Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Capitalism

YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 12:31:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that a lot of people have this idea with respect to capitalism that capitalism, democracy and certain rights and civil liberties just somehow naturally flow from the nice little union of ostensible freedom that exists under circumstances of a capitalist or mixed market economy under the pretense of democracy. Political scientists know and generally agree that a country is a democracy to the extent that people have the opportunity to vote for their leaders. But this is the delusion: there is a very clear difference between "voting for" leaders and "choosing" them.

We "vote" for leaders between two choices: republicans and democrats. Republicans are in line with one class of big business, and democrats are in line with another even though Republicans generally support tax and other policies that tend to more gratuitously enrich those who are already wealthy than democrats who tend (relative to Republicans) to favor policies that -very much still continually enrich the "haves," but do so at a lesser rate than the policies that are favored by Republican party.

Tax policies, policies that affect what we can do with money, and government social welfare expenditures of all kinds hugely effect who gets "a shot" to make real money and who does not. The wealthy (and when I say "wealthy" I mean "the one percent of the one percent" not merely people who have a million dollars in the bank or whatever and are really just upper middle class) really have a strong incentive to ensure that those policies support *their* interests. They may incidentally give you the chance to make "some" money too, but you're never going to get the chance to be one of them.

But, people are cool with that economic order which is based on consumption and allows them to lead basically comfortable lives as defined by whatever determines what it means to be comfortable. That's the irony: what counts for a "comfortable" life is defined by the companies that sell products which are creature comforts, so they create policies that are intended to give little people like us "just enough" money to buy their sh!t, but who then at the same time turn around and use their profits to lobby congress to keep the system churning.

That's what's weird about living in a capitalist economy: on the one hand we're consumers of goods, from whom we buy producers that define by their production of products our subjective standard of what it means to lead a "good" life.... whatever a "good" life is. And you'll notice that what makes a "good" life has nothing -now, at least- to do with whether you do right by other people, what kind of a person you are and that jazz, but it's about how much sh!t you have. I can tell you that I lead a "good" life because when I wanted a flat screen TV I could just walk to best buy and buy one because my credit card allowed me to do so... and I can listen to that TV and type this little rant on my Macbook Pro (I want a new computer, though... this one is two years old), and perhaps receive a text on my nice iPhone. See? I'm leading the "good" life. Look at all the sh!t I have. (I hope my sarcasm is lost on no one.)

To be clear, my computer allows me to do awesome stuff. Same with my iPhone. I don't have any sentimental feelings about the TV, but it's pretty cool too. Technology. It's awesome, but technology's ubiquity also males me a product too. I am a "product" that is sold by media companies (google, DirectTV, etc.) to advertisers. They have awesome avenues to get me to be a product, too. Maybe it's Youtube's cat videos, or The Daily Show. But I am totally a product, and I am "objectified" in that way. (I could rant about how monumentally idiotic it is when any person talks about objectifying bodies and that kind of thing... but that's another rant for another day. Yeah, it's a thing... but I don't care and no one else should either because we're whored out in so many other real, meaningful ways that the body objectification thing is manifestly insignificant.)

Back to those media companies...they make me a "product." But, in my consumption of certain kinds of media like the news, and especially "elite sources" of news (read: the New York Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune.... a/k/a the only real newspapers that are left in the United States) I am more than just a product; I am by my consumption of that media placing myself in an auspicious class of citizens: the political class (read: the people who make decisions about sh!t at the polls). There is also a "not elite" political class... people who only watch TV, especially those who watch Fox News. They are the "lower tier" of political citizen-actors. What both classes have in common is that we vote from within the same general range of choices, both of which support big business.

The reason that Bernie Sanders gets so little attention from the media is the same reason that Hillary Clinton gets so much money as has Jeb Bush. Some of the more stupid politicians get change too (read: Rand Paul gets money from eccentric wealthy people who have been fvcked by the system, or who perceive that they have been fvcked by the system, so they throw a preverbal "wrench" into the system... and what better "wrench" than a libertarian, right?). lol... what is the reason, you ask? Hillary and Jeb play ball. They are representatives of the "political establishment" that is the governmental face of big business, and more specifically Wall Street, or whoever else (read: the Koch brothers) desire to advance their interests in politics. That's why nothing really matters in terms of domestic policy. The only real thing that presidents do is make foreign policy decisions, which generally tend to advance American interests, and by "American" interests I mean the interests of those who own our government.... the people who lobby government, and who with their lobbyists get the things they want.

This is why the Randian version of the world is so stupid and naive. it's not that government is, by its existence, stifling capitalist growth and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth in the United States. Industries -at least the self conscious ones- want regulation to keep their competitors from driving any particular industry into a premature grave with competition. Regulation can be self imposed (like with a cartel) or directly imposed (like with a government that is not lobbied) or indirectly imposed (like when businesses lobby for regulations which they benefit from, like we have in the United States and Europe and basically every other industrial or post-industrial society in the world). Regulations keep everyone from destroying everything... but Randians are stupid and naive and don't see that. Whatever....you can't make the willfully blind see.

Back to those sexy elections...the media, by their conduct, define our range of choices by who they cover. Bernie doesn't get a lot of coverage because he's a threat to the establishment, and Hillary gets all kinds of coverage because their coverage frames the context of choices that Americans will pick from. They will pick from the most familiar, and the ones who most support whatever big business wants. If there are issues (like ones that actually matter) that get talked about, it's because people with real, serious money get media companies to make them issues.

