# Hurry! Quick! Close the door! Cattle are escaping!

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Michael, Dec 24, 2012.

1. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
You have to provide evidence to support your assertion. Communism failed because Communism is fundamentally about using force. In a Communistic country one can never know if a trade is productive because there are no free trades. Thus, some trades are productive and others are unproductive and inadvertently result in the loss of Capital. Over time robbing society of its prosperity. Thus, it's not that Communism failed because its pure, but because Socialism doesn't work to facilitate free productive trades. Thus, as Communism gave wa to SOME free trade, less unproductive trading occurred and society began to create capital and become prosperous. So, while you could say, oh, it was less pure Communism. This is true, but the reason wasn't less Communism is was more Capitalism.

China is now ranked 5th in the world in terms of Capitalism and it is reflected in their massive numbers of productive trades and surplus of Capital. Incidentally, Germany is ranks top.

As for Standard Oil, oil was cheaper BEFORE Standard Oil was dismantled. The Rockefeller fortune quadrupled after it was split up. The same thing happened with the aluminum, one company had a monopoly and was broken up and the price went up. IOWs the evidence suggests that (a) monopolies are very hard to form and (b) once formed, which really only happened in the one case, in a free market is hard to maintain and requires a lot drive to keep the price so low, lower then otherwise normal, to prevent competition from entering that market space.

A lot of evidence is counter intuitive but that's only because we've live through a lifetime of State propaganda telling us that violence is peace and peace is violence. It's why you have someone arguing the worker should pay tax when he sells his labor. Which is the exact opposite of what would happen for any other service. Or that the Farmer, the one who grew the apple, should pay TO SELL his apples. It's completely asinine and backwards. And, that is NOT how this Nation was founded and built.

Last edited: Jan 15, 2013

3. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
In a prosperous free market society no one would have to work 50 hours a week unless they specifically chose to do so. Just as supercomputers that fit in your pocket are easily afforded by people who are so-called "so poor" they're on the dole. Think about that, supercomputers that are so cheap even people without gainful employment, can afford to own one and access all information in human history (nearly all) for free.

Last edited: Jan 15, 2013

5. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
I do see your point, but, if that is true then the market will see to it that they are put out of business because the company that does not advertise will offer a superior product and over time outcompete the other product. see Zune. MS put a lot of Ad backing and it failed through word of mouth on how sucky it was. see Sony Vita and compare with Nintendo 3DDS. Does it always work out this way? maybe not, but, that life. I feel the market doesn't always WANT a superior product. Take refrigerators, I saw a TV commercial on YouTube (a 1940s channel) that said Buy Your Refrigerdare because you can Hand it Down to your Kids. I mean, come on, no one cares about handing down their refrigerator to their children because they're so cheap. One could say, this is a wasted resource, but, if society can afford it due to prosperity, then that's OK. I mean, cake and tasty food and beef are all wasted resources when we could be eating Nutrient Sludge like the Communist Koreans. Are they more prosperous for it? Nope. This suggests that when the free-market is allowed to function, we prosper.

As for the buildings, yes, it does suck when an ugly building goes up, but, I can live with that, and sometimes they go broke and the next builder thinks oooo, not going to do that again. Some things take awhile to learn and I can live with that. I recall an ugly large baker stone relief in Rome built 2000 years ago, apparently most Romans thought it was pretty ugly. But, they lived with it because they understood it was better to live with an ugly gaudy object then to interfere in the free interaction between people. I mean, this baker had to save a LOT of money, he paid is out to a lot of people, they were employed, etc...

As for political ads. The only solution I can see here is to get Government out of our lives so that there's little incentive to purchase ads because politicians would be lowly paid servants and have little effect in our lives. Like the servant that they were meant to be. It makes me sick to my stomach to know our President has a kill list and murdered a 16 year old child and everyone cheers and reelected him. Progressives indeed.

7. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
26,927
That's not what we see in a real life market society, though. Anywhere on earth, any time in history.

