How Public Pensions Turn Cities into Unlivable Hellholes - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15237621
Mike12 wrote:2 posts on monoplies. they DID have 4 posts on monopolies. I never met communist professors. There are none in micro-economics , macro economics, econ 400 whats that, advanced economics. Efficiency is opposed to the equality, and efficiency has inequality. A mean system? Its a mean system that can tell farmers to go to factories and factories to go to the farms. Companies can refuse to be publicly traded and be privately held, there is no necessity they are ever part of being in a "buy out". There are no world-conquering economics.? The customers of a competitor, what do you do about that, thats silly, they have customers, they won't switch.

Invariably this is a switch to the national socialist government production or the communist associations. Now countries got flags for who produced 1 widget or 2 widgets, isn't that it. The countries that are Not the Industrial Revolution isn't that it, that got flags for this for 1 productions or 2 productions.

On top of not having to be bought out or no hostile take-overs, there are no abuses of customers in the eras without government regulations. They've said don't sell cigarettes with kids cartoon ads.

Well, I’m glad @Mike12 cleared that up for us. Thanks @Mike12! :D :up:
#15237624
Truth To Power wrote:It most certainly does, as we have seen repeatedly with attempts to monopolize commodity production.

And repeated success there of.

Truth To Power wrote:No, it provides an incentive to compete and defect.

It provides greater incentive to invest in monopolizes and join cartels. The Profits are higher.

Truth To Power wrote:The monopoly is only more profitable as long as it is a monopoly. As soon as a competitor outcompetes it, it is no longer a monopoly, and its excess profits disappear.

Just false. Dominate market positions have advantages. Depends from sector to sector but often a monopoly doe snot need to be total to be very very profitable,

Truth To Power wrote:Capitalism favors monopoly because it makes land private property. As Marx himself observed, land monopoly is the mother of all monopolies. But the fact that capitalism favors monopoly does not mean free markets do. A free market is impossible under capitalism.

No. Capitalism favors monopolies/cartels because the profits are greater. Free Markets are a utter fiction.

Truth To Power wrote:If there are competitors, then there is no monopoly. See how that works?

[/quote]
Simplistic. A Market dominated by a few major players will often have most of the effects of a monopoly as the dominate players interests co-inside so much they act as a monopoly would anyway, competition get reach a level before it actually impacting the market significantly.
#15237625
Potemkin wrote:But how can they compete effectively?

By providing better products at lower prices.
As Marx

Marx was the Anti-Economist. He was reliably wrong on every substantive issue.
put it, “The battle of competition is fought by cheapening of commodities.

But that is just false. It is fought by satisfying demand more efficiently.
The cheapness of commodities depends, ceteris paribus, on the productiveness of labour, and this again on the scale of production.

No, that's also just flat false.
Therefore the larger capitals beat the smaller.”

Historically false. By your silly Marxist "logic," the success of Amazon against Walmart cannot have happened. But it has.
This is why corner shops cannot compete with supermarkets,

No, corner shops cannot compete with supermarkets because they can't satisfy demand as efficiently. People want to buy everything in one place, with one trip, not traipse around to half a dozen small specialty stores to find what they want. Statistics is also on the side of large retailers because they have more consistent capacity utilization.
why iron foundries cannot be built in people’s backyards,

No, that is because there is a minimum efficient scale for iron smelting -- but there is also a maximum.
and why governments often prevent mergers between companies which would lead to monopolies.

No, that is because they want to give an appearance of serving the people while actually serving the privileged.
Competition works by squeezing out inefficiencies, and the biggest inefficiency is lack of scale.

In some industries that is true; in others it is not.
The big fishes gobble up the little fishes, until there’s only one big fish left….

That's not how business or biology work. There is a minimum efficient scale for a given type of organism, but also a maximum, and the same is true for businesses in most sectors.
#15237762
pugsville wrote:And repeated success there of.