We all had a nice happy fun time with gay marriage and we all got to feel good about ourselves because there was this movement that the media started which happened to coincide with justice... but that doesn't matter. I mean it's nice, but it really just means that we have a slightly less oppressive system. All the other social issues are just means to distract people from becoming class-conscious. Abortion is the stupidest topic ever, and the only reason people talk about it is to keep people from voting based on things that actually matter...This happens at every level, though, except the
Tsar of DDO
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 12:39:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"it's not that government is, by its existence, stifling capitalist growth and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth in the United States. Industries -at least the self conscious ones- want regulation to keep their competitors from driving any particular industry into a premature grave with competition"

How does competition drive an industry into the grave?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 12:47:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wanna know what kind of an issue actually matters? Defense spending matters. It is massively important, because it is an investment in American unipolar hegemonic order which we seriously need. Everyone talks about how bloated America's defense budget is, and then they want to advance an argument that because it's bigger than like the next 25 countries down that we should spend less. That's incredibly naive thinking, and it reflects a fundamental ignorance of how geopolitics work.

When Japan starts pouring money into Siberia, establishing quasi-colonial ties beyond it's former empire (Singapore and Taiwan and the like), what they're doing is creating the kind of economic alliance that leads to a military alliance. Japan has the technology, Russia had the Resources. China has the man-power. Think about a Sino-Russian-Japanese military alliance. If the US went to war with something like that... wanna start comparing defense-bloc spending relative to countries that can qualitatively achieve much more with less expenditure costs? This is why our defense budget stays huge, why it has to stay huge, and why no serious discussion of slashing defense spending has ever happened.

We need the mixed-market defense spending stimulation to drive our economy too... because that's basically the foundation of everything (in that defense spending creates the kind of world stability that allows for global commercialization, which makes it possible for us to buy cheap consumer sh!t at walmart... I mean, it's more complicated than that, but defense spending is where the "buck stops.") Defense spending is made possible by tax policies, but made convenient for big business by hella-unequal tax policies....like the ones which keep corporate tax rates insanely low, but individual income tax much relatively higher, but we give the wealthy a pass on capital gains taxes because... reasons? Bullsh!t. We should be taxing the rich more.

I'm cool with the system. It's stable, and less worse than each and every one of the alternatives.......like, all of them, without question. Mixed market economies with quasi-democracies which are substantively dead... they are seriously stable, as long as we don't start slashing defense spending. Slashing defense spending says "yeah, Vlad, go ahead with Ukraine because we're worried about other sh!t right now." Really... you've gotta keep rabid dogs at bay, and you keep them at bay with scary domestic defense industries... defense industries that are so powerful that they could take on most of the world at the same time and win.

(As an aside.... That's really where we've got to get back too. Our military isn't strong enough and our people are lazy and weak. If we ever went to war American kids are too fat, stupid and entitled to function as real soldiers. I mean that literally, to the extent that American young adults are obese, or American kids who will shortly become adults are obese, American national security is threatened. That's why we need stronger regulations of food, like what people can and cannot buy... but that's another rant for another day. This is sort of the double edge sword of a capitalist economy... what makes us strong [booming economy with huge tax revenues that is predicated on defense spending] at the same time makes us weak because the people who would be operating the technology we develop are too fat and lazy to do it.)

I just wish the system was a little but more tipped in favor of "the little guy," to make our lives better... more bearable. The only real freedom we have -or have ever had- is religious and intellectual freedom. I can talk about this all only because we live in a society where I won't face repercussions for talking about it. I can become a tenured professor and talk about this kind of thing and it's all good... but at the same time while my audience is starkly limited...I can still say what I want to say.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 12:54:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 12:39:56 AM, ax123man wrote:
"it's not that government is, by its existence, stifling capitalist growth and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth in the United States. Industries -at least the self conscious ones- want regulation to keep their competitors from driving any particular industry into a premature grave with competition"

How does competition drive an industry into the grave?

The airline industry is an excellent example of one company trying to out-price the other while operating at net losses in the hope that one company will go bankrupt first, but the other will recoup their losses by reducing competition and acquiring net control of the market, giving them the flexibility to recoup their losses ten fold because they then hold all the cards.

Fishing is another great example: there are a limited number of fish in the sea and the challenge is to get as many out of the world's oceans and onto consumer's plates as efficiently as possible. Global fishing companies are incredibly good at that, so good in fact that we could reasonably see the extinction of Tuna in our lifetime.... and like 30 other species of ocean fish. Farmed fish is the way to go (so long as the farming is sustainable), but the sexy food stores now (read: whole foods, etc.) tout "wild caught" fish like it's some kind of status symbol. It's a symbol of capitalism destroying an entire species of fish, which -with searing irony- would destroy the industry for that fish.

Clothing is another spectacular example. Think Old Navy and H&M. They both are "fast fashion" companies which sell horribly made sh!t at prices that are so low you can buy a McDonalds Cheeseburger Meal for the same price that you can buy a T shirt made in Pakistan, or Indonesia or whatever. The competition has become a race to the bottom, and the only way these companies make money is by continually growing and exploiting the agricultural resources (not to mention labor resources) of developing countries to make clothes that Westerners will throw away in a year or two either because they are "last season" or they fall apart because the quality is complete garbage (think: Abercrombie and Fitch, which has managed to sell fast fashion quality at an outrageous markup to dumb teenagers for more than 20 years, only to have upper middle class white kids throw their sh!t away for the same reason).