I'm beginning to think you don't even see a large corporation as capable of coercion. What planet was that, again?

8. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,175
No it's not. It's about freely sharing communal resources and doing whatever work you feel you are qualified to do - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Without an aristocratic ruling class, the proletariat will not be shackled by the economic chains that capitalists create, and will create an abundance of shared wealth such that no one needs to go without.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Heck, it sounds exactly like your rosy predictions for unregulated capitalism. Doesn't work too well in practice, though.

And in unregulated capitalism one can never know if one is going to starve the next year because another company could buy all the roads and force them out of business. Not a problem in communism.

Exactly. They were able to use their ability to fix prices to drive other companies out of business. Imagine what they could have done if they were able to buy, say, all the roads in the US.

Which would make sense if not for that pesky Constitution.

9. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
For most of history people have been ruled by superstition and patriotism. Not to mention productivity has been so low for most of history that just getting enough to eat was the main goal. So, we should bare in mind when you refer to Corporations, you're really just talking about recent modern history, of which there isn't much.

I DO totally agree that corporations can and do influence governments, particularly when government has direct influence over us. So, we are both living on planet Earth. I'm sort of wondering if you've thought your own propositions through to its natural conclusion. Because I see Corporations fitting hand in glove with Government (fascism) as why we DO NOT WANT government having much, if any, influence over our lives. What? You think the solution to Corporate malfeasance is BIGGER government?!? The very same government filled with humans desperate to say and do anything to get elected and in desperate need of campaign donations.... THAT GOVERNENT?!?!

10. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
Going to Heaven sounds good, but as there is no God, then it really doesn't matter whether it sounds good or not. Communism failed because there is no price discover mechanism. It's really that simple. Building an economy without a price discovery mechanism would be like buildings sailboat without a sail.

Capitalism is probably not being used correctly here. All economies seek to. Produce Capital, even Communistic ones (they just weren't good at doing so). What do you mean when you say "regulated Capitalism"? I'm not sure if you actually have thought through what you're saying.

Except its not possible for one company to buy up all the roads so why through out such a ridiculous statement? It should be noted our FREE roads result in about 45000 deaths per year. Compared to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the roads in the USA are down right dangerous.

MAYBE is the roads were all tolled, and the true costs of their use fairly shared by all, then they'd be much better.

Let me repeat, the pice for fuel went UP after Standard Oil was broken up. That means life was better for Joe American BEFORE the company was broken up. Not to mention the Rockefeller family Quadrupled in value. AND finally, because of this they got involved in Politics and AFAIAC ruined out public educational system. Absolutely ruined generations of potential Americans. A legacy we are living with and will live with for generations to come.

You do understand it was NEVER the intent for Laborers to pay Tax on their Labor? That was against the law until the US Constitution was amended. In the same year, 1913, our corrupt CONgress also gave us the Central Bank, who incidentally is partially owned by the Rockefeller
Family (it is a private bank cartel). So, there you go full circle to what happens when you chose violence and thievery over peaceful trade.

11. ### CarcanoValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,865
In some sectors this is correct...it might take years, but a superior product without advertising will eventually outsell an inferior product of the same price with great advertising.

But this is the exception, not the rule. For example, all the big brands might be selling the same pair of pants from the same Chinese factory, but will be able to price them differently based on the success of the image they create through advertising.

That same pair of pants that cost $3 to manufacture could only be sold for$30 without ads...compared to \$80 with a 'cool' image association. There is no price discovery because the quality of the actual product is barely important in this all too common scenario.

This is an engraving I have framed in my home. Somebody chopped up a 16th century bible and I bought an image from the 'Book of Revelation' at an auction.

View attachment 6066

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them, and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; with two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon.

And he exercise all the power of the first beast before him, and caused the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast.

And he does great wonders, so that he make fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

And deceive them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast.

And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed."

What a wonderful allegory for the relationship between consumers, corporations and their marketing firms.

