Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did Marx ever lay down a clear

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:40:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:27:24 PM, Cermank wrote:
Idea about his purported socialist society? All I find the more I delve into it is capitalism bashing.

Communist Manifesto.

If you're reading Capital, I'm sorry, lol. The excerpts I had to read for college took me one hour for every 10 pages.

The Manifesto on the other hand is brief, easy to read, and answers your question. It's also quite insane and totally unrealistic, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:24:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:27:24 PM, Cermank wrote:
Idea about his purported socialist society? All I find the more I delve into it is capitalism bashing.

In his manifesto. Marx lives in a fantasy world. Like most utopias, it is completely unrealistic, with no consideration for the workings of the real world.
http://www.anu.edu.au...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:07:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
DAN TEE is actually a parrot I own, who at times does not parrot what I say and instead screeches SEMANTICS SEMANTICS, which causes spontaneous combustion in my head.

=)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:42:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was under the impression he discredited the menifesto later in his life. I think I read something about that, I'll try finding the article.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 12:37:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, besides the manifesto, he lays out the foundations of a post-capitalist society.

The key is POST-CAPITALISM. He fully advocates capitalism running its full course, just that there is an end to capitalism, and he attempted to envision how that end would look like. I don't recall exactly if he saw over-abundance of wealth as a problem. I also don't recall if he specifically said that the end of capitalism would coincide with the total and absolute marginalization of the proletariat. However, the distinct impression I was left with after reading Marx to the limited degree that I did was that those two factors would breed the perfect environment for a communist revolution, and that the mechanics of capitalism will necessarily make both occur. IMHO Marx is spot on, except for his ostensible solution to the problem.

His vision, like all utopias, like DAN TEE also eloquently mentioned, is quite unrealistic.

As to why I talk about Marx, I graduated from Berkeley. It's pretty much required reading here, regardless of what you think of it. Berkeley is why liberalism has veered off into socialist and quasi-communist directions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 6:26:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:24:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:27:24 PM, Cermank wrote:
Idea about his purported socialist society? All I find the more I delve into it is capitalism bashing.

In his manifesto. Marx lives in a fantasy world. Like most utopias, it is completely unrealistic, with no consideration for the workings of the real world.
http://www.anu.edu.au...

Yes, as seen by his terrible ability to answer questions: (yeah, joke video)
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 8:33:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 12:37:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Well, besides the manifesto, he lays out the foundations of a post-capitalist society.

The key is POST-CAPITALISM. He fully advocates capitalism running its full course, just that there is an end to capitalism, and he attempted to envision how that end would look like. I don't recall exactly if he saw over-abundance of wealth as a problem. I also don't recall if he specifically said that the end of capitalism would coincide with the total and absolute marginalization of the proletariat. However, the distinct impression I was left with after reading Marx to the limited degree that I did was that those two factors would breed the perfect environment for a communist revolution, and that the mechanics of capitalism will necessarily make both occur. IMHO Marx is spot on, except for his ostensible solution to the problem.

Exactly. Historical dialectism. I can even understand their capitalism bashing, some of the arguments make sense. But I can't understand what he wanted. Till now, I had been toying with the idea that he didnt lay down any normative judgement on capitalism, that he was a 'historian', in the traditional sense of the word. But even accepting that, he has to lay down the structure of his ' utopian' society. I know of a few societies ' Marxists' wanted, but I'm not sure if that's what he wanted.

His vision, like all utopias, like DAN TEE also eloquently mentioned, is quite unrealistic.

As to why I talk about Marx, I graduated from Berkeley. It's pretty much required reading here, regardless of what you think of it. Berkeley is why liberalism has veered off into socialist and quasi-communist directions.

Same here. But I'm kind of happy about that. It lets us decide whether we think that particular tenet has some merit or not.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:44:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 11:07:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
DAN TEE is actually a parrot I own, who at times does not parrot what I say and instead screeches SEMANTICS SEMANTICS, which causes spontaneous combustion in my head.

=)

I actually did not see your post. I usually look at the first post and comment, than I move on to reading other people's posts.

My interpretation of the Manifesto is that Marx believes property is evil, and that people should not own property. He lays out a prediction of the rise of his utopian world. He claims that when workers had enough, they will unite and form a democratically totalitarian government. That government will use despotic means to strip people of property rights. After every country on earth has independently adopted communism, the state would wither away due to a lack of necessity.

