Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

On capitalism

benko12345678
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:19:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

The negatives of capitalism outweigh the benefits- why do people have to be so competitive? It's immature to hoard wealth and and excess the way capitalists do. It strains the majority. No matter what the capitalists tell you, they are always greedy and that's the reason they want to accumulate so much wealth. They're ripping you off by taking away what you create for them and only giving some of it back. You're exchanging the wealth you've created for other goods by using your salary... But you're being ripped off. Systems that are founded on the creation of imbalances, non-necessities, and unfairness are severely questionable. Remember slavery?
You can call me Mark if you like.
benko12345678
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:52:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:19:39 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

The negatives of capitalism outweigh the benefits- why do people have to be so competitive? It's immature to hoard wealth and and excess the way capitalists do. It strains the majority. No matter what the capitalists tell you, they are always greedy and that's the reason they want to accumulate so much wealth. They're ripping you off by taking away what you create for them and only giving some of it back. You're exchanging the wealth you've created for other goods by using your salary... But you're being ripped off. Systems that are founded on the creation of imbalances, non-necessities, and unfairness are severely questionable. Remember slavery?

You are aware that I was speaking against capitalism, right?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:54:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:52:35 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:19:39 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

The negatives of capitalism outweigh the benefits- why do people have to be so competitive? It's immature to hoard wealth and and excess the way capitalists do. It strains the majority. No matter what the capitalists tell you, they are always greedy and that's the reason they want to accumulate so much wealth. They're ripping you off by taking away what you create for them and only giving some of it back. You're exchanging the wealth you've created for other goods by using your salary... But you're being ripped off. Systems that are founded on the creation of imbalances, non-necessities, and unfairness are severely questionable. Remember slavery?

You are aware that I was speaking against capitalism, right?

Uh, yeah.
You can call me Mark if you like.
jvenia
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 11:20:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

Competition is what moves the economy forward. Businesses competing to be the best, which creates the best prices and deals. People start business because they are motivated to make money and become wealthy. If you take that away and start to spread wealth so every will make the same amount of money, then what motivation do people have to start and run businesses. There would be none. People would eventually stop working and soon there would be more takers then producers. The economy would eventually collapse.
benko12345678
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 11:33:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 11:20:54 AM, jvenia wrote:
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

Competition is what moves the economy forward. Businesses competing to be the best, which creates the best prices and deals. People start business because they are motivated to make money and become wealthy. If you take that away and start to spread wealth so every will make the same amount of money, then what motivation do people have to start and run businesses. There would be none. People would eventually stop working and soon there would be more takers then producers. The economy would eventually collapse.

I think the profit motive has failed. People produce commodities to make money, to make a profit, but not everyone has equal opportunity. Tell me, honestly, what's more important: Knowing you live in a country with high GDP or knowing that all humans are on the same income level as you and nobody's starving...
jvenia
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 1:44:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 11:33:45 AM, benko12345678 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 11:20:54 AM, jvenia wrote:
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

Competition is what moves the economy forward. Businesses competing to be the best, which creates the best prices and deals. People start business because they are motivated to make money and become wealthy. If you take that away and start to spread wealth so every will make the same amount of money, then what motivation do people have to start and run businesses. There would be none. People would eventually stop working and soon there would be more takers then producers. The economy would eventually collapse.

I think the profit motive has failed. People produce commodities to make money, to make a profit, but not everyone has equal opportunity. Tell me, honestly, what's more important: Knowing you live in a country with high GDP or knowing that all humans are on the same income level as you and nobody's starving...

First off in a capitalism everyone has the opportunity to become wealthy, there may be a few exceptions, like people with certain disability but there a many programs made to help them. Look at people like Del Vecchio, John Paul DeJoria, Carnegie, and Chris Gardner, these people started out with little to nothing and where able to become very successful. These people would never be able to get where they are too day without capitalism. It wouldn't be fair if everyone was on the same income level, because some people work harder then others. Some people a lazy and don't care about work and others are hard working. Now do you think it fair that someone who decides not to go to college because its too much work and get a part time job as waiter to be making the same as someone who went to college worked hard and created a successful business?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 4:46:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:19:39 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

The negatives of capitalism outweigh the benefits- why do people have to be so competitive? It's immature to hoard wealth and and excess the way capitalists do. It strains the majority. No matter what the capitalists tell you, they are always greedy and that's the reason they want to accumulate so much wealth. They're ripping you off by taking away what you create for them and only giving some of it back. You're exchanging the wealth you've created for other goods by using your salary... But you're being ripped off. Systems that are founded on the creation of imbalances, non-necessities, and unfairness are severely questionable. Remember slavery?

1. You're paid for your labour, yes it's calculate from (and sometime even far more than its utilitarian value) from the product you have produced. Labour that did not produce anything has no value - because it doesn't contribute to anything.

