and Millions died, because Stalin gladly sacrificed the Ukrainians so other ethnic groups in the Soviet Union could eat and not die of starvation.
3) For whom shall we produce? In the Free Market System, the Market decides. Is there a market for corn? Yes. There are many markets: corn for seed, corn for feed, corn for popcorn, corn for foods and beverages using high fructose corn syrup, there's light and dark corn syrup, there's corn meal, corn flour, corn starch, corn in the husk, corn on the cob, and corn in a variety of canned goods, including canned corn, cream of corn and succotash.
Enter government.
Your government violated the Free Market and dictated that corn be used for ethanol. That diverted corn from other markets causing you to pay higher prices for foods and beverages and higher prices for gasoline, and to add insult to injury, the government then subsidized corn ethanol producers with your tax dollars.
Better would have been for the government to offer no-interest or low-interest loans to people who then would use those loans to purchase some of the 1+ Billion acres of fallow farmland in the US and grow sugar beets.
One acre of sugar beets produces 756 gallons of ethanol compared to one acre of corn which only yields 384 gallons of ethanol.
Had that happened, you'd be paying less for foods and beverages, paying less for gasoline, and your tax-dollars would not have been wasted subsidizing corn ethanol.
That's an example of how government makes very bad decisions that negatively impact you, and why Capitalist Property Theory and the Free Market System are superior to all others.
Another example would be the Soviet Union, again.
When projected oil production did not meet its goals, and the price of oil declined, the Soviets had a severe economic problem. They had to sell all the oil they could on the global market to get as much cold hard cash -- US Dollars -- as they could.
The Soviets dictated exactly how much oil was to be sold on the global market, and how much oil was to be refined for use in various economic sectors, like the military, shipping, transportation, industry and manufacturing, and finally, the consumers, so they could have a least a few gallons of gasoline to drive a couple of miles each month.
To solve this problem, the Soviets decided to let the wheat rot in the fields.
To harvest the wheat required refining oil into diesel to distribute to farmers to harvest the wheat, and then to the transportation industry -- trains and trucks -- to get the wheat to markets.
The Soviets decided to sell the oil on the global market for cash, then buy wheat from the US, so they would come out ahead financially.
That's another bright shining reason demonstrating how governments muck things up for everyone.
But, contrary to your misguided beliefs, you could in fact pair Capitalist Theory with the Command Economic System.
It's never been tried in history. Capital would be controlled in private, and the government, or a government bureaucracy or government-appointed body or some quasi-government group would dictate what is to be produced, how it should be produced and for whom it should be produced.
I agree totally with your first statement. But I disagree that business has some loyalty to the free market. Their only loyalty is to those who invest in their stock and survival. You do whatever it takes hopefully short of blatantly breaking the law to achieve it. Because if you don't your competition will. And I have worked with small owner operated businesses up to large corporations. The ones who do well do whatever it takes. Bezos did not make it by hoping for the best. He figured out how things work and used that knowledge to his and Amazon's advantage. I see no issue with that.
You keep throwing around the word free market. Capitalism would be more appropriate. Since as long as we have the government getting involved in capitalism there is not any free market and never has been. A real free market goes where it goes. It might bring more widespread benefits or perhaps less. The only way to force a level playing field is government intervention even more than we have now. And that is not a free market.
Number 1; Please stop putting "words in my mouth." It may be just a misunderstanding but it is a very common tactic of the highly partisan (Left or Right, not necessarily R or D) who don't have a genuine response. They simply pretend something was said and then respond to that. It's a diversion tactic that will never work because I'm not parroting hollow, partisan points.
I never said business has any loyalty to anything other than following the law. However, people who simply bow to corporate or other manipulation as you are doing are a large part of the problem. Refusing to question and demand change is supporting the status quo, and if someone truly believes it should be different, it's a sign of weakness. It's highly disingenous to call yourself a libertarian if you refuse to back that up. The truth is, you support corporatism. That's fine, it's your right, but own it. Don't claim you are libertarian when you won't even back that up with words on a screen.
You are wrong that the only way to create change is through government intervention. Information is extremely powerful, informed citizens and consumers who speak out with their wallets, voices and votes have power. To state that you have no problem with these manipulations because everyone does it, says everything. You praise companies who do it better! That's your right but understand that you are a part of the reason our economy has grown so far from a free market. Acceptance of corpratism and special interests using money to influence and manipulate government policies is incredibly harmful. Acceptance is just lazy support and it's rampant in this country.
I have also said over and over that there is no free market. Unlike you, I do not just bow down to those who have destroyed it and are taking our economy down with it. People who bow down to monied interests over our country and it's economy allow it to be. Those who refuse to inform, question and demand change will be a part this countries undoing. Too many insist on wasting the democractic power and the freedom we were given as citizens of this country.