First off, communism goes against human nature. By nature humans have an instinct to seek and obtain property. Without a state, people would naturally revert back to capitalism. Furthermore, despotic states would not just wither away; all who gain power are afraid to lose it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; this is human nature. If said state did wither away, how would said communal ownership be organized? It is a complete mess from start to finish.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 12:49:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 6:26:54 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:24:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:27:24 PM, Cermank wrote:
Idea about his purported socialist society? All I find the more I delve into it is capitalism bashing.

In his manifesto. Marx lives in a fantasy world. Like most utopias, it is completely unrealistic, with no consideration for the workings of the real world.
http://www.anu.edu.au...

Yes, as seen by his terrible ability to answer questions: (yeah, joke video)

The anarcho-syndicalist scene from The Holy Grail was funnier
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 8:48:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 12:44:18 PM, DanT wrote:
My interpretation of the Manifesto is that Marx believes property is evil, and that people should not own property.

I don't remember this specifically. I'd have to reread it (not that I want to) to confirm this.

He lays out a prediction of the rise of his utopian world. He claims that when workers had enough, they will unite and form a democratically totalitarian government. That government will use despotic means to strip people of property rights. After every country on earth has independently adopted communism, the state would wither away due to a lack of necessity.

This sounds vaguely familiar. It is certainly what Trotsky attempted.

First off, communism goes against human nature. By nature humans have an instinct to seek and obtain property. Without a state, people would naturally revert back to capitalism. Furthermore, despotic states would not just wither away; all who gain power are afraid to lose it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; this is human nature. If said state did wither away, how would said communal ownership be organized? It is a complete mess from start to finish.

I largely agree with this perspective. The application to reality is that this is why Stalin triumphed over Trotsky, and also why Russia is CINO (communist in name only) today.

IMHO, whatever becomes "post-capitalist" would only replace capitalism in importance. The primary principles of capitalism would still survive. Similarly feudalism survives today (corporations), as does monarchy (customer is king), as does hunter-gatherer societies (Wall Street).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 3:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 8:48:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:44:18 PM, DanT wrote:
My interpretation of the Manifesto is that Marx believes property is evil, and that people should not own property.

I don't remember this specifically. I'd have to reread it (not that I want to) to confirm this.

"the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. "

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "

He lays out a prediction of the rise of his utopian world. He claims that when workers had enough, they will unite and form a democratically totalitarian government. That government will use despotic means to strip people of property rights. After every country on earth has independently adopted communism, the state would wither away due to a lack of necessity.

This sounds vaguely familiar. It is certainly what Trotsky attempted.

The 2nd half of Chapter 2, Proletarians and Communists
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 4:09:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 3:11:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 8:48:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:44:18 PM, DanT wrote:
My interpretation of the Manifesto is that Marx believes property is evil, and that people should not own property.

I don't remember this specifically. I'd have to reread it (not that I want to) to confirm this.

"the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. "


"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "

He lays out a prediction of the rise of his utopian world. He claims that when workers had enough, they will unite and form a democratically totalitarian government. That government will use despotic means to strip people of property rights. After every country on earth has independently adopted communism, the state would wither away due to a lack of necessity.

This sounds vaguely familiar. It is certainly what Trotsky attempted.

The 2nd half of Chapter 2, Proletarians and Communists

I knew it, you goddam commie...:o
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 8:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 4:09:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 3:11:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 8:48:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2013 12:44:18 PM, DanT wrote:
My interpretation of the Manifesto is that Marx believes property is evil, and that people should not own property.

I don't remember this specifically. I'd have to reread it (not that I want to) to confirm this.

"the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. "


"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "

He lays out a prediction of the rise of his utopian world. He claims that when workers had enough, they will unite and form a democratically totalitarian government. That government will use despotic means to strip people of property rights. After every country on earth has independently adopted communism, the state would wither away due to a lack of necessity.

This sounds vaguely familiar. It is certainly what Trotsky attempted.

The 2nd half of Chapter 2, Proletarians and Communists

I knew it, you goddam commie...:o

Know thy enemy
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 10:34:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, DAN TEE, since you seem to have an interest in this, what do you see as a post-capitalist society, if you see such a thing occurring?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 11:09:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 10:34:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So, DAN TEE, since you seem to have an interest in this, what do you see as a post-capitalist society, if you see such a thing occurring?

