Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Plutocrat Elites Hate the Free Market

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 5:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
DeFool says that plutocrats and the wealthy elite love the free market where they are granted full ability to run rampant with power. FALSE. The wealthy elite hate the free market and competition of business. The rules and regulations benefit the big corporations and suffocate small businesses. The free market unchains the small businesses and allows the consumers to decide and regulate the market, not bureaucrats.

Learn your history:

"Rockefeller and Rothschild were competing as the world's foremost oil and banking barons. But the two competitors each finally realized that competition was not a good thing. The more oil wells they drilled, the more oil was produced, the more the price of oil per barrel fell. This led a disgruntled John D. Rockefeller to exclaim, 'Competition is a sin!'

A solution, therefore, was soon brokered. It was decided that the world"s markets would geographically be carved up, with the two barons, Rockefeller and Rothschild, each having their separate, well-defined shares. Moreover, limits would be put on oil produced globally so as to keep the market price as high as possible."

http://www.texemarrs.com...

To this day, David Rockefeller fears Ron Paul because Ron Paul supports the free market and decentralized banking.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 9:17:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
We are not discussing a stable set of ideas. I will explain:

Plutocrats are "persons whose power derives from their wealth."(Google Online Dictionary)

Free Markets are defined as "An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." (Google Online Dictionary)

In order for the OA to be valid, the terms "plutocrat" and "Free Markets" would need to define substantially different things. The commentator attempts to do this by describing "Free Markets" as something that supports competition, and not profits.

Obviously, I disagree with all of this.

In order for the argument to be taken seriously, the following conditions might be met:

1. Free Marketeers must be shown not to, "derive power from their wealth." (How can a system be called a "market" if it has no wealth or influence?)

2. Free Marketeers must be shown to hold a love of competition that is greater than their love of profits.

It may be argued that 'supporters' of the Free Markets are synonymous with the markets themselves. If so, this will need to be demonstrated as well.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 9:42:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 9:17:50 AM, DeFool wrote:
We are not discussing a stable set of ideas. I will explain:

Plutocrats are "persons whose power derives from their wealth."(Google Online Dictionary)

Free Markets are defined as "An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." (Google Online Dictionary)

In order for the OA to be valid, the terms "plutocrat" and "Free Markets" would need to define substantially different things. The commentator attempts to do this by describing "Free Markets" as something that supports competition, and not profits.

Obviously, I disagree with all of this.

In order for the argument to be taken seriously, the following conditions might be met:

1. Free Marketeers must be shown not to, "derive power from their wealth." (How can a system be called a "market" if it has no wealth or influence?)

2. Free Marketeers must be shown to hold a love of competition that is greater than their love of profits.

It may be argued that 'supporters' of the Free Markets are synonymous with the markets themselves. If so, this will need to be demonstrated as well.

^^^^^

This is what happens if you try to argue against libertarian ideas without understanding them at all.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 10:19:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 9:17:50 AM, DeFool wrote:
We are not discussing a stable set of ideas. I will explain:

Plutocrats are "persons whose power derives from their wealth."(Google Online Dictionary)

Free Markets are defined as "An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." (Google Online Dictionary)

In order for the OA to be valid, the terms "plutocrat" and "Free Markets" would need to define substantially different things. The commentator attempts to do this by describing "Free Markets" as something that supports competition, and not profits.

Obviously, I disagree with all of this.

In order for the argument to be taken seriously, the following conditions might be met:

1. Free Marketeers must be shown not to, "derive power from their wealth." (How can a system be called a "market" if it has no wealth or influence?)

2. Free Marketeers must be shown to hold a love of competition that is greater than their love of profits.

It is the love of profits that sparks competition. When a firm is seen to be making money in a specific industry, other companies will jump in and try to take a share. This can be likened to sharks and blood in the water. When a shark attacks its prey, blood is released from the prey's body, other sharks smell the blood, and they try to take a share of the meat.

It may be argued that 'supporters' of the Free Markets are synonymous with the markets themselves. If so, this will need to be demonstrated as well.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:22:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 10:19:05 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
It is the love of profits that sparks competition. When a firm is seen to be making money in a specific industry, other companies will jump in and try to take a share. This can be likened to sharks and blood in the water. When a shark attacks its prey, blood is released from the prey's body, other sharks smell the blood, and they try to take a share of the meat.