Name one.
It provides greater incentive to invest in monopolizes and join cartels. The Profits are higher.

No, the profits are higher for those who compete with monopolies and defect from cartels.
Just false.

No it isn't.
Dominate market positions have advantages.

<yawn> Like AOL? Like Myspace? Like Ford? Like Levis?
Depends from sector to sector but often a monopoly doe snot need to be total to be very very profitable,

Some firms are very very profitable in highly competitive industries. So what?
No.

Yes.
Capitalism favors monopolies/cartels because the profits are greater.

No, the exact opposite is true because high profits attract competition. Monopolies in capitalism come from government-issued and -enforced privileges like land titles and IP monopolies.
Free Markets are a utter fiction.

Then why are you pretending that free markets tend to monopoly?
Simplistic.

Factual.
A Market dominated by a few major players will often have most of the effects of a monopoly as the dominate players interests co-inside so much they act as a monopoly would anyway, competition get reach a level before it actually impacting the market significantly.

No, that's bollocks.
#15237835
Truth To Power wrote:Name one.

No, the profits are higher for those who compete with monopolies and defect from cartels.

No it isn't.

<yawn> Like AOL? Like Myspace? Like Ford? Like Levis?

Some firms are very very profitable in highly competitive industries. So what?

Yes.

No, the exact opposite is true because high profits attract competition. Monopolies in capitalism come from government-issued and -enforced privileges like land titles and IP monopolies.

Then why are you pretending that free markets tend to monopoly?

Factual.

No, that's bollocks.


Lurkers, you will be able to judge for yourself who is right.

I'll name 2. In around 1900, Standard Oil and US Steel.
. . . I'm open to being convinced that this 'econ. history' is really a myth. So, TtP, try to convince me. Just asserting it isn't enough.

I used the phrase "Free Market" because economists do. However, I can define it here for this discussion as a market that is free of sufficient Gov. regulation to stop monopolies from being formed.

I think that TtP is just wrong about monopolies. Yes, Gov. can form them as in the various East India Companies in the 1700s and IP and patents can also do it. In fact I think that the protections the current patent law provides in the US lasts too long. But, Amazon is a monopoly.

.
#15237841
Truth To Power wrote:Name one.

No, the profits are higher for those who compete with monopolies and defect from cartels.

No it isn't.

<yawn> Like AOL? Like Myspace? Like Ford? Like Levis?

Some firms are very very profitable in highly competitive industries. So what?

Yes.

No, the exact opposite is true because high profits attract competition. Monopolies in capitalism come from government-issued and -enforced privileges like land titles and IP monopolies.

Then why are you pretending that free markets tend to monopoly?

Factual.

No, that's bollocks.



Monopolies are attractive and mergers between competitors standard. There is a natural tendency to monopoly or cartel behavior under capitalism because it is more profitable,. Capital seeks profits. Nothing you say can chnage that fact.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldi ... 05293f2972

https://www.investopedia.com/insights/h ... onopolies/

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/le ... he-numbers

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/2/18 ... eerleading

https://worthly.com/business/largest-mo ... in-the-us/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... se/614644/

https://www.yipinstitute.com/articles/i ... in-america

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... estigation
#15237900
pugsville wrote:Monopolies are attractive

...targets.
and mergers between competitors standard.

In part because the burden of constantly having to demonstrate to regulators that they are competing with each other is so costly. It costs a lot less for one firm to produce 10K pages of documentation to satisfy government regulators than for 10K competing firms to produce 10K pages each.
There is a natural tendency to monopoly or cartel behavior under capitalism because it is more profitable,.

And a natural tendency to compete with them because it is so profitable.
Capital seeks profits. Nothing you say can chnage that fact.

