I'm actually not too inclined in this direction, although I have no problem with universal health care. I think the benefits of capitalism, such as they are, can be achieved primarily by the private sector in a carefully-regulated environment.

 

The key is responsible regulations, not crippling regulations.

 

?? Not all entities are able become monopolies and most compete with many other firms without making an individual impact on the industry. Firms that are single monopolies are very rare and are usually broken up by government intervention. If an entity is a natural monopoly, why is price-fixing a bad thing? The price that firm sets is cheaper than any price set with perfect competition due to the economies of scale.

 

I don't hear conservatives making that distinction. To most of them, ANY regulation is "crippling" and NONE are "responsible".

 

I disagree. There are alot of people who hold marxist views and don't even know it or don't want to admit it. Radical feminists and like ALL of the black church are great examples.

 

Why so? In the absence of competition, what prevents them from asking any price they choose to?

And the fact that monopolies have to be broken up by government invention further reinforces my point. It is the natural tendency of businesses to consolidate and eliminate competition, and that necessitates government intervention to prevent it.

 

This is a good example but it doesn't have to work like that. Take oil for example. Its an absolutely necessary commodity. And it is monopolized, not by one "firm" but by several different companies that work in concert together to fix prices, control supply, and invest in each other so everyone wins except the consumers.

 

Well, a natural monopoly does not arbitrarily set a price. It is just able to offer a price that lower than all of its competitors and is able to attain a larger market share and higher profits.

Like I said, it is very difficult for a firm to become a monopoly, especially considering the plurality of production methods in today's age. As for government intervention, even Milton Friedman argued that government cannot be removed from the marketplace and has a rightful place enforcing property rights AND anti-trust action.

 

You wouldn't hear it, because you aren't tuned into their frequency. You only hear what suits your purpose.

 

Competition is the key to making any free market system work, to allow the corporations to over consolidate is damaging not only to the consumer, but to capitalism itself. This is where sound regulation is not only needed, but vital. The problem comes when you include burdensome regulation to satisfy a bureaucracy.

 

I hear what their lobbyists in Washington say, and what their bought-and-paid-for congressmen say. Their answer to the economic crisis was "less regulation". Their answer to the banking collapse was "less regulation". Their answer to the health care issue is "less regulation". Their answer to global climate change is "less regulation".....

Oh, wait, their answer to that is "it isn't happening".

And by the way, could it be that the only things you hear are the things that suit YOUR purpose?

 

But you know I'm not too sure this kind of free market works anymore. I think more and more they have learned from watching the oil monopoly. They can take the market, carve it up in a way that satisfies everyone market share, and then work in concert to set a price they all like and keep it that way.

I just don't see many instances where corporations and companies are actually competing against each other.

 

And that is happening again right now. Even after what just happened as far as the economic collapse they are fighting against meaningful regulations.

But then when it comes to something like "tort reform" the want all kinds of regulations on that so they can get the government to protect them.

 

The fewer competitors there are, the better they are able to conspire to divide the pie up to benefit the remaining entities. It isn't necessary to have a monopoly, purely defined. It is only necessary to reduce the number of competing entities. You see that consolidation in every major industry in the U.S.

Except porn, maybe. That bastion of pure capitalism.

 

Do you hear what the lobbyists for your cause are saying? More regulation, how do they combat that? In the mean time your proud Democratic Congress keeps on making more multi-national monopolies possible, while banking the profits.

 

Well, stumbler I would have to say that the oil companies are not really at fault for the high prices we pay as consumers (though they are bastards for not diversifying their energy services). Oil as a commodity often reaches record pricing levels. You can thank Goldman Sachs (Wall St.) and the CFTC for that.

Good to see you and Kimiko again, btw.

 

Yes, they're more than happy to let the taxpayers bear their risk for them. That also illustrates just how deep their allegiance is to the free market.

 

Yeah, like eliminating competition is so easy and is the status of any successful firm in the capitalist model.

 

How does tort reform stall a free market? The precise opposite is true.

 

So, you believe a victim of medical malpractice shouldn't be able to sue the doctor who sawed off the wrong leg for fair compensation?

Oh, I get it, you're coming from that Ayn Rand ideal that lawyers and courts and lawsuits and all that crap aren't necessary or desirable, they just get in the way of profits.