Pro-capitalism, would be a society with;
1) no taxation on property or income.
2) no prohibitions on ownership or trade
3) no government intervention, other than upholding and enforcing contracts
4) No minimum wage
5.) perfect competition
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 11:56:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 11:09:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 10:34:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So, DAN TEE, since you seem to have an interest in this, what do you see as a post-capitalist society, if you see such a thing occurring?

Pro-capitalism, would be a society with;
1) no taxation on property or income.
2) no prohibitions on ownership or trade
3) no government intervention, other than upholding and enforcing contracts
4) No minimum wage
5.) perfect competition

Interesting, but utopian. Any form of government intervention would require taxes of some sort. Exactly what would you tax, if not property or income? A sales tax would be seen as "a prohibition on trade".

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 11:56:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 11:09:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 10:34:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So, DAN TEE, since you seem to have an interest in this, what do you see as a post-capitalist society, if you see such a thing occurring?

Pro-capitalism, would be a society with;
1) no taxation on property or income.
2) no prohibitions on ownership or trade
3) no government intervention, other than upholding and enforcing contracts
4) No minimum wage
5.) perfect competition

Interesting, but utopian. Any form of government intervention would require taxes of some sort.
I didn't say no taxation, I said no direct taxation. Indirect taxation is still a possibility.
Exactly what would you tax, if not property or income? A sales tax would be seen as "a prohibition on trade".

Indirect taxation is the best form of taxation, because the tax burden can be adjusted from the supply to the demand and vice versa, by the market, whereas direct taxation cannot. Indirect taxation allows for the market to optimize taxation depending on elasticity of the supply and demand.
Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 11:56:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 11:09:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 10:34:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So, DAN TEE, since you seem to have an interest in this, what do you see as a post-capitalist society, if you see such a thing occurring?

Pro-capitalism, would be a society with;
1) no taxation on property or income.
2) no prohibitions on ownership or trade
3) no government intervention, other than upholding and enforcing contracts
4) No minimum wage
5.) perfect competition

Interesting, but utopian. Any form of government intervention would require taxes of some sort.
I didn't say no taxation, I said no direct taxation. Indirect taxation is still a possibility.

Indirect taxation would still be "taxes of some sort".

Exactly what would you tax, if not property or income? A sales tax would be seen as "a prohibition on trade".

Indirect taxation is the best form of taxation, because the tax burden can be adjusted from the supply to the demand and vice versa, by the market, whereas direct taxation cannot. Indirect taxation allows for the market to optimize taxation depending on elasticity of the supply and demand.

Give an example.

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.

Just to go into this a little more, in economics-speak, any business has one goal - profit maximization. This is achieved by achieving monopoly. Monopoly is achieved via eliminating the competition.

IMHO this is not good for a government...monopolies maximize profits for itself at the detriment of overall efficiency. In order for governments to prevent this, they must intervene to prevent monopolies from forming. This would add another valid purpose to your government on top of whatever you had prior.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 10:35:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 11:56:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 11:09:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 10:34:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So, DAN TEE, since you seem to have an interest in this, what do you see as a post-capitalist society, if you see such a thing occurring?

Pro-capitalism, would be a society with;
1) no taxation on property or income.
2) no prohibitions on ownership or trade
3) no government intervention, other than upholding and enforcing contracts
4) No minimum wage
5.) perfect competition

Interesting, but utopian. Any form of government intervention would require taxes of some sort.
I didn't say no taxation, I said no direct taxation. Indirect taxation is still a possibility.

Indirect taxation would still be "taxes of some sort".

I never said no taxation, I said no taxation on property or income.
Exactly what would you tax, if not property or income? A sales tax would be seen as "a prohibition on trade".

Indirect taxation is the best form of taxation, because the tax burden can be adjusted from the supply to the demand and vice versa, by the market, whereas direct taxation cannot. Indirect taxation allows for the market to optimize taxation depending on elasticity of the supply and demand.

Give an example.

You already gave an example. A sales tax. Sales tax does not tax property, nor does it tax income. A sales tax is paid indirectly, as business is conducted. The burden of the taxis shared by the producer (supply) and the consumer (demand); depending on the elasticity of the supply and demand, the burden of taxation can shift from the supplier to the consumer or vice versa, in order to minimize the deadweight loss caused by taxation.
Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.