The second beast rising from the earth, with horns of a lamb and the voice of a dragon are the ad men, who draw down great wonders and miracles from the heavens (satellite imagery) in sight of a hapless citizenry...causing them to worship the beast from the sea (Apple, The Gap, Coca-Cola, etc) who's true intentions are of pillaging the public and gaining political leverage over the kings of the earth.

Last edited: Jan 16, 2013
12. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
I think you are discounting the value of the brand for the consumer. I mean, some people LOVE Apple. Sure, it might not have the fastest OS or even a good architecture, but so what... IT'S APPLE.

It's sort of why we use the world 'Taste' as in 'She has good Taste' in such and such. Personal opinion is as important as anything else. If that is influenced by an Ad Campaign... well, tough. It IS their opinion. Would you say a father telling his son to buy Snap-On over Craftsman is somehow 'Wrong'? I see an Ad in the same way. It's just information in one form or another to get someone to do one thing or another. Even the design of the package down to the rubber grip is a way to influence people.

As the end of the day, it may not even matter. How many people use their PC to the fullest of its capability? Or just use it to surf the net? They COULD have bought a used old PC, but, they want a new one. And, that's their choice and if it's freely made then they are the free market.

13. ### pjdude1219screw watergate i want to know about zaragateValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,948
No Communism failed because people are people. it had nothing to do with "force" (which is quotes because you use your libertarian def rather than a normal one. capitalism fails for the same reason. the only difference is you refuse to admit capitalism has any flaws or anyone could possiblely be harmed under it rather than deal with the historical facts saying otherwise.

14. ### pjdude1219screw watergate i want to know about zaragateValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,948
actually as usual your wrong and either woefully ignorant about things you preach about or just flat out lying. the constitution never banned taxes on labor. only income which despite being told many times continue to insist on claiming to be the same. they could have taxed anyone they wanted for their labor. and the continued lie about theft. but what should we expect from qa follower of such a childish ideology.

15. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
*News Flash* Free Markets are composed of people as well.

Capital is used by Communists as well, they're just not good at accumulating it. So, when you say "Capitalism" what exactly do you mean by that word? Is a newly minted Trillion Dollar Coin "Capital"? Where does prosperity come from?

Yes, people are people, that in no way explains why West Germany was prosperous and East Germany was poor. Why South Korea was prosperous and North Korea poor. Why the USA was prosperous and is rapidly becoming poor. Why China was poor and is rapidly becoming prosperous.

Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
16. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
While it is true Americans could be taxed, it was ONLY done in times of War Debt. Americans had a tradition and culture of individualism and the notion that the State would tax a Citizen of their Labor would have been found repugnant. As a matter of fact, a general taxation was resisted until 1943, coinciding with WWII. It's one of the reasons why Governments LOVE War. They LOVE it. Wars on people like Native Americans, Asians or Mexicans, Wars on Ideologies like Communism and now Wars against personal freedoms like Drugs or completely made up Wars like the present one on Terror.

Its no surprise WWI and WWII was used as an excuse to greatly expand this sickness that is the Federal Government. And while you may have no qualms with stealing from other Citizens (well, to be specific, those humans with the bad luck of being born into the same State run Tax Farm as you) so long as you can do so through the vote - in that way you feel it is right and good and godly and moral to take from someone else and to give to yourself. We both know voting to make Slavery legal does not make it moral. Voting to make rape legal, does not make it moral. Voting to steal a persons labor, does not make it moral. I OTOH, much like the people who wrote the US Constitution, find stealing via the vote or any other manner, to be personally quite repulsive.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

Thanks to the Sixteenth Amendment, Americans now pay much higher tax rates than even the English Serfs our forefathers pitied. Hell, if we ONLY had the tax rate of a Serf! Those lucky peons had it gawd damn good under The King as compared with the Fat Tax Cattle milking-machine that has become the US Federal Government.

Last edited: Jan 21, 2013