Are you starting to see the idea, or do you want more examples?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 12:59:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The point is that regulation serves organizations' interests by ensuring that everyone keeps competing. That's the function that regulation serves. Regulation prevents, for example, businesses from doing to other buisnesses what Saudi Arabia is trying to do (and has been successfully doing) to the US oil industry... operate at a relative loss in the forefront to keep competitors from competing at all.

Randians are so stupid and naive. The barrier to entry into most industries is so high that it keeps most entrepreneurs out of even attempting to do that, the only exception to that really is software... where the barrier to entry is intellectual capital more than it is pecuniary capital.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 1:09:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What's really interesting is when you start to see business interests, who basically agree on like everything, start to do things that play against one another. Like Donald Trump taking on Fox News.... and winning. that was a seriously huge shakeup, and that's exactly what happened. The Fox "brand" was more damaged after that than Trump's was, and in reality Trump's "brand" wasn't damaged at all because he strengthened the emotional connection between "The idea of Donald Trump" and "angry pissed off white people who think society has left them behind."

Trump is everything that the base wants in a president. He is the base. He's politically savvy, came from a middle class lifestyle and worked his way into monumental wealth... or at least that's the story Trump tells people. Whether he wins or not.... it remains to be determined. I still think he will win, because he is literally as "anti-Establishment" as they come, and he's sincere about it.

Well, Trump is anti-Political establishment (or, that's how he appears, at least). He is totally pro-business establishment, and at the end of the day he will do what is best for himself, which, ultimately, is really freaking close to what is best for most US businesses. He also plays ball with the corporate-elite of this country, while being totally willing to do the kinds of things that the movers and shakers (corporations) expect of Trump in a whole lot of other countries. He is everything corporate America really wants in a president too.

(So is Hillary Clinton, but that's neither here nor there.)

Business will "select" vis a vis their savvy manipulation of both party's primary processes, the two candidates who are acceptable to them, and the American people will go through their symbolic ritual of picking from those two selections which one they want... and at that point the super-powerful interests don't really care because they've already done their part... just like they will do their part with congressmen and senators and everything else. It's cool. It's how things work here. It's also better than the other alternatives.

Again, I just wish things were better for little guys.
Tsar of DDO
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 2:13:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 12:54:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:39:56 AM, ax123man wrote:
"it's not that government is, by its existence, stifling capitalist growth and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth in the United States. Industries -at least the self conscious ones- want regulation to keep their competitors from driving any particular industry into a premature grave with competition"

How does competition drive an industry into the grave?

The airline industry is an excellent example of one company trying to out-price the other while operating at net losses in the hope that one company will go bankrupt first, but the other will recoup their losses by reducing competition and acquiring net control of the market, giving them the flexibility to recoup their losses ten fold because they then hold all the cards.

When did this happen? I'd like to review 10k's for those companies. You do realize that businesses take loses for reasons other than setting prices "too low".

I just want to make sure I understand your beef. Your against businesses selling services at too low price? Then, later your against businesses selling the same thing for too high a price? Interesting. How do you determine what the "right" price is? Also, are you against businesses who try to please their customers by providing quality service and goods? (ie the natural outcome of your dreaded competition)


Fishing is another great example: there are a limited number of fish in the sea and the challenge is to get as many out of the world's oceans and onto consumer's plates as efficiently as possible. Global fishing companies are incredibly good at that, so good in fact that we could reasonably see the extinction of Tuna in our lifetime.... and like 30 other species of ocean fish. Farmed fish is the way to go (so long as the farming is sustainable), but the sexy food stores now (read: whole foods, etc.) tout "wild caught" fish like it's some kind of status symbol. It's a symbol of capitalism destroying an entire species of fish, which -with searing irony- would destroy the industry for that fish.

tragedy of the commons. Ever hear of private property?


Clothing is another spectacular example. Think Old Navy and H&M. They both are "fast fashion" companies which sell horribly made sh!t at prices that are so low you can buy a McDonalds Cheeseburger Meal for the same price that you can buy a T shirt made in Pakistan, or Indonesia or whatever. The competition has become a race to the bottom, and the only way these companies make money is by continually growing and exploiting the agricultural resources (not to mention labor resources) of developing countries to make clothes that Westerners will throw away in a year or two either because they are "last season" or they fall apart because the quality is complete garbage (think: Abercrombie and Fitch, which has managed to sell fast fashion quality at an outrageous markup to dumb teenagers for more than 20 years, only to have upper middle class white kids throw their sh!t away for the same reason).

How is it they manage to sell so much of this "sht"? It seems to me YOU don't like these things but a lot of OTHERS do. That's a shame. Btw, companies that make sht go out of business.

You are free to purchase higher quality clothing at twice the price if you like. I have no problem with that. However, do you hate the poor? Cuz it sounds like you want to raise the price of clothing in general - I guess to get others to make "smarter" choices, like you.

Also, you must hate the poor in Pakistan & Indonesia too, cuz without those imports, they would be poorer. You know Ricardo showed the advantages of free trade by way of the principal of comparative advantage in 1817. Your a bit behind the times. Even P. Krugman knows this.


Are you starting to see the idea, or do you want more examples?

The only idea I'm getting is that you seem hateful, controlling and economically illiterate.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 2:22:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:13:27 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:54:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:39:56 AM, ax123man wrote:
"it's not that government is, by its existence, stifling capitalist growth and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth in the United States. Industries -at least the self conscious ones- want regulation to keep their competitors from driving any particular industry into a premature grave with competition"

How does competition drive an industry into the grave?

The airline industry is an excellent example of one company trying to out-price the other while operating at net losses in the hope that one company will go bankrupt first, but the other will recoup their losses by reducing competition and acquiring net control of the market, giving them the flexibility to recoup their losses ten fold because they then hold all the cards.