2. Resources are hoarded because they are needed needed, we have lived in the world of scarcity that means we all can't get exactly what we want without doing something a bit more than other to get yourself ahead of the line. Hoarding is not exactly accurate to describe capitalism as well, simply hoarded resources will only degraded their value, the key feature of capitalism is to give it - to someone you known could make use of it to the point that they can give it back more than they have been given and be happy.

3. Capitalism create competition, yes, but in normal circumstances competition also create extra resources which reduce scarcity, while scarcity can't be truly eliminated because we always want more - having more resources means better standard of living, whether you like our current living or not, it is far better than what it was 100 years ago. And that's thanks to varied degree of capitalism around the globe.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 4:41:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 1:44:11 PM, jvenia wrote:
At 11/6/2014 11:33:45 AM, benko12345678 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 11:20:54 AM, jvenia wrote:
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

Competition is what moves the economy forward. Businesses competing to be the best, which creates the best prices and deals. People start business because they are motivated to make money and become wealthy. If you take that away and start to spread wealth so every will make the same amount of money, then what motivation do people have to start and run businesses. There would be none. People would eventually stop working and soon there would be more takers then producers. The economy would eventually collapse.

I think the profit motive has failed. People produce commodities to make money, to make a profit, but not everyone has equal opportunity. Tell me, honestly, what's more important: Knowing you live in a country with high GDP or knowing that all humans are on the same income level as you and nobody's starving...

First off in a capitalism everyone has the opportunity to become wealthy, there may be a few exceptions, like people with certain disability but there a many programs made to help them. Look at people like Del Vecchio, John Paul DeJoria, Carnegie, and Chris Gardner, these people started out with little to nothing and where able to become very successful. These people would never be able to get where they are too day without capitalism. It wouldn't be fair if everyone was on the same income level, because some people work harder then others. Some people a lazy and don't care about work and others are hard working. Now do you think it fair that someone who decides not to go to college because its too much work and get a part time job as waiter to be making the same as someone who went to college worked hard and created a successful business?

"In capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to become wealthy."
Above is one of the fundamental lies of capitalism. In order for capitalists to be able to produce goods and services, and to derive profit from those goods and services, there must be a body of workers, and the body of workers must exceed, in size, the body of capitalists. I will explain more below.

"Wealthy, like "poor", is a relative term, and to claim otherwise would be folly. The "poor" comprise the lowest class, the classes based on income or net worth benchmarks, and the "wealthy" comprise the highest class. It is generally accepted that, if one is rich, they are not required to do labor of the sort the proletariat does in capitalism. The rich mainly have to manage enterprises and investments. Since the success of the wealthy business owners- the capitalists- depends on a ready supply of purchasable labor, there CANNOT BE ALL WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS. Furthermore, in order to keep up with demand in Most Developed Countries, capitalists are forced to look elsewhere for the cheap labor they need to fulfill the demands of the inhabitants of those countries. The world is effectively becoming one country; The Most Developed Countries and their rich cronies in Least Developed Countries comprise the upper ruling class and the Least Developed Countries' masses comprise the lower classes. The world will become stratified in the end: The MDCs will be comprised of rich people, and the LDCs of poor people. In capitalism, it can be no other way. The middle class will largely disappear and wealth will become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, relatively speaking.

Thus, social homogenization potential of the sort you mentioned is incompatible with capitalism.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 4:45:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 4:46:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:19:39 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/5/2014 2:28:09 PM, benko12345678 wrote:
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens McDonalds' business, so what do they do? They subsidize it, including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and competition to large corporations.

Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists, the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute control.
-By Benjamin Virant

The negatives of capitalism outweigh the benefits- why do people have to be so competitive? It's immature to hoard wealth and and excess the way capitalists do. It strains the majority. No matter what the capitalists tell you, they are always greedy and that's the reason they want to accumulate so much wealth. They're ripping you off by taking away what you create for them and only giving some of it back. You're exchanging the wealth you've created for other goods by using your salary... But you're being ripped off. Systems that are founded on the creation of imbalances, non-necessities, and unfairness are severely questionable. Remember slavery?

1. You're paid for your labour, yes it's calculate from (and sometime even far more than its utilitarian value) from the product you have produced. Labour that did not produce anything has no value - because it doesn't contribute to anything.

2. Resources are hoarded because they are needed needed, we have lived in the world of scarcity that means we all can't get exactly what we want without doing something a bit more than other to get yourself ahead of the line. Hoarding is not exactly accurate to describe capitalism as well, simply hoarded resources will only degraded their value, the key feature of capitalism is to give it - to someone you known could make use of it to the point that they can give it back more than they have been given and be happy.

3. Capitalism create competition, yes, but in normal circumstances competition also create extra resources which reduce scarcity, while scarcity can't be truly eliminated because we always want more - having more resources means better standard of living, whether you like our current living or not, it is far better than what it was 100 years ago. And that's thanks to varied degree of capitalism around the globe.

Regarding your statements, in order:

2. Is the hoarding of yachts a necessity?

3. The Earth's resources are at a fixed amount, in different forms, independent of competition. So are the Earth's accessible resources.
You can call me Mark if you like.