continuing the debate. on to a new topic!

[ho_ho_mama]

judging from the success of my last entry, ive decided to keep this thing going. ive found that people enjoy anything that lets them express their opinions. so heres todays topic...

CAPITALISM:

Fair Competition or Rich Man's Fascism (pronounced, in this case, Fuh-SHISM!)

pros and cons:

pros: free enterprise. you get to choose which company to buy

Comments

[anonymous]

Capitalism is good until companies like Microsoft begin to buy out little companies and control the entire computer market. I really don't think we should have anyone with direct ties to a major corporation i.e. Dick "Please God don't let my heart stop now" Cheney like he does with Haliburton, they control most of the reconstruction contracts for Iraq. HE aslo let them "contribute" during his secret energy meetings that determined the Energy and Emissions Standards for the US.

[ho_ho_mama]

Microsoft also makes one of the best computers in America. he got so rich because his product is the best. the joy of capitalism is: anyone out there with a better product has the freedom to put it on the market! and if the people think its better, then they will buy it, hereby making that company progress.

[anonymous]

They are far from the best. I would rank them 5th since they don't do much with the actual computer hardware. They really only make really shitty OS and steal ideas from Steve Jobs.

So capitalism give Microsoft the right to monopolize? I don't think so. What's the point of a FREE market if the only thing on it is one thing.

[ho_ho_mama]

thats where your wrong, buddy.

"What's the point of a FREE market if the only thing on it is one thing."

theres WAY more than one computer company in our economy.
you can choose between lots of computer companies. microsost just happens to be the richest. however, that doesnt mean that other computer companies dont exist. therefore, its no monopoly.

and another beautiful fact about capitalism is this... you can buy whichever computer you want! ::joy!:: so if you hate microsoft, then BUY SOMETHING ELSE! YAY! thats your freedom! it rocks.

[eye_knead_name]

Lol... I'm Adam Smith for that interdisciplinary thing... he's like Mr. Laissez-Faire.

But anyway, I like capitalism. And I think that the 'invisible hand' thing is true. If everyone is looking out for their best interests, then it all works out. I get the lowest price possible, the company I buy from gets my money, and the company I don't buy from decides that they need a better product, a different market, or something like that.

But you need to have SOME sort of control, because if you get monopolies and stuff, prices just go up. It's just like the board game. If somebody has Boardwalk just Boardwalk, it's $50 (correct me if I'm wrong). If they have Boardwalk and Park Place, a monopoly, Boardwalk goes up to $100, and Park Place to $70. And once they have the monopoly, and the money, they can build upon the monopoly, causing the price to pay to get larger.

So there needs to be some control, otherwise the consumer will be hurt more than they will be helped.

[ho_ho_mama]

EXACTLY!

create a standard set of rules, such as government intervention IN DIRE CASES ONLY to prevent monopolies, but from there on just let the companies do what they will! in a free economy, the people choose which companies excel by who they buy things from. in the end, everyone is happy. the people get their products and the company gets its money. and rival companies realize that they need a better product, therefore, they work harder! thorugh this, they give people a choice between what companies they buy from! Its beautiful!

[eye_knead_name]

Not all companies make products we use. Look at Haliburton it makes most of its money due too drilling and reconstruction, Dick Cheney used to be CEO of Haliburton,Iraq needs reconstruction,Dick Cheney gives the contracts to Haliburton. Thats not monopolizing?

[ho_ho_mama]

no, silly, of course its not monopolizing! Cheney gave the contratcs to Haliburton because he, as a citizen, deemed them most fit to reconstruct Iraq. if, in his opinion, there was a better company out there for the job, he would have hired them instead.

okay lets take this scenario. its completely hyopthetical by the way.

>>i need my wall fixed because it has a giant hole in it. ive heard that Shiznit is a good company. so i hire them to fix my wall. i saw satisfied with the work they did, so from then on, i hire Shiznit to fix things in my house. its my right, as a citizen of a free economy, that i choose whichever company i deem fir for the job, because i like them. <<

now, is that a monopoly? hell no! its called LET THE BUYER CHOOSE WHICH COMPANY IS BEST.

its free economy, baby, yeah!

[ho_ho_mama]

WHY SHOULD HE!?!?!

he should be able to do whatever he thinks is necessary. it wasnt breaking the law, therfore, its OKAY. those other companies should just chill.

[somasonic]

it's like churchill's quote about democracy: "democracy doesn't work, but it's the best we've got."

ok, so competition blah blah so great, yeah. the issue is that karl marx's communist manifesto, although it didn't contain a viable alternative, definitely brings up the best points about why capitalism is bad. i'll illustrate the qualms in today's world for you.

remember when there were terrible factories? you can read about the triangle factory fire or read sinclair's The Jungle if you'd like, i'm sure you know plenty of other stories and facts. remember when there was child labor? remember when the market for work was so bad you'd go to work and replace someone who was working for a nickel a day and get paid a penny a day and you took their job from them not because you can live off of a penny a day but just because it's better than not making anything? i mean, obviously we don't, but we know about all of these sorts of things, and that things like them happened throughout history

[ho_ho_mama]

the entire reason third world countries are in such bad shape is because they dont have a free economy

[somasonic]

companies like that started in eras when there wasn't fast food. how often do you see new fast food companies? the market is pretty saturated and doesn't allow growth of new businesses. snapple is a good example of something that started up and was popular in the past 20 years, but the non-carbonated beverages market was almost nonexistent then, and it was quickly bought up by one company after another. i think pepsi owns it now. basically, already-created markets can't be broken into. did you know rc cola consistently wins in taste tests against coke and pepsi? it sure doesn't have the brand name or the advertising budget, though.

plenty of third world countries do have free economies. america does pretty well installing capitalism in all of them, even if they have to kill people to do it (other links here, here. united fruit owned land in guatemala, then the guy who was elected to power decided that monopolistic foreign companies were no good, so he redistributed their land to landless people to farm as they saw fit, offering the

[ho_ho_mama]

well, the only thing i know is that the country of Ecuador doesnt have a free economy, and because of that, the people are out on the streets, DIRT poor. im serious, like hundreds of them RACKED UP holding styrofoam cups begging for money because there is no possible way for them to get a job. their economy sucks. sure, ours might have some flaws, but its not nearly as bad as that. thats enough to make me think our economy kinda rocks.