That is basically what you said above. You did not explain how they would manage to do that, let alone how they will maintain their monopoly.

It is extremely hard to eliminate one's competition. I cannot think of a single monopoly, that was not formed without the help of government intervention. Can you? Maintaining a monopoly is even harder than creating one.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 10:51:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.

Just to go into this a little more, in economics-speak, any business has one goal - profit maximization. This is achieved by achieving monopoly. Monopoly is achieved via eliminating the competition.

Monopolies don't profit maximize. Only monopolies with a perfectly inelastic demand (elasticity of 0) can set abnormally high prices. In order to gain and maintain a monopoly, they must set and keep prices below the equilibrium, which hurts profits.

Profits are maximized at the equilibrium.
IMHO this is not good for a government...monopolies maximize profits for itself at the detriment of overall efficiency. In order for governments to prevent this, they must intervene to prevent monopolies from forming. This would add another valid purpose to your government on top of whatever you had prior.

Governments are more likely to prop up monopolies than to prevent them. With no government intervention either in favor or against monopolies, monopolies would be unlikely to form, and if and when they do, they would be unsustainable.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:04:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:35:16 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 11:56:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 11:09:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 10:34:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So, DAN TEE, since you seem to have an interest in this, what do you see as a post-capitalist society, if you see such a thing occurring?

Pro-capitalism, would be a society with;
1) no taxation on property or income.
2) no prohibitions on ownership or trade
3) no government intervention, other than upholding and enforcing contracts
4) No minimum wage
5.) perfect competition

Interesting, but utopian. Any form of government intervention would require taxes of some sort.
I didn't say no taxation, I said no direct taxation. Indirect taxation is still a possibility.

Indirect taxation would still be "taxes of some sort".

I never said no taxation, I said no taxation on property or income.

You are getting annoying. The bolded is a strawman by you - I also never mentioned "no taxation" - rather I am questioning exactly how you would implement taxes, because you have yet to lay out anything feasible under your model. Please learn to argue in a constructive manner.

Exactly what would you tax, if not property or income? A sales tax would be seen as "a prohibition on trade".

Indirect taxation is the best form of taxation, because the tax burden can be adjusted from the supply to the demand and vice versa, by the market, whereas direct taxation cannot. Indirect taxation allows for the market to optimize taxation depending on elasticity of the supply and demand.

Give an example.

You already gave an example. A sales tax. Sales tax does not tax property, nor does it tax income. A sales tax is paid indirectly, as business is conducted. The burden of the taxis shared by the producer (supply) and the consumer (demand); depending on the elasticity of the supply and demand, the burden of taxation can shift from the supplier to the consumer or vice versa, in order to minimize the deadweight loss caused by taxation.

I already told you that a sales tax would be a "prohibition on trade" and thus impossible under your framework. Please pay attention.

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.

That is basically what you said above. You did not explain how they would manage to do that, let alone how they will maintain their monopoly.

And you have not offered any explanation of how your model would work. What kind of game is this? I gave you detail, you claim it is not detail. What is your problem?

It is extremely hard to eliminate one's competition. I cannot think of a single monopoly, that was not formed without the help of government intervention. Can you? Maintaining a monopoly is even harder than creating one.

I cannot think of a single business that was not formed without the help of government intervention.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:10:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 10:51:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.

Just to go into this a little more, in economics-speak, any business has one goal - profit maximization. This is achieved by achieving monopoly. Monopoly is achieved via eliminating the competition.

Monopolies don't profit maximize. Only monopolies with a perfectly inelastic demand (elasticity of 0) can set abnormally high prices. In order to gain and maintain a monopoly, they must set and keep prices below the equilibrium, which hurts profits.

Profits are maximized at the equilibrium.

Monopolies maximize profits for the monopoly firm. They do not maximize profits for the system as a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The rest of your comment is either irrelevant or inaccurate, especially the underlined, which does not describe a monopoly.

IMHO this is not good for a government...monopolies maximize profits for itself at the detriment of overall efficiency. In order for governments to prevent this, they must intervene to prevent monopolies from forming. This would add another valid purpose to your government on top of whatever you had prior.

Governments are more likely to prop up monopolies than to prevent them. With no government intervention either in favor or against monopolies, monopolies would be unlikely to form, and if and when they do, they would be unsustainable.