I'm quite competitive, and yet I have no desire for personal profit. Nor do I have any love of money.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:58:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 10:19:05 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/31/2013 9:17:50 AM, DeFool wrote:
We are not discussing a stable set of ideas. I will explain:

Plutocrats are "persons whose power derives from their wealth."(Google Online Dictionary)

Free Markets are defined as "An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." (Google Online Dictionary)

In order for the OA to be valid, the terms "plutocrat" and "Free Markets" would need to define substantially different things. The commentator attempts to do this by describing "Free Markets" as something that supports competition, and not profits.

Obviously, I disagree with all of this.

In order for the argument to be taken seriously, the following conditions might be met:

1. Free Marketeers must be shown not to, "derive power from their wealth." (How can a system be called a "market" if it has no wealth or influence?)

2. Free Marketeers must be shown to hold a love of competition that is greater than their love of profits.

It is the love of profits that sparks competition. When a firm is seen to be making money in a specific industry, other companies will jump in and try to take a share. This can be likened to sharks and blood in the water. When a shark attacks its prey, blood is released from the prey's body, other sharks smell the blood, and they try to take a share of the meat.

This is a false analogy, markets are not like sharks. And society/consumers should not be equated with "prey" with spurting blood that corporate giants can devour with impunity.

But again, there is no reason to think that the lords of the free markets cannot be plutocratic, and seek to push legislation that benefits them - even if it also harms the mass of society.

If the robber barons and parasitic corporate tyrannies are plutocratic, they cannot be said to be in open opposition to the condition of plutocracy. In order for any such thing to be convincing, we must demonstrate how these wealthy kingmakers do not hold power and influence due to their wealth. Otherwise the premise falls apart as nonsensical.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 3:11:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:58:32 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/31/2013 10:19:05 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/31/2013 9:17:50 AM, DeFool wrote:
We are not discussing a stable set of ideas. I will explain:

Plutocrats are "persons whose power derives from their wealth."(Google Online Dictionary)

Free Markets are defined as "An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." (Google Online Dictionary)

In order for the OA to be valid, the terms "plutocrat" and "Free Markets" would need to define substantially different things. The commentator attempts to do this by describing "Free Markets" as something that supports competition, and not profits.

Obviously, I disagree with all of this.

In order for the argument to be taken seriously, the following conditions might be met:

1. Free Marketeers must be shown not to, "derive power from their wealth." (How can a system be called a "market" if it has no wealth or influence?)

2. Free Marketeers must be shown to hold a love of competition that is greater than their love of profits.

It is the love of profits that sparks competition. When a firm is seen to be making money in a specific industry, other companies will jump in and try to take a share. This can be likened to sharks and blood in the water. When a shark attacks its prey, blood is released from the prey's body, other sharks smell the blood, and they try to take a share of the meat.

This is a false analogy, markets are not like sharks. And society/consumers should not be equated with "prey" with spurting blood that corporate giants can devour with impunity.

Of course not everything about that analogy lines up perfectly. The important parts about are the blood in the water and the shark's desire to get a share of the meat. The prey/meat is more analogous to the profits. When people know that there are profits to be made in an industry, or with a new tactic for production, competition arises. When one shark finds some meat, other sharks smell the blood and try to get a share of that meat.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:04:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:22:39 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/31/2013 10:19:05 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
It is the love of profits that sparks competition. When a firm is seen to be making money in a specific industry, other companies will jump in and try to take a share. This can be likened to sharks and blood in the water. When a shark attacks its prey, blood is released from the prey's body, other sharks smell the blood, and they try to take a share of the meat.

I'm quite competitive, and yet I have no desire for personal profit. Nor do I have any love of money.

How about a house, food to feed your family, comfortable life, car, fuel, savings, leisure.

If you want any of the above you want money. Money is the unit of exchange for goods and services. Incentive exists to make money and participate in the market.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 5:53:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:04:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How about a house, food to feed your family, comfortable life, car, fuel, savings, leisure.

Well, a house is nice, though I don't mind renting or having an apartment. Food is of course required, but it doesn't have to be gourmet. A comfortable life is also good, though my definition pretty much consists of 'be able to go to library, do not live in an abusive situation, and sleep eight hours a day. I don't care if I have a car or not. Fuel is pretty much irrelevant. Savings are only necessary to make sure I don't die if I get fired. Leisure does not require money. Certainly not any significant amounts of it.

I also said I didn't want enough money to survive, I said that my primary motive is not personal profit.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:42:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It remains the case that plutocrats support the free market community because they define it.