When did this happen? I'd like to review 10k's for those companies. You do realize that businesses take loses for reasons other than setting prices "too low".

I just want to make sure I understand your beef. Your against businesses selling services at too low price? Then, later your against businesses selling the same thing for too high a price? Interesting. How do you determine what the "right" price is? Also, are you against businesses who try to please their customers by providing quality service and goods? (ie the natural outcome of your dreaded competition)

I'm not for or against anything. So, don't conflate "description" with "advocacy."

Fishing is another great example: there are a limited number of fish in the sea and the challenge is to get as many out of the world's oceans and onto consumer's plates as efficiently as possible. Global fishing companies are incredibly good at that, so good in fact that we could reasonably see the extinction of Tuna in our lifetime.... and like 30 other species of ocean fish. Farmed fish is the way to go (so long as the farming is sustainable), but the sexy food stores now (read: whole foods, etc.) tout "wild caught" fish like it's some kind of status symbol. It's a symbol of capitalism destroying an entire species of fish, which -with searing irony- would destroy the industry for that fish.

tragedy of the commons. Ever hear of private property?

lol, would you like to meaningfully rebut what I said? Oh, and you can't own oceans. Please, avail yourself to become familiar with international maritime law.

Clothing is another spectacular example. Think Old Navy and H&M. They both are "fast fashion" companies which sell horribly made sh!t at prices that are so low you can buy a McDonalds Cheeseburger Meal for the same price that you can buy a T shirt made in Pakistan, or Indonesia or whatever. The competition has become a race to the bottom, and the only way these companies make money is by continually growing and exploiting the agricultural resources (not to mention labor resources) of developing countries to make clothes that Westerners will throw away in a year or two either because they are "last season" or they fall apart because the quality is complete garbage (think: Abercrombie and Fitch, which has managed to sell fast fashion quality at an outrageous markup to dumb teenagers for more than 20 years, only to have upper middle class white kids throw their sh!t away for the same reason).

How is it they manage to sell so much of this "sht"? It seems to me YOU don't like these things but a lot of OTHERS do. That's a shame. Btw, companies that make sht go out of business.

Wanna rebut the substance of my argument rather than quibble about the terms I used? Bah.

You are free to purchase higher quality clothing at twice the price if you like. I have no problem with that. However, do you hate the poor? Cuz it sounds like you want to raise the price of clothing in general - I guess to get others to make "smarter" choices, like you.

Also, you must hate the poor in Pakistan & Indonesia too, cuz without those imports, they would be poorer. You know Ricardo showed the advantages of free trade by way of the principal of comparative advantage in 1817. Your a bit behind the times. Even P. Krugman knows this.

...lol

Are you starting to see the idea, or do you want more examples?


The only idea I'm getting is that you seem hateful, controlling and economically illiterate.

I don't care. You haven't rebutted the substance of my argument, and I really am amused by your implication that I might care about what your opinion of me is.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 2:27:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:13:27 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:54:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:39:56 AM, ax123man wrote:
"it's not that government is, by its existence, stifling capitalist growth and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth in the United States. Industries -at least the self conscious ones- want regulation to keep their competitors from driving any particular industry into a premature grave with competition"

How does competition drive an industry into the grave?

The airline industry is an excellent example of one company trying to out-price the other while operating at net losses in the hope that one company will go bankrupt first, but the other will recoup their losses by reducing competition and acquiring net control of the market, giving them the flexibility to recoup their losses ten fold because they then hold all the cards.

When did this happen? I'd like to review 10k's for those companies. You do realize that businesses take losses for reasons other than setting prices "too low".

I just want to make sure I understand your beef. You're against businesses selling services at too low price? Then, later you're against businesses selling the same thing for too high a price? Interesting. How do you determine what the "right" price is? Also, are you against businesses who try to please their customers by providing quality service and goods? (i.e. the natural outcome of your dreaded competition)


Fishing is another great example: there are a limited number of fish in the sea and the challenge is to get as many out of the world's oceans and onto consumer's plates as efficiently as possible. Global fishing companies are incredibly good at that, so good in fact that we could reasonably see the extinction of Tuna in our lifetime.... and like 30 other species of ocean fish. Farmed fish is the way to go (so long as the farming is sustainable), but the sexy food stores now (read: whole foods, etc.) tout "wild caught" fish like it's some kind of status symbol. It's a symbol of capitalism destroying an entire species of fish, which -with searing irony- would destroy the industry for that fish.

tragedy of the commons. Ever heard of private property?


Clothing is another spectacular example. Think Old Navy and H&M. They both are "fast fashion" companies which sell horribly made sh!t at prices that are so low you can buy a McDonalds Cheeseburger Meal for the same price that you can buy a T shirt made in Pakistan, or Indonesia or whatever. The competition has become a race to the bottom, and the only way these companies make money is by continually growing and exploiting the agricultural resources (not to mention labor resources) of developing countries to make clothes that Westerners will throw away in a year or two either because they are "last season" or they fall apart because the quality is complete garbage (think: Abercrombie and Fitch, which has managed to sell fast fashion quality at an outrageous markup to dumb teenagers for more than 20 years, only to have upper middle class white kids throw their sh!t away for the same reason).

How is it they manage to sell so much of this "sht"? It seems to me that YOU don't like these things but a lot of OTHERS do. That's a shame. Btw, companies that make sht go out of business.

You are free to purchase higher quality clothing at twice the price if you like. I have no problem with that. However, do you hate the poor? Cuz it sounds like you want to raise the price of clothing in general - I guess to get others to make "smarter" choices like you.