And one way to obtain profits is to compete with a monopoly.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/04/11/america-has-a-monopoly-problem/?sh=3905293f2972

https://www.investopedia.com/insights/h ... onopolies/

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/le ... he-numbers

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/2/18 ... eerleading

https://worthly.com/business/largest-mo ... in-the-us/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... se/614644/

https://www.yipinstitute.com/articles/i ... in-america

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... estigation

None of that supports your claim that markets and profit seeking per se tend to create monopolies. In most cases, it clearly explains the regulatory framework that encourages larger enterprises. WalMart can afford the thousands of lawyers and accountants needed to comply with regulations, tax laws, etc. Mom and Pop can't.
#15237908
@Truth To Power

Potemkin wrote:Marx was the Anti-Economist. He was reliably wrong on every substantive issue.


I wouldn't say Marx was wrong on every issue, though I am not sure exactly how you would define “substantive” or what exactly that entails from your point of view. However, I will say that you are correct that Marx was an anti-economist and was never an economist. He was certainly wrong about economics and what works in the real world. However, he was also right about capitalism in his critique of its imperfections. He was just wrong about communism. Every economy has to have a strong capitalist element, otherwise the whole system collapses. That's where Marx was wrong.

You have to have that capitalist element to the economy. The fact of the matter is that people are lazy, greedy, and largely only care about themselves and maybe their immediate family and that's it. So capitalism provides that element of the profit motive to give people the incentive to work while also punishing inefficiencies. Communism doesn't punish inefficiencies and doesn't provide the incentive for the mostly greedy, lazy, self-interested people to work. I mean, that's just the reality of the real world from a rationale perspective in regard to what works economically speaking.

Moreover, there has always been the “free rider” problem. Where others take advantage of the team while not contributing to the team (think of team as like society and the broad economy). There will always be some issue with the “free rider” concern no matter what you do. Hence, why it's important to punish “free riders” who unfairly take advantage of the hard work of the team. Failure to do so will result in the team not willing to work, too. That leads to economic collapse. Marx's philosophy fails to address the “free rider” issue and provide real incentive to work.
#15237917
Technology has advanced to the point where the free rider problem is not a problem. Nationalize the housing industry, institute a basic universal income, and pay people to stay home.

Those of us with real skills and drive can keep it going, and we can do it while working less hours.
#15237921
@ingliz

Yes, I guess that's one way to manage the "free rider" problem. :lol: Except most of those in the Gulag who were worked to death weren't paid and had to be replaced once they died. Plus, a lot of them were not necessarily "free riders." Just simply put into slavery by Stalin because he needed slave labor for his industrialization policy. That was the only way he could industrialize the Soviet Union was through involuntary slave labor. Really, the U.S. economy was also built on race-based slavery in its earlier formative years.

Today, capitalism relies on firing workers or disciplining them with "write-ups" and various other ways while still paying them. Though, the wages that some workers are paid might not correlate with inflation and the cost of living. That could be a problem if they are not given any real opportunity for advancement and to improve their own pay to make it worth their time to work. If the cost of living is much higher than the wages they are paid and there is no way they can possibly advance, they will either start their own business maybe or will simply not work or they will work two or three jobs if faced with the prospect of starvation or homelessness.

But if they work two or three jobs to make ends meet because inflation is high and they have to work that many jobs to keep up with inflation, then they will not get proper rest. Without proper rest, when these workers are on the job, they make mistakes. Mistakes can cost an employer a lot of money. Which could lead to those workers being fired. This then might lead to workers stop working because they will eventually get fired anyway from not having proper rest due to the fact they are working 2 or 3 jobs to keep up with inflation with no way to get one decent paying job that will allow them to keep up with inflation while getting proper rest.

Which in turn can lead to employers paying off politicians to pass new laws to imprison unemployed workers who are unwilling to work to be used as slave labor so they can keep getting rich off the backs of the now-imprisoned unemployed. But then again, the wealthy must consider the costs of imprisoning the unemployed versus the cost of paying them to where they can keep up with the cost of inflation. Most likely, they try to find a way to shift the costs of imprisonment onto those working in the legitimate economy so they can maximize their profit off slave labor in prison while not paying the cost of imprisoning the unemployed or paying very little of that cost. This is why captialism has to be well regulated to the benefit of ALL segments of society and not just to ONLY the segment of the wealthy.
#15237944
Pants-of-dog wrote:Technology has advanced to the point where the free rider problem is not a problem.