We can twist the definition of "competition" to pretend that the Free Markets are less "Market" than "Free."

It will still remain that the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. It is impossible to envision a true competition where both parties strive to enrich one another. This type of mutual enrichment would fail to qualify as "competition," and instead be better understood as "cooperation."

If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another. This process, if left unchecked, results in monopoly when one super-competitor has eliminated all rivals.

The Lords of the Free Markets are Plutocrats.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:52:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:42:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
It remains the case that plutocrats support the free market community because they define it.

We can twist the definition of "competition" to pretend that the Free Markets are less "Market" than "Free."

It will still remain that the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. It is impossible to envision a true competition where both parties strive to enrich one another. This type of mutual enrichment would fail to qualify as "competition," and instead be better understood as "cooperation."

Intent=/=Outcome

If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another. This process, if left unchecked, results in monopoly when one super-competitor has eliminated all rivals.

Monopolies are usually created by the government, and a monopoly is not bad if the business that has monopolized a certain industry is offering the best price with the best quality, if they are not another business will come along and do so and break the monopoly, that is the point of the free market. For a monopoly to exist the competition has to be eradicated by making a product that is so cost-effective and appealing that it blows away the others, a monopoly would have to maintain said product and improve upon it as others would always be trying to out perform their product.

The Lords of the Free Markets are Plutocrats.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 1:23:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:52:16 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:42:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
It remains the case that plutocrats support the free market community because they define it.

We can twist the definition of "competition" to pretend that the Free Markets are less "Market" than "Free."

It will still remain that the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. It is impossible to envision a true competition where both parties strive to enrich one another. This type of mutual enrichment would fail to qualify as "competition," and instead be better understood as "cooperation."

Intent=/=Outcome

If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another. This process, if left unchecked, results in monopoly when one super-competitor has eliminated all rivals.

Monopolies are usually created by the government, and a monopoly is not bad if the business that has monopolized a certain industry is offering the best price with the best quality, if they are not another business will come along and do so and break the monopoly, that is the point of the free market. For a monopoly to exist the competition has to be eradicated by making a product that is so cost-effective and appealing that it blows away the others, a monopoly would have to maintain said product and improve upon it as others would always be trying to out perform their product.

The Lords of the Free Markets are Plutocrats.

We cannot resolve these differences easily, as I continue to feel that we are using very different dictionaries.

My definition of "Free Market" is "an under-regulated market." Without sufficient restrictions of action, I fear that these powerful interests will become more powerful... exactly as a result of competition. One will defeat another, and so on, until there are very few players. Without the ability to break up the resulting monopolies, government will eventually be enslaved to these forces.

I do not intend the word "enslaved" to be hyperbolic; this is more or less my view of the American system as it exists today. (Although I will admit to a very dark view of our political landscape.) I simply cannot imagine unrestricted wealth not being used to influence governance.

It has been demonstrated that a single power can control the entirety of the means of production for many industries - even natural resources such as iron (steel) and oil.

Potential area of agreement: Americans today have very few corporations that control most of our media (newspapers, movies, television, radio, etc.) Do we both feel that American media is providing a better service to the American people as a result of this constriction of ownership?

Perhaps you feel that loosening the restrictions that prevent the over-accumulation of wealth and power will allow other powers to also outgrow their natural predators. I cannot agree; why would the existing Lords of the Markets not use their unrestricted power to destroy the smaller competitors?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 1:34:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 1:23:31 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:52:16 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:42:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
It remains the case that plutocrats support the free market community because they define it.

We can twist the definition of "competition" to pretend that the Free Markets are less "Market" than "Free."

It will still remain that the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. It is impossible to envision a true competition where both parties strive to enrich one another. This type of mutual enrichment would fail to qualify as "competition," and instead be better understood as "cooperation."

Intent=/=Outcome

If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another. This process, if left unchecked, results in monopoly when one super-competitor has eliminated all rivals.

Monopolies are usually created by the government, and a monopoly is not bad if the business that has monopolized a certain industry is offering the best price with the best quality, if they are not another business will come along and do so and break the monopoly, that is the point of the free market. For a monopoly to exist the competition has to be eradicated by making a product that is so cost-effective and appealing that it blows away the others, a monopoly would have to maintain said product and improve upon it as others would always be trying to out perform their product.

The Lords of the Free Markets are Plutocrats.

We cannot resolve these differences easily, as I continue to feel that we are using very different dictionaries.