Also, you must hate the poor in Pakistan & Indonesia too, cuz without those imports they would be poorer. You know, Ricardo showed the advantages of free trade by way of the principal of comparative advantage in 1817. You're a bit behind the times; even P. Krugman knows this.


Are you starting to see the idea, or do you want more examples?


The only idea that I'm getting is that you seem hateful, controlling, and economically illiterate.

http://static.tumblr.com...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:53:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:22:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2015 2:13:27 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:54:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:39:56 AM, ax123man wrote:
"it's not that government is, by its existence, stifling capitalist growth and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth in the United States. Industries -at least the self conscious ones- want regulation to keep their competitors from driving any particular industry into a premature grave with competition"

How does competition drive an industry into the grave?

The airline industry is an excellent example of one company trying to out-price the other while operating at net losses in the hope that one company will go bankrupt first, but the other will recoup their losses by reducing competition and acquiring net control of the market, giving them the flexibility to recoup their losses ten fold because they then hold all the cards.

When did this happen? I'd like to review 10k's for those companies. You do realize that businesses take loses for reasons other than setting prices "too low".

I just want to make sure I understand your beef. Your against businesses selling services at too low price? Then, later your against businesses selling the same thing for too high a price? Interesting. How do you determine what the "right" price is? Also, are you against businesses who try to please their customers by providing quality service and goods? (ie the natural outcome of your dreaded competition)

I'm not for or against anything.

Huh, then what's the point of the post? So, your a nihilist?

So, don't conflate "description" with "advocacy."

Fine, I'm still looking for dates and company names. I'd like to check out your "description".


Fishing is another great example: there are a limited number of fish in the sea and the challenge is to get as many out of the world's oceans and onto consumer's plates as efficiently as possible. Global fishing companies are incredibly good at that, so good in fact that we could reasonably see the extinction of Tuna in our lifetime.... and like 30 other species of ocean fish. Farmed fish is the way to go (so long as the farming is sustainable), but the sexy food stores now (read: whole foods, etc.) tout "wild caught" fish like it's some kind of status symbol. It's a symbol of capitalism destroying an entire species of fish, which -with searing irony- would destroy the industry for that fish.

tragedy of the commons. Ever hear of private property?

lol, would you like to meaningfully rebut what I said? Oh, and you can't own oceans. Please, avail yourself to become familiar with international maritime law.

Tragedy of the commons is a well known concept. Are you claiming that property rights in oceans wouldn't save bluefin tuna?

I'm aware that oceans aren't "owned" by law at the moment. But it really doesn't take that much imagination to figure out ways to change that. Whole books have been written on the subject.

Also, I didn't claim any of that didn't happen. So, don't conflate "description" with "advocacy."


Clothing is another spectacular example. Think Old Navy and H&M. They both are "fast fashion" companies which sell horribly made sh!t at prices that are so low you can buy a McDonalds Cheeseburger Meal for the same price that you can buy a T shirt made in Pakistan, or Indonesia or whatever. The competition has become a race to the bottom, and the only way these companies make money is by continually growing and exploiting the agricultural resources (not to mention labor resources) of developing countries to make clothes that Westerners will throw away in a year or two either because they are "last season" or they fall apart because the quality is complete garbage (think: Abercrombie and Fitch, which has managed to sell fast fashion quality at an outrageous markup to dumb teenagers for more than 20 years, only to have upper middle class white kids throw their sh!t away for the same reason).

How is it they manage to sell so much of this "sht"? It seems to me YOU don't like these things but a lot of OTHERS do. That's a shame. Btw, companies that make sht go out of business.

Wanna rebut the substance of my argument rather than quibble about the terms I used? Bah.

Ok, when I go to a clothing outlet, it turns out Old Navy and H&M aren't the only stores there. There's actually about a dozen. What happened to driving the others out of business? I mean when does you O.P. "description" happen? In fact, when has it EVER happened. Once again, I'm looking for FACTS so I can check out your story.


You are free to purchase higher quality clothing at twice the price if you like. I have no problem with that. However, do you hate the poor? Cuz it sounds like you want to raise the price of clothing in general - I guess to get others to make "smarter" choices, like you.

Also, you must hate the poor in Pakistan & Indonesia too, cuz without those imports, they would be poorer. You know Ricardo showed the advantages of free trade by way of the principal of comparative advantage in 1817. Your a bit behind the times. Even P. Krugman knows this.

...lol

pot calling kettle black (your the one crying about lack of rebuttal?)


Are you starting to see the idea, or do you want more examples?


The only idea I'm getting is that you seem hateful, controlling and economically illiterate.

I don't care. You haven't rebutted the substance of my argument, and I really am amused by your implication that I might care about what your opinion of me is.

there is no substance to your argument (I'm still waiting for details on your stories to rebut)
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:57:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:27:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/12/2015 2:13:27 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:54:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:39:56 AM, ax123man wrote:


http://static.tumblr.com...

http://www.clker.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 12:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 10:53:31 AM, ax123man wrote:

Really, this is the point where I stop talking to you because your last response forecloses any hope on my part that we will have a productive conversation.

Very sad.... not surprising.
Tsar of DDO
Heathcliff
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:41:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:22:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2015 2:13:27 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:54:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:39:56 AM, ax123man wrote:
"it's not that government is, by its existence, stifling capitalist growth and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth in the United States. Industries -at least the self conscious ones- want regulation to keep their competitors from driving any particular industry into a premature grave with competition"

How does competition drive an industry into the grave?