No; it is definitely a problem, but one that can, with intelligence and economic understanding (both always in short supply with socialists), be solved.
Nationalize the housing industry,

Like capitalists, socialists can't tell the difference between building housing and owning land. The former think the way to solve the housing shortage is to increase the subsidy to landowners for holding land idle. The latter think the way to make sure everyone has enough to eat is to nationalize the grocery stores and restaurant industry.
institute a basic universal income, and pay people to stay home.

Looks like another failure of your reading comprehension (or something else...?) UBI means that you pay people enough to live on whether they stay home or earn seven figures.
Those of us with real skills and drive can keep it going, and we can do it while working less hours.

Certainly the overhead cost imposed on the economy by the privileged -- roughly half of GDP -- greatly exceeds the amount it would cost to provide decent material conditions for all.
#15237948
Politics_Observer wrote:@Truth To Power
I wouldn't say Marx was wrong on every issue, though I am not sure exactly how you would define “substantive” or what exactly that entails from your point of view.

He was wrong on every point where he disagreed with classical economics. I.e., the things he was right about were all things that there was no real disagreement about.
However, I will say that you are correct that Marx was an anti-economist and was never an economist. He was certainly wrong about economics and what works in the real world. However, he was also right about capitalism in his critique of its imperfections.

No. His critique of capitalism was completely wrong-headed. He thought the problem with capitalism is that private ownership of factories enables the factory owner to exploit the worker. In reality, it is actually private ownership of land that enables the landowner to exploit both the worker and the factory owner, and the factory owner to exploit the worker. The problem with capitalism, which is actually an implication of Ricardo's Law of Rent, was explained very clearly and irrefutably 140 years ago by Henry George in "Progress and Poverty."

Here's a simple illustration:
With no factory owner, the worker produces $2 worth of products an hour, and pays the landowner $1 for permission to do so, keeping $1 to live on.
When the factory owner creates the factory and hires the worker, the worker produces $10 worth of products an hour. Of this, the factory owner pays the worker $3 for his labor and pays the landowner $4 for permission to use the land, plus $2 in taxes, keeping $1 in profits. The worker now has to pay the landowner $2 for permission to work at the factory, keeping the same $1 to live on. So the factory owner gets $1 in return for increasing production from $2 to $10; the landowner gets $6 instead of $1 for doing the same nothing he was doing before; the government gets $2 in taxes it wasn't getting before -- and Marx says the factory owner has made no contribution to production, and is actually stealing $7/hr from the worker.
He was just wrong about communism.

That too.
Every economy has to have a strong capitalist element, otherwise the whole system collapses. That's where Marx was wrong.

What do you mean by "a strong capitalist element"? Market competition? Property in the fruits of one's labor? Production for profit? Those do not require capitalism.
You have to have that capitalist element to the economy.

What is it, though, specifically?
The fact of the matter is that people are lazy, greedy, and largely only care about themselves and maybe their immediate family and that's it. So capitalism provides that element of the profit motive to give people the incentive to work while also punishing inefficiencies.

You don't need capitalism for that. In fact, geoism does it more effectively by removing the something-for-nothing payments to landowners.
Communism doesn't punish inefficiencies and doesn't provide the incentive for the mostly greedy, lazy, self-interested people to work. I mean, that's just the reality of the real world from a rationale perspective in regard to what works economically speaking.

True enough. But communism's problems go even deeper.
Moreover, there has always been the “free rider” problem. Where others take advantage of the team while not contributing to the team (think of team as like society and the broad economy). There will always be some issue with the “free rider” concern no matter what you do. Hence, why it's important to punish “free riders” who unfairly take advantage of the hard work of the team.