My definition of "Free Market" is "an under-regulated market." Without sufficient restrictions of action, I fear that these powerful interests will become more powerful... exactly as a result of competition. One will defeat another, and so on, until there are very few players. Without the ability to break up the resulting monopolies, government will eventually be enslaved to these forces.

But new players always will come along. Once again, all it takes to collapse a monopoly is a product that is cheaper and/or more efficient.

I do not intend the word "enslaved" to be hyperbolic; this is more or less my view of the American system as it exists today. (Although I will admit to a very dark view of our political landscape.) I simply cannot imagine unrestricted wealth not being used to influence governance.

I don't believe in a government, so that should be a relief (or not, xD) to you. And one of the reasons if one that you just mentioned, government loses it's purpose when certain groups (such as corporations) use it as a vehicle of oppression, to restrict the same free market that they used to rise.

It has been demonstrated that a single power can control the entirety of the means of production for many industries - even natural resources such as iron (steel) and oil.

That is possible, but unless a business used vertical integration, which is very rare nowadays, I doubt this would happen.

Potential area of agreement: Americans today have very few corporations that control most of our media (newspapers, movies, television, radio, etc.) Do we both feel that American media is providing a better service to the American people as a result of this constriction of ownership?

I wouldn't say it's a result of constriction, but yes, the main people that benefit from said competition are the people, as it results in innovation and better products.

Perhaps you feel that loosening the restrictions that prevent the over-accumulation of wealth and power will allow other powers to also outgrow their natural predators. I cannot agree; why would the existing Lords of the Markets not use their unrestricted power to destroy the smaller competitors?

How would they go about doing this?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 1:47:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 1:34:26 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 1:23:31 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:52:16 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:42:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
It remains the case that plutocrats support the free market community because they define it.

We can twist the definition of "competition" to pretend that the Free Markets are less "Market" than "Free."

It will still remain that the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. It is impossible to envision a true competition where both parties strive to enrich one another. This type of mutual enrichment would fail to qualify as "competition," and instead be better understood as "cooperation."

Intent=/=Outcome

If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another. This process, if left unchecked, results in monopoly when one super-competitor has eliminated all rivals.

Monopolies are usually created by the government, and a monopoly is not bad if the business that has monopolized a certain industry is offering the best price with the best quality, if they are not another business will come along and do so and break the monopoly, that is the point of the free market. For a monopoly to exist the competition has to be eradicated by making a product that is so cost-effective and appealing that it blows away the others, a monopoly would have to maintain said product and improve upon it as others would always be trying to out perform their product.

The Lords of the Free Markets are Plutocrats.

We cannot resolve these differences easily, as I continue to feel that we are using very different dictionaries.

My definition of "Free Market" is "an under-regulated market." Without sufficient restrictions of action, I fear that these powerful interests will become more powerful... exactly as a result of competition. One will defeat another, and so on, until there are very few players. Without the ability to break up the resulting monopolies, government will eventually be enslaved to these forces.

But new players always will come along. Once again, all it takes to collapse a monopoly is a product that is cheaper and/or more efficient.

I do not intend the word "enslaved" to be hyperbolic; this is more or less my view of the American system as it exists today. (Although I will admit to a very dark view of our political landscape.) I simply cannot imagine unrestricted wealth not being used to influence governance.

I don't believe in a government, so that should be a relief (or not, xD) to you. And one of the reasons if one that you just mentioned, government loses it's purpose when certain groups (such as corporations) use it as a vehicle of oppression, to restrict the same free market that they used to rise.

It has been demonstrated that a single power can control the entirety of the means of production for many industries - even natural resources such as iron (steel) and oil.

That is possible, but unless a business used vertical integration, which is very rare nowadays, I doubt this would happen.

Potential area of agreement: Americans today have very few corporations that control most of our media (newspapers, movies, television, radio, etc.) Do we both feel that American media is providing a better service to the American people as a result of this constriction of ownership?

I wouldn't say it's a result of constriction, but yes, the main people that benefit from said competition are the people, as it results in innovation and better products.

Perhaps you feel that loosening the restrictions that prevent the over-accumulation of wealth and power will allow other powers to also outgrow their natural predators. I cannot agree; why would the existing Lords of the Markets not use their unrestricted power to destroy the smaller competitors?

How would they go about doing this?

I was asking.