I'd be very happy to see the political process open up to more parties but that's not going to happen as long as people remain blindly loyal.
Loyalty has nothing to do with it.
The issue is a lack of choice, and there's a lack of choice because there are no alternative parties at the local, State or federal level.
The Libertarian and Green Parties have repeatedly demonstrated total incompetence, with a complete lack of leadership, organizational and administrative skills, and the intestinal fortitude and wherewithal to do anything, except field a lame candidate for presidential elections.
What would help immensely is a constitutional amendment that bars anyone from contributing any monies or goods/services-in-kind to a candidate or ballot issue, unless they are also eligible to vote for that candidate or ballot issue.
So, if you don't live in the congressional district for a federal representative, then you can't vote for that representative, and you can't contribute any money to their campaign.
That means more people can run as candidates, because it no longer costs $Millions to get elected to the House, it only costs a few $1,000, which most people could afford.
If you don't live in Tampa, then you can't contribute money to mayoral candidates.
If you don't live in Ohio, then you can't contribute money to any of the candidates running for State office, or for the two federal senators.
Two years ago, a California group financed a ballot issue in Ohio regarding prescription drugs. That should never happen. That's a violation of the sovereignty of Ohio. Fortunately, voters crushed it 87% against.
But, now another California group is trying to destroy private kidney dialysis clinics in Ohio, which would force people to go to hospitals and pay 4x to 8x more for dialysis. That issue shouldn't even be on the ballot, and hopefully, it will be crushed, too.
Mom & Pop stores were destroyed by federal, State, county and municipal regulations, not Capitalism.
Capitalism makes no demands.
You don't even understand what Capitalism is. It's a property theory. Property theories answer one and only one question: Who should control Capital -- the means of production.
Capitalist Property Theory suggests that all Capital is best left in the hands of individuals, instead of governments, non-governmental organizations, unions, guilds, trade associations, cartels or other groups, due to the proven fact that individuals are more responsive to the demands of the Market, which is Consumers of all classes, including you, your household, your neighborhood, community, business, industry and government.
Socialist Theory says the government or quasi-government organization should control Capital, and Communist Theory says the people-at-large.
Property theories are paired with Economic Systems. There are two: the Free Market System and the Command Market System. There are hybrids of each running the entire gamut from most-like a Free Market to most-like a Command Market.
An Economic System answers three basic questions, and the System is the answer to the questions:
1) What shall we produce? Blue jeans? The Free Market will decide and there's a market for blue jeans and so the US produced and sold them. In the Soviet Union, which had a Command Economy, the Command Group -- the Soviet bureaucracy in this instance -- decided not to produce or sell blue jeans. The Soviets needed money, and they cannot make money exporting blue jeans, so cotton was used to produce items for export other than blue jeans. When I was on Druzba '86, I bought extra blue jeans to bring with me, because I knew I could trade them to the Soviet army officers I was with. They wanted blue jeans, but you can't get them in the Soviet Union, and they're a huge status symbol if you have them, so they were willing to pay just about anything to have them.
2) How shall we produce it? That's not a dumb question. Can you not farm using modern, neo-traditional or organic methods? Yes, you can. Is there a market for organic foods in the US? Yes, there is, and you have organic foods precisely because you employ Capitalist Property Theory with the Free Market System. The Soviets produced organic nothing. Organic wheat crop yields are far less than modern farming methods, and the Soviets needed to produce as much wheat as possible to feed everyone and export it on the global market for cold hard cash, specifically for US Dollars. If you recall, when the Soviets couldn't produce enough wheat, there was a famine and Millions died, because Stalin gladly sacrificed the Ukrainians so other ethnic groups in the Soviet Union could eat and not die of starvation.
3) For whom shall we produce? In the Free Market System, the Market decides. Is there a market for corn? Yes. There are many markets: corn for seed, corn for feed, corn for popcorn, corn for foods and beverages using high fructose corn syrup, there's light and dark corn syrup, there's corn meal, corn flour, corn starch, corn in the husk, corn on the cob, and corn in a variety of canned goods, including canned corn, cream of corn and succotash.
Enter government.
Your government violated the Free Market and dictated that corn be used for ethanol. That diverted corn from other markets causing you to pay higher prices for foods and beverages and higher prices for gasoline, and to add insult to injury, the government then subsidized corn ethanol producers with your tax dollars.
Better would have been for the government to offer no-interest or low-interest loans to people who then would use those loans to purchase some of the 1+ Billion acres of fallow farmland in the US and grow sugar beets.