History would disagree with you. I'm sure you're aware of what anti-trust regulation is, so exactly how you can make this kind of a claim is beyond me.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:25:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:10:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:51:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.

Just to go into this a little more, in economics-speak, any business has one goal - profit maximization. This is achieved by achieving monopoly. Monopoly is achieved via eliminating the competition.

Monopolies don't profit maximize. Only monopolies with a perfectly inelastic demand (elasticity of 0) can set abnormally high prices. In order to gain and maintain a monopoly, they must set and keep prices below the equilibrium, which hurts profits.

Profits are maximized at the equilibrium.

Monopolies maximize profits for the monopoly firm. They do not maximize profits for the system as a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

>.< Did you even read the source? It said that because monopolies don't have to worry about losing customers they can set prices that are abnormally high. That requires a perfectly inelastic demand, because high prices are determined by the demand not the supply. If the demand is not perfectly inelastic any increase in price would reduce the demand.
The rest of your comment is either irrelevant or inaccurate, especially the underlined, which does not describe a monopoly.

Without government intervention monopolies can only form through competing. This means lower prices, and better quality products. Once a monopoly is obtained, it must be maintained. In order to prevent upstart competitors from gaining control of the market, they must maintain those low prices. Without government intervention, the monopoly cannot be maintained.
IMHO this is not good for a government...monopolies maximize profits for itself at the detriment of overall efficiency. In order for governments to prevent this, they must intervene to prevent monopolies from forming. This would add another valid purpose to your government on top of whatever you had prior.

Governments are more likely to prop up monopolies than to prevent them. With no government intervention either in favor or against monopolies, monopolies would be unlikely to form, and if and when they do, they would be unsustainable.

History would disagree with you.
No history would agree with me.
I'm sure you're aware of what anti-trust regulation is, so exactly how you can make this kind of a claim is beyond me.
Please name one monopoly that anti-trust regulations broke up, which formed without the help of government. I did not say government would never break up monopolies, I said they were more likely to prop them up than to tear them down.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:10:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 11:25:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:10:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:51:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.

Just to go into this a little more, in economics-speak, any business has one goal - profit maximization. This is achieved by achieving monopoly. Monopoly is achieved via eliminating the competition.

Monopolies don't profit maximize. Only monopolies with a perfectly inelastic demand (elasticity of 0) can set abnormally high prices. In order to gain and maintain a monopoly, they must set and keep prices below the equilibrium, which hurts profits.

Profits are maximized at the equilibrium.

Monopolies maximize profits for the monopoly firm. They do not maximize profits for the system as a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

>.< Did you even read the source? It said that because monopolies don't have to worry about losing customers they can set prices that are abnormally high. That requires a perfectly inelastic demand, because high prices are determined by the demand not the supply. If the demand is not perfectly inelastic any increase in price would reduce the demand.

The bolded point to a CLEAR CONTRADICTION in your argument.

I'm not commenting to you again in this thread. In fact, at this point, I'm thinking about ignoring you altogether. You capacity for reason is just not strong. You continually attempt to obfuscate a matter in order to attack disjointed arguments...you do this far too often. Most people get lost in whatever maze of semantics and arguments you construct, and when you somehow pull out some semblance of a fact, they become convinced you are right, because you've convinced everyone else beforehand that nothing made any sense.

You are much more polite than royalpaladin, but politeness does not excuse the constant barrage of logical inconsistencies that are typical in how you present an argument.

Please name one monopoly that anti-trust regulations broke up, which formed without the help of government. I did not say government would never break up monopolies, I said they were more likely to prop them up than to tear them down.

Again, please name ONE BUSINESS that formed without the help of the government. You cannot. Any and all businesses owe their existences to contract law, a government function.

You do not contest my statement in a prior comment: "I cannot think of a single business that was not formed without the help of government intervention."

Therefore, taking away your absolutely ridiculous stipulation, Standard Oil, a business that like any business, monopoly or otherwise, owed its existence to government regulation, was torn down due to anti-trust law.

Don't bother commenting to this, or at least don't bother expecting me to respond to whatever crap you post as a response.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:25:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:10:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:25:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:10:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:51:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

Perfect competition is unsustainable, IMHO. My reasoning would stem from my (IMHO substantiated) beliefs that balance of powers are also unsustainable.

A little more detail on why you believe that would be nice.

This kind of goes into it:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu...

Essentially, any competitor has one goal, to eliminate their competition. Eventually, someone will.