The airline industry is an excellent example of one company trying to out-price the other while operating at net losses in the hope that one company will go bankrupt first, but the other will recoup their losses by reducing competition and acquiring net control of the market, giving them the flexibility to recoup their losses ten fold because they then hold all the cards.

When did this happen? I'd like to review 10k's for those companies. You do realize that businesses take loses for reasons other than setting prices "too low".

I just want to make sure I understand your beef. Your against businesses selling services at too low price? Then, later your against businesses selling the same thing for too high a price? Interesting. How do you determine what the "right" price is? Also, are you against businesses who try to please their customers by providing quality service and goods? (ie the natural outcome of your dreaded competition)

I'm not for or against anything. So, don't conflate "description" with "advocacy."
You are against something: capitalism. Even if you tell me you are for capitalism, clearly you are critiquing certain aspects of it.

Fishing is another great example: there are a limited number of fish in the sea and the challenge is to get as many out of the world's oceans and onto consumer's plates as efficiently as possible. Global fishing companies are incredibly good at that, so good in fact that we could reasonably see the extinction of Tuna in our lifetime.... and like 30 other species of ocean fish. Farmed fish is the way to go (so long as the farming is sustainable), but the sexy food stores now (read: whole foods, etc.) tout "wild caught" fish like it's some kind of status symbol. It's a symbol of capitalism destroying an entire species of fish, which -with searing irony- would destroy the industry for that fish.

tragedy of the commons. Ever hear of private property?

lol, would you like to meaningfully rebut what I said? Oh, and you can't own oceans. Please, avail yourself to become familiar with international maritime law.
I get the impression you've looked at statistics and charts that show a correlation between overfishing and depletion of species. But remember, correlation does not prove causation. Even if a species goes extinct, natural selection will balance out the food chain over time. Exploitative competition is also found in nature: plants with many roots suck up nitrogen thru their roots, causing nearby plants to die off from a lack of nitrogen.
Clothing is another spectacular example. Think Old Navy and H&M. They both are "fast fashion" companies which sell horribly made sh!t at prices that are so low you can buy a McDonalds Cheeseburger Meal for the same price that you can buy a T shirt made in Pakistan, or Indonesia or whatever. The competition has become a race to the bottom, and the only way these companies make money is by continually growing and exploiting the agricultural resources (not to mention labor resources) of developing countries to make clothes that Westerners will throw away in a year or two either because they are "last season" or they fall apart because the quality is complete garbage (think: Abercrombie and Fitch, which has managed to sell fast fashion quality at an outrageous markup to dumb teenagers for more than 20 years, only to have upper middle class white kids throw their sh!t away for the same reason).

How is it they manage to sell so much of this "sht"? It seems to me YOU don't like these things but a lot of OTHERS do. That's a shame. Btw, companies that make sht go out of business.

Wanna rebut the substance of my argument rather than quibble about the terms I used? Bah.
What is your alternative, better solution? Prevent Pakistan from using slave labor? Petition Congress to cut off imports from these countries? Have mandatory education classes for Westerners who probably don't care about the exploitation anyways? I can understand your criticism, but what is your alternative solution? Life isn't fair, buddy.
You are free to purchase higher quality clothing at twice the price if you like. I have no problem with that. However, do you hate the poor? Cuz it sounds like you want to raise the price of clothing in general - I guess to get others to make "smarter" choices, like you.

Also, you must hate the poor in Pakistan & Indonesia too, cuz without those imports, they would be poorer. You know Ricardo showed the advantages of free trade by way of the principal of comparative advantage in 1817. Your a bit behind the times. Even P. Krugman knows this.

...lol

Are you starting to see the idea, or do you want more examples?


The only idea I'm getting is that you seem hateful, controlling and economically illiterate.

I don't care. You haven't rebutted the substance of my argument, and I really am amused by your implication that I might care about what your opinion of me is.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:55:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 12:31:17 AM, YYW wrote:

Capitalism damages nations due to international finance and the economic dominance of big business. It holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class, full of profit-seeking impulses; unreliable due to its egotism. The capitalistic economic system should be removed because of the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance. Big businesses know nothing except their profit. The only means to maintain economic security is to have direct control over resources rather than being forced to rely on world trade.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 11:26:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 10:55:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:31:17 AM, YYW wrote:

Capitalism damages nations due to international finance and the economic dominance of big business. It holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class,

so monopoly then? Monopoly has never existed without government backing. If you disagree, please provide examples.

full of profit-seeking impulses;

what does even mean, I mean in reality? We are talking about economics here and all I'm hearing is Marxist rhetoric. Profit is proof that resources have been conserved. Consumers paid more for the final product than went into production. Loss is the opposite - resources were waisted.

unreliable due to its egotism. The capitalistic economic system should be removed because of the exploitation of the economically weak

and replaced with what?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 11:59:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 10:41:51 PM, Heathcliff wrote:
I get the impression you've looked at statistics and charts that show a correlation between overfishing and depletion of species. But remember, correlation does not prove causation. Even if a species goes extinct, natural selection will balance out the food chain over time. Exploitative competition is also found in nature: plants with many roots suck up nitrogen thru their roots, causing nearby plants to die off from a lack of nitrogen.

I get the feeling that you don't understand how taking fish out of the water faster than they can reproduce works....

Even if "exploitative competition" (whatever that is) exists in nature doesn't mean that it's a good thing, either. It's a spectacularly bad thing, if what you want is to prevent international corporations from "competing" you out of the market.