I am discussing a bewildering number of anarchism topics, and so I might have over-spoke. Here, and on another site I am holding forth against evil, and the forces of chaos. (I am not being serious when I say this.) I will need to modify my argument here, in case some of my anarchism discussions have bled through:

I do not feel that Plutocrats "hate" the Free Market, in fact. I feel that Plutocrats are the designers of the Free Markets. I feel that these powers hope that they may loosen the restrictions that we citizens are using to bind their actions. These restrictions are, to my mind, a form of self-defense against their overwhelming power and influence.

To mix politics and economics, as this is a "plutocracy" discussion: I feel that the wealthiest elite have used their power and influence to create laws that benefit them. I also feel that these plutocratic laws have allowed them to out-compete the masses (can I say 'proletariat?') when petitioning for democratic influence within our government.

Rules for the poor are called "LAWS" and must be obeyed at all times, at pain of severe punishment.

Rules for the wealthy and powerful are called "regulations," and are negotiable.

I think that, with the "anarchy" topic set onto another table, we are largely in agreement here. I suspect that we both hold some contempt for the system of legalized bribery that I am describing here.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 1:50:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 1:47:39 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/1/2013 1:34:26 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 1:23:31 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:52:16 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:42:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
It remains the case that plutocrats support the free market community because they define it.

We can twist the definition of "competition" to pretend that the Free Markets are less "Market" than "Free."

It will still remain that the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. It is impossible to envision a true competition where both parties strive to enrich one another. This type of mutual enrichment would fail to qualify as "competition," and instead be better understood as "cooperation."

Intent=/=Outcome

If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another. This process, if left unchecked, results in monopoly when one super-competitor has eliminated all rivals.

Monopolies are usually created by the government, and a monopoly is not bad if the business that has monopolized a certain industry is offering the best price with the best quality, if they are not another business will come along and do so and break the monopoly, that is the point of the free market. For a monopoly to exist the competition has to be eradicated by making a product that is so cost-effective and appealing that it blows away the others, a monopoly would have to maintain said product and improve upon it as others would always be trying to out perform their product.

The Lords of the Free Markets are Plutocrats.

We cannot resolve these differences easily, as I continue to feel that we are using very different dictionaries.

My definition of "Free Market" is "an under-regulated market." Without sufficient restrictions of action, I fear that these powerful interests will become more powerful... exactly as a result of competition. One will defeat another, and so on, until there are very few players. Without the ability to break up the resulting monopolies, government will eventually be enslaved to these forces.

But new players always will come along. Once again, all it takes to collapse a monopoly is a product that is cheaper and/or more efficient.

I do not intend the word "enslaved" to be hyperbolic; this is more or less my view of the American system as it exists today. (Although I will admit to a very dark view of our political landscape.) I simply cannot imagine unrestricted wealth not being used to influence governance.

I don't believe in a government, so that should be a relief (or not, xD) to you. And one of the reasons if one that you just mentioned, government loses it's purpose when certain groups (such as corporations) use it as a vehicle of oppression, to restrict the same free market that they used to rise.

It has been demonstrated that a single power can control the entirety of the means of production for many industries - even natural resources such as iron (steel) and oil.

That is possible, but unless a business used vertical integration, which is very rare nowadays, I doubt this would happen.

Potential area of agreement: Americans today have very few corporations that control most of our media (newspapers, movies, television, radio, etc.) Do we both feel that American media is providing a better service to the American people as a result of this constriction of ownership?

I wouldn't say it's a result of constriction, but yes, the main people that benefit from said competition are the people, as it results in innovation and better products.

Perhaps you feel that loosening the restrictions that prevent the over-accumulation of wealth and power will allow other powers to also outgrow their natural predators. I cannot agree; why would the existing Lords of the Markets not use their unrestricted power to destroy the smaller competitors?

How would they go about doing this?

I was asking.

I am discussing a bewildering number of anarchism topics, and so I might have over-spoke. Here, and on another site I am holding forth against evil, and the forces of chaos. (I am not being serious when I say this.) I will need to modify my argument here, in case some of my anarchism discussions have bled through:

I do not feel that Plutocrats "hate" the Free Market, in fact. I feel that Plutocrats are the designers of the Free Markets. I feel that these powers hope that they may loosen the restrictions that we citizens are using to bind their actions. These restrictions are, to my mind, a form of self-defense against their overwhelming power and influence.

To mix politics and economics, as this is a "plutocracy" discussion: I feel that the wealthiest elite have used their power and influence to create laws that benefit them. I also feel that these plutocratic laws have allowed them to out-compete the masses (can I say 'proletariat?') when petitioning for democratic influence within our government.