Just to go into this a little more, in economics-speak, any business has one goal - profit maximization. This is achieved by achieving monopoly. Monopoly is achieved via eliminating the competition.

Monopolies don't profit maximize. Only monopolies with a perfectly inelastic demand (elasticity of 0) can set abnormally high prices. In order to gain and maintain a monopoly, they must set and keep prices below the equilibrium, which hurts profits.

Profits are maximized at the equilibrium.

Monopolies maximize profits for the monopoly firm. They do not maximize profits for the system as a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

>.< Did you even read the source? It said that because monopolies don't have to worry about losing customers they can set prices that are abnormally high. That requires a perfectly inelastic demand, because high prices are determined by the demand not the supply. If the demand is not perfectly inelastic any increase in price would reduce the demand.

The bolded point to a CLEAR CONTRADICTION in your argument.

No it doesn't. I've already stated that if there is an inelastic demand, than they can set prices abnormally high; that is the requirement for monopolistic pricing. If they choose to exercise that ability, after gaining a monopoly, they run the risk of losing their monopoly to competitors.

I'm not commenting to you again in this thread. In fact, at this point, I'm thinking about ignoring you altogether. You capacity for reason is just not strong.
Ad Hominem. I would say the same for you.
You continually attempt to obfuscate a matter in order to attack disjointed arguments... you do this far too often.
No I don't Pot, so stop calling me black.
Most people get lost in whatever maze of semantics and arguments you construct, and when you somehow pull out some semblance of a fact, they become convinced you are right, because you've convinced everyone else beforehand that nothing made any sense.

LOL WTF? Please point out where I used semantics. Not once did I use semantics. The people who usually accuse me of semantics are the ones who are actually using semantics. Please look up the defintion of semantics. There are 2 main forms of semantics;
1.) a semantic argument, where you attack the words used rather than the concept.
2.) a semantic shift, where you change the meaning of a word to make a point.
I have not used either of these. You on the other hand did.
You are much more polite than royalpaladin, but politeness does not excuse the constant barrage of logical inconsistencies that are typical in how you present an argument.

I don't have logical inconsistencies. I have noticed that you, and many others on and off DDO, have the tendency to apply subtext where none exists, due to preconceived notions of what you think is or will be conveyed.

Please name one monopoly that anti-trust regulations broke up, which formed without the help of government. I did not say government would never break up monopolies, I said they were more likely to prop them up than to tear them down.

Again, please name ONE BUSINESS that formed without the help of the government.
The General store down the street from my house, Facebook Inc, Apple Inc., and so on. Most companies are started without the help of government.
You cannot. Any and all businesses owe their existences to contract law, a government function.

I said above that government's only economic role in a capitalist society is to uphold contracts between parties. You accuse me of being obtuse, when you are the one twisting words, and avoiding questions.
You do not contest my statement in a prior comment: "I cannot think of a single business that was not formed without the help of government intervention."

It is not the topic of discussion. It is obviously wrong, and not worth contesting. Even if the government was so controlling, that they decided who failed and who seceded, that is not proof that businesses could not succeed if the government stopped intervening.

Your claim is essentially that P is false from the fact that P is not proved (or known) to be true.

Therefore, taking away your absolutely ridiculous stipulation, Standard Oil, a business that like any business, monopoly or otherwise, owed its existence to government regulation, was torn down due to anti-trust law.

Standard Oil's ability to become a monopoly was due to a large list of government patents, which gave them a technological monopoly over the means of production.
Don't bother commenting to this, or at least don't bother expecting me to respond to whatever crap you post as a response.

I'm not posing crap, Pot, so stop calling me black.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:28:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:25:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:10:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:25:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:10:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:51:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

<ignored>

<Cathartic response>

DanT, don't bother me, and I won't bother you.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:08:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 7:28:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:25:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:10:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:25:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:10:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:51:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

<ignored>

<Cathartic response>

DanT, don't bother me, and I won't bother you.

Ditto.... You are the one who started this back and forth.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:13:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:08:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 7:28:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:25:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:10:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:25:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 11:10:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 10:51:26 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:33:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 1:23:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 12:50:51 AM, DanT wrote:

<ignored>

<Cathartic response>

DanT, don't bother me, and I won't bother you.

Ditto.... You are the one who started this back and forth.

Omg, you two are still at it?