The US tire industry would be another fantastic example. Why do we not import Chinese tires? It's not that they're of inferior quality. It's that they are way cheaper than tires that come into the united states from Western tire companies. So, to protect the Western tire companies, we make it really really hard to import Chinese tires.

The same thing happens with cigarettes. Why is (before taxes) the average price of cigarettes about three or four bucks? It's because that's the market rate established by protectionist trade policies that keep Chinese and European cigarettes out of our market.

Davidoff's, for example (they are rolled in Ukraine... and they are the best cigarettes in the world), are practically impossible to find in the United States because of the tariffs (like, often more than the total price of the cigarettes themselves) are so high.

Those are both examples of how highly useful avoiding competition can be. The idea is to protect "certain" companies from "other companies." We protect the ones we like (Western multinationals) and screw the ones we don't (anything other than a Western multinational).

This is one of those circumstances where you actually have to know something about business to be able to get what I'm saying. The guy before you was clearly out of his depth, and it's looking like you are too.

I don't mean that condescendingly, even though it is -actually- condescending. It's just that you don't have the baseline of knowledge to be able to engage with what I've said. You just see it, and then are like "oh, this looks like a correlation argument" and then you explicitly make an appeal to nature (a kind of logical fallacy), while likewise failing to get that I'm not really complaining about "how the system works" so much as I am saying that "I just wish it could marginally change in one direction."

I mean, it doesn't matter to me that capitalist system works in the way that it does. As I said, I am ok with the system as it operates. What I want isn't some grand transformation of that process. I just want a marginal shift. (A marginal shift is not a big fundamental change; it's small.... little, not big.) The specific marginal shift I want is to make things a little bit better for "the little guy."

Who is "the little guy"? I am. I am a little guy. I am like one person who -although politically aware and locally politically connected in about five places across this country- is really nothing more than a middle class guy who made some good friends at the right time in my life. But, I'm under no illusion that anything I do matters. However, what other actors (companies, who lobby congress) do massively affects me, as it does every other person.

The way in which it affects me is that it defines the scope of choices that I have in everything from what car I buy (or don't buy), to what kind of food I can get in the grocery store, to what kind of politician I can at least appear to meaningfully cast my support in favor of. (Although I can vote for anyone I want, voting for a non-major party candidate isn't meaningful because there is zero chance they will win anything outside of a place like Vermont, which big business really gives zero fvcks about.)

I hope this is at least sort of making sense to you. It's not really all that hard to grasp, although I clearly see that I'm talking over people in basically every way. Or, in the alternative, I'm saying stuff that makes people uncomfortable. (Read: saying that cutting defense spending is stupid would be one of those times*.)

-----------------

*Even the idea of cutting defense spending is an argument that is dead in the water. The alternative to defense spending is civil spending, and that will never happen because it fundamentally changes how the system works. The idea is only to have enough civil spending to keep the system operating, without letting people feel like they could, actually, access public resources for the common good... they start to do that, then all kinds of bad things happen...but this also speaks to why we have never had a labor movement in this country at all... but I digress.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 12:04:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 11:26:01 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 8/12/2015 10:55:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/12/2015 12:31:17 AM, YYW wrote:

Capitalism damages nations due to international finance and the economic dominance of big business. It holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class,

so monopoly then? Monopoly has never existed without government backing. If you disagree, please provide examples.

full of profit-seeking impulses;

what does even mean, I mean in reality? We are talking about economics here and all I'm hearing is Marxist rhetoric. Profit is proof that resources have been conserved. Consumers paid more for the final product than went into production. Loss is the opposite - resources were waisted.

unreliable due to its egotism. The capitalistic economic system should be removed because of the exploitation of the economically weak

and replaced with what?

Ok, so a response like this is why I think you lack the ability to meaningfully engage in any discussion with anyone ever. You're basically like "Here is my opinion. I assume I'm right, and if you disagree you must provide examples." The implication is that you are right until proven wrong, which is hilarious...because you are so spectacularly incompetent.

Monopolies, for example, can EASILY be established without any government intervention at all. In fact, it's that specific kind of self-regulation that industries love the most. (Read: Standard Oil.) Why do they love it the most? Monopolies fundamentally transform prisoner's dilemmas into stag hunts. i'm sure that metaphor is lost on you, and if you want to understand it, google it...

Then, you go off on Peter who has actually said something meaningful and you're like "Communist rhetoric!" because you saw a term you didn't like and you had a stupid reaction to it. Like, you exist on a plane of consciousness that necessarily predisposes you to incompetence and ignorance. Again, not condemnation, per se, so much as description.

Thus, you have a choice... do you take the red pill or the blue pill. (II wonder if you caught the Matrix reference... doubt it.) You're not even going to take any pill because you never got to Morpheous.

lol
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 12:11:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The thing is that what I'm saying is stuff that academics all know, because this is what academia does... we figure stuff out... except certain social scientists who look for really stupid reasons to explain why things are (think Margret Mead).

But, outside of those who have the foundation, I guess, to understand what I'm saying... you're not going to get it, unless you've had some experience, like, with government being actively hostile to your company because your company erodes the market share of a multinational, for example.

And the thing is that most people just don't have that threshold requisite knowledge to be able to even understand what I'm saying... much less engage with it. I mean, hey... maybe someone will surprise me, but I doubt it.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 12:15:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh, and in case anyone was lost as to why this thread is called "capitalism" -it's because everything I'm talking about is how capitalism (or the weird mixed-market capitalism we have here) works.