One acre of sugar beets produces 756 gallons of ethanol compared to one acre of corn which only yields 384 gallons of ethanol.
Had that happened, you'd be paying less for foods and beverages, paying less for gasoline, and your tax-dollars would not have been wasted subsidizing corn ethanol.
That's an example of how government makes very bad decisions that negatively impact you, and why Capitalist Property Theory and the Free Market System are superior to all others.
Another example would be the Soviet Union, again.
When projected oil production did not meet its goals, and the price of oil declined, the Soviets had a severe economic problem. They had to sell all the oil they could on the global market to get as much cold hard cash -- US Dollars -- as they could.
The Soviets dictated exactly how much oil was to be sold on the global market, and how much oil was to be refined for use in various economic sectors, like the military, shipping, transportation, industry and manufacturing, and finally, the consumers, so they could have a least a few gallons of gasoline to drive a couple of miles each month.
To solve this problem, the Soviets decided to let the wheat rot in the fields.
To harvest the wheat required refining oil into diesel to distribute to farmers to harvest the wheat, and then to the transportation industry -- trains and trucks -- to get the wheat to markets.
The Soviets decided to sell the oil on the global market for cash, then buy wheat from the US, so they would come out ahead financially.
That's another bright shining reason demonstrating how governments muck things up for everyone.
But, contrary to your misguided beliefs, you could in fact pair Capitalist Theory with the Command Economic System.
It's never been tried in history. Capital would be controlled in private, and the government, or a government bureaucracy or government-appointed body or some quasi-government group would dictate what is to be produced, how it should be produced and for whom it should be produced.
We do have a command economy in some sense thanks to the Pentagon who form technology for the advancement of private industry against international competitors
Regardless you have a stunningly false understanding of socialism and capitalism. Socialism is a broad term revolving around worker control of the means of production, not government ownership. Similarly private ownership is different from personal ownership, something that most people are lead to believe otherwise. Having profit based demands forms a need to acquire more capital or market control. If domination is rewarded as such, despite being impossible by natural law, small businesses will be eaten up by larger ones.
The issue is a lack of choice, and there's a lack of choice because there are no alternative parties at the local, State or federal level.
The Libertarian and Green Parties have repeatedly demonstrated total incompetence, with a complete lack of leadership, organizational and administrative skills, and the intestinal fortitude and wherewithal to do anything, except field a lame candidate for presidential elections.
What would help immensely is a constitutional amendment that bars anyone from contributing any monies or goods/services-in-kind to a candidate or ballot issue, unless they are also eligible to vote for that candidate or ballot issue.
So, if you don't live in the congressional district for a federal representative, then you can't vote for that representative, and you can't contribute any money to their campaign.
That means more people can run as candidates, because it no longer costs $Millions to get elected to the House, it only costs a few $1,000, which most people could afford.
If you don't live in Tampa, then you can't contribute money to mayoral candidates.
If you don't live in Ohio, then you can't contribute money to any of the candidates running for State office, or for the two federal senators.
Two years ago, a California group financed a ballot issue in Ohio regarding prescription drugs. That should never happen. That's a violation of the sovereignty of Ohio. Fortunately, voters crushed it 87% against.
But, now another California group is trying to destroy private kidney dialysis clinics in Ohio, which would force people to go to hospitals and pay 4x to 8x more for dialysis. That issue shouldn't even be on the ballot, and hopefully, it will be crushed, too.
Loyalty is a factor. If people don't question a system and put in an effort to create change, it will remain the same. The two parties aren't going to just hand over any of their power. A lot of people, and definitly the most vocal are too busy defending one party or the other to make any effort toward creating or supporting another one to choose from. Arguably, Trump was a message that people do want an alternative to politics as usual but he's not a real alternative.
Adam Smith defined the free markets as individual producers forming supply to meet the demands of a society at a profit.
That is not how Amazon came to monopolize the book market or even online retail, they did it through excess financial backing that let them to ignore the rules of supply demand, pricing, and what not in order to gain control of the supply chain and individual market killing competition.
Well, it sure beats going to Walmart... which is about all that is available around here these days. All the mom and pop shops closed about 20 years ago.
Well, it sure beats going to Walmart... which is about all that is available around here these days. All the mom and pop shops closed about 20 years ago.
Because of vulture capitalism. Stop profit based economic system and end the authoritarian private power that restricts others freedoms.
Well, it sure beats going to Walmart... which is about all that is available around here these days. All the mom and pop shops closed about 20 years ago.
“ Half of what’s sold on Amazon is sold by small- medium business”
And that's worse. They control the market place, and no have control over the distribution of wealth.
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.