Rules for the poor are called "LAWS" and must be obeyed at all times, at pain of severe punishment.

Rules for the wealthy and powerful are called "regulations," and are negotiable.

I think that, with the "anarchy" topic set onto another table, we are largely in agreement here. I suspect that we both hold some contempt for the system of legalized bribery that I am describing here.

Well, if you are arguing against the 'free market' from an anarchist perspective, we are indeed in agreeance.

When big business uses the government as a vehicle for their prosperity, the free market is no longer free at all.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 2:06:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 1:50:51 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

When big business uses the government as a vehicle for their prosperity, the free market is no longer free at all.

The Conservative American and at least one fire-breathing liberal are here in absolute agreement.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 8:13:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:42:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
It remains the case that plutocrats support the free market community because they define it.

We can twist the definition of "competition" to pretend that the Free Markets are less "Market" than "Free."
Did I twist the definition of competition or free market? I was operating under the economic terms.
It will still remain that the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. It is impossible to envision a true competition where both parties strive to enrich one another. This type of mutual enrichment would fail to qualify as "competition," and instead be better understood as "cooperation."

If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another. This process, if left unchecked, results in monopoly when one super-competitor has eliminated all rivals.

In a free market, monopolies will only emerge when there is an incredibly scarce resource and it is perfectly natural for a monopoly to emerge. In industries that have the capacity to be competitive, monopolies will not emerge, and existing monopolies will lose market power. This all draws back to barriers to entry. Without legal barriers to entry like licensing, intellectual property, regulation, etc., any firm can enter the competition and drive the prices down and the quality up. Since it is so easy to join the competition and there is clearly money to be made, more and more companies will join in the competition, releasing a relatively homogenous product for a lower price or at a higher quality, which forces the other competitors to lower the price or increase the quality to be able to compete with the other firms. A monopoly requires barriers to entry to exist, and without the legal ones, competition will be able to arise in all industries where it is an option.
The Lords of the Free Markets are Plutocrats.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 10:24:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 8:13:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:42:03 AM, DeFool wrote:
It remains the case that plutocrats support the free market community because they define it.

We can twist the definition of "competition" to pretend that the Free Markets are less "Market" than "Free."
Did I twist the definition of competition or free market? I was operating under the economic terms.

"Twist" may be a strong word...

It will still remain that the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. It is impossible to envision a true competition where both parties strive to enrich one another. This type of mutual enrichment would fail to qualify as "competition," and instead be better understood as "cooperation."

If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another. This process, if left unchecked, results in monopoly when one super-competitor has eliminated all rivals.

In a free market, monopolies will only emerge when there is an incredibly scarce resource and it is perfectly natural for a monopoly to emerge. In industries that have the capacity to be competitive, monopolies will not emerge, and existing monopolies will lose market power. This all draws back to barriers to entry. Without legal barriers to entry like licensing, intellectual property, regulation, etc., any firm can enter the competition and drive the prices down and the quality up. Since it is so easy to join the competition and there is clearly money to be made, more and more companies will join in the competition, releasing a relatively homogenous product for a lower price or at a higher quality, which forces the other competitors to lower the price or increase the quality to be able to compete with the other firms. A monopoly requires barriers to entry to exist, and without the legal ones, competition will be able to arise in all industries where it is an option.
The Lords of the Free Markets are Plutocrats.

Without the legal barriers to entry, why would strong competition not create alternative barriers to entry?

I am very self-satisfied with my argument that states that "the entire purpose of competition is to harm another party, especially in pursuit of some scarce resource. If the Free Markets love to compete, then they necessarily love to weaken and overtake one another."

I am very pleased with my triumphant logic here. If this argument is somehow shown to be silly, I will have been very embarrassed and self-doubting for some time to come.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 10:51:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 5:53:16 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:04:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How about a house, food to feed your family, comfortable life, car, fuel, savings, leisure.

Well, a house is nice, though I don't mind renting or having an apartment. Food is of course required, but it doesn't have to be gourmet. A comfortable life is also good, though my definition pretty much consists of 'be able to go to library, do not live in an abusive situation, and sleep eight hours a day. I don't care if I have a car or not. Fuel is pretty much irrelevant. Savings are only necessary to make sure I don't die if I get fired. Leisure does not require money. Certainly not any significant amounts of it.

I also said I didn't want enough money to survive, I said that my primary motive is not personal profit.

Wait, that last sentence is false.

However, I would point out that I don't see getting enough money to survive as personal profit.