I would be happy to debunk Rand at another time. Rand is stupid for so many reasons... so many many many reasons. You notice that politicians who talk about Rand don't go very far. That's because they are stupid. They are stupid because they don't know how the system works. No one wants to "actually" compete. They want security from competition because that makes life way way way easier for them.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 12:22:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is your alternative, better solution? Prevent Pakistan from using slave labor? Petition Congress to cut off imports from these countries? Have mandatory education classes for Westerners who probably don't care about the exploitation anyways? I can understand your criticism, but what is your alternative solution? Life isn't fair, buddy.

Ok, so first of all I am not your buddy. I'm just a guy on the internet who you will never meet in real life. I mean, I have friends online here, and plenty of them, but I don't even know you. So don't call me "buddy."

I think, based on the tone of your response here, that you missed like everything that I was saying. I'm not complaining, in terms of "the whole system." I want a "marginal change." See above comments for further elaboration on that point.

I also don't care about slave labor in Pakistan. Pakistani little guys are not me, and I only care really about American little guys. Sorry if that seems unenlightened... well, actually I'm not. I really only care about Americans or people who are or are directly connected to America (like prospective immigrants who want to come here, or immigrants be they legal or otherwise who are here).

Education is something that you see both parties screwing up massively because we don't want a highly educated class of people. (By "we" I mean multinational corporations.) A highly educated population might be culturally and economically aware, and that awareness might translate into political action. That's why math and science always get funding, though, while social science and history do not. Math and science teach people to be "useful," the do not teach people to vote based on their economic interests.

Economics, even, doesn't teach people to vote on their economic interests.... which is why I really always have a good laugh whenever I talk to or about economics majors. But I digress.

So, education gets funding to the extent that it advances the interests of big business. Math and science fall squarely into that category. History (like, the truth) doesn't get taught because that would really break down the nice little narrative of American Exceptionalism that people like to hold onto, as well as all the other basic assumptions that most people have about Western powers' foreign policies... or it could lead to that, and that can't be tolerated because then we can't do what we need to do in foreign countries to advance American corporate interests.

In terms of your "life isn't fair" comment... lol... obviously not, for if it was, corporations wouldn't rule. Although that doesn't mean that we can't make things "better."
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 1:19:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 12:15:14 AM, YYW wrote:
They are stupid because they don't know how the system works. No one wants to "actually" compete. They want security from competition because that makes life way way way easier for them.

Of course no one "wants" to compete. Randians aren't under the impression that businesses compete because it's fun. The point of competition is that you don't have a choice in the matter. If a company charges too much, someone else can undercut them and steal their business. That's why businesses can't charge too much, because by doing so they create an incentive for others to come and take their customers. Sometimes things get in the way of this, e.g., collusion. But collusion only works when two companies have a monopoly. If others are permitted to enter their field, there's nothing they can do to stop them short of buying up every potential business till the end of time, which is completely insane. They would literally have to send dividends to every human on earth equal to what they could make by taking over the field. Now, this isn't to say that competition always works the way it's supposed to in theory. Government intervention is sometimes necessary to correct for flaws in the market.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 1:38:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:19:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 12:15:14 AM, YYW wrote:
They are stupid because they don't know how the system works. No one wants to "actually" compete. They want security from competition because that makes life way way way easier for them.

Of course no one "wants" to compete. Randians aren't under the impression that businesses compete because it's fun. The point of competition is that you don't have a choice in the matter.

Except you do have a choice. You lobby congres to pass laws that protect you from competition, and then you don't compete. Poof! It's like magic!

(actually, it's just the reality of how money buys power)
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 7:43:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:38:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:19:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 12:15:14 AM, YYW wrote:
They are stupid because they don't know how the system works. No one wants to "actually" compete. They want security from competition because that makes life way way way easier for them.

Of course no one "wants" to compete. Randians aren't under the impression that businesses compete because it's fun. The point of competition is that you don't have a choice in the matter.

Except you do have a choice. You lobby congres to pass laws that protect you from competition, and then you don't compete. Poof! It's like magic!

(actually, it's just the reality of how money buys power)

Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Because a huge theme in Atlas Shrugged is exactly that: businesses using governmental intervention to help them against competitors, which is cast in a very negative light.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 8:02:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 7:43:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:38:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:19:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 12:15:14 AM, YYW wrote:
They are stupid because they don't know how the system works. No one wants to "actually" compete. They want security from competition because that makes life way way way easier for them.

Of course no one "wants" to compete. Randians aren't under the impression that businesses compete because it's fun. The point of competition is that you don't have a choice in the matter.

Except you do have a choice. You lobby congres to pass laws that protect you from competition, and then you don't compete. Poof! It's like magic!

(actually, it's just the reality of how money buys power)

Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Because a huge theme in Atlas Shrugged is exactly that: businesses using governmental intervention to help them against competitors, which is cast in a very negative light.

Ironic Noam Chomsky?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 9:18:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 8:02:52 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/13/2015 7:43:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:38:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:19:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 12:15:14 AM, YYW wrote:
They are stupid because they don't know how the system works. No one wants to "actually" compete. They want security from competition because that makes life way way way easier for them.

Of course no one "wants" to compete. Randians aren't under the impression that businesses compete because it's fun. The point of competition is that you don't have a choice in the matter.

Except you do have a choice. You lobby congres to pass laws that protect you from competition, and then you don't compete. Poof! It's like magic!

(actually, it's just the reality of how money buys power)

Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Because a huge theme in Atlas Shrugged is exactly that: businesses using governmental intervention to help them against competitors, which is cast in a very negative light.

Ironic Noam Chomsky?

Noam's as right-wing as they come.