Like landowners, you mean.
Failure to do so will result in the team not willing to work, too. That leads to economic collapse. Marx's philosophy fails to address the “free rider” issue and provide real incentive to work.

You can find ways to provide incentives to work under communism. You just can't make the incentives as accurate as in a market economy, or give entrepreneurs the liberty to increase production on their own responsibility.
#15237960
@Truth To Power

Truth To Power wrote:No. His critique of capitalism was completely wrong-headed. He thought the problem with capitalism is that private ownership of factories enables the factory owner to exploit the worker. In reality, it is actually private ownership of land that enables the landowner to exploit both the worker and the factory owner, and the factory owner to exploit the worker. The problem with capitalism, which is actually an implication of Ricardo's Law of Rent, was explained very clearly and irrefutably 140 years ago by Henry George in "Progress and Poverty."


Marx was right in that factory owners exploit the workers for a profit. Exploitation is a fundamental part of capitalism. We are all exploited by our employers when we go to work. We have to be able to cover our labor cost to the employer AND generate additional revenue for the employer. Otherwise, why would he hire us?

That's when you are selling your labor, you talk about how you benefit the bottom line of the employer because he is there to make money. It's why factories are sweatshops. Sweatshops exist everywhere, including in the United States though the wider public might not be aware of them and they are perfectly legal precisely because the public is not aware of them. But you will never be able to get rid of sweatshops.

Truth to Power wrote:What is it, though, specifically?


Those who produce profit, and wealth, and pay a portion of their profit, and wealth into taxes from their productivity in generating that wealth. This could be a factory owner or landowner or employee working for a factory owner.

Truth to Power wrote: In fact, geoism does it more effectively by removing the something-for-nothing payments to landowners.


I am not so sure what this "geoism" is that you are referring to but whatever it is I have serious doubts about its viability as an economic system. Somebody, somewhere, traded the fruits of their labor over a period of years for a piece of land. So, it's not "something for nothing." They legitimately own that land and many people buy land as a long-term investment much like many people buy ownership in a factory as a long-term investment. Every factory requires startup capital and a decent plan to have a chance to be profitable.

They are taking the fruits of their labor and using that fruit to go to work for them. You don't trade the fruits of labor for ownership in a factory or a piece of land just for the sake of it. You do it because you want something in return. That could be just land you want to roam around in. It could be you want to lease that land to others for a profit. It's all legit. The landowners are not necessarily "free-riding" so to speak. The trade-off is they don't get to spend their money on other things they would otherwise spend their money on. So with ownership comes tradeoffs. It's just like an engineering solution to a problem. Every solution has tradeoffs the engineer has to make when giving his client or employer what he or she wants in a solution to the problem.

Truth To Power wrote:You can find ways to provide incentives to work under communism.


How is that when everything is state-owned? People don't have an incentive to make an efficient factory because it's state-owned. Workers in state-owned factories inevitably end up not working because the free-rider workers are not punished. Therefore, many will not work because they don't want to be taken advantage of by those free riders. There is no incentive to punish the free riders under such a system and there is no incentive to work because the free riders will take advantage of those who would otherwise work. You see tons of "free riders" in civil service government positions. It might not be politically popular to call them that, but many government workers are indeed "free riders" precisely because of the lack of incentive to work and a lack of punishment for free riding.

It's like the classic problem of everybody likes clean bathrooms but nobody wants to clean the bathroom. That means if somebody gives in and cleans the bathroom, they will always be taken advantage of by everybody else who will just let him or her clean the bathroom while never doing it themselves. Inevitably, nobody cleans the bathroom so the bathroom gets dirtier and nastier over time. Nothing gets done. There is no incentive to clean the bathroom and no punishment for those who free-ride off those who do clean the bathroom.

You should put the full quote I am of the o[…]

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's prom[…]

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]