DB RELATED: Department of Justice is concerned about the Sony acquisition of Crunchyroll

[PurestEvil]

Monopolies require a government preventing competitors from entering a market. That's not a feature of Capitalism.

It absolutely is a feature of unfettered capitalism.
Contrary to your statement, it is the lack of effective legislation that leads to corporations merging and gaining power. Big corporations are able to keep legislators down with lobbying groups.

[ABED]

Monopolies require a government preventing competitors from entering a market. That's not a feature of Capitalism.

It absolutely is a feature of unfettered capitalism.
Contrary to your statement, it is the lack of effective legislation that leads to corporations merging and gaining power. Big corporations are able to keep legislators down with lobbying groups.

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

[PurestEvil]

Monopolies require a government preventing competitors from entering a market. That's not a feature of Capitalism.

It absolutely is a feature of unfettered capitalism.
Contrary to your statement, it is the lack of effective legislation that leads to corporations merging and gaining power. Big corporations are able to keep legislators down with lobbying groups.

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

But it IS a capitalist system. Just because we have some welfare programs doesn’t mean the system has socialism. Compared to the other developed countries, the USA has very few socially owned sectors.
If you want proof for how monopolization is a feature of capitalism, look at 1880s America, before all those regulations were enacted. There is a reason why the Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed.

[JulieYBM]

It absolutely is a feature of unfettered capitalism.
Contrary to your statement, it is the lack of effective legislation that leads to corporations merging and gaining power. Big corporations are able to keep legislators down with lobbying groups.

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

But it IS a capitalist system. Just because we have some welfare programs doesn’t mean the system has socialism. Compared to the other developed countries, the USA has very few socially owned sectors.
If you want proof for how monopolization is a feature of capitalism, look at 1880s America, before all those regulations were enacted. There is a reason why the Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed.

And, if I might add on to your post, if I might remind everyone of how we got rid of those conditions in the 1800s and early 1900s? Violence.

[WittyUsername]

Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. It’s not gonna happen.

Considering how capitalism is what's killing the world in so many millions of ways right now I feel like this is an extremely silly thing to say and will be proven wrong.

Also, like, I'm sorry, I'm just not impressed. I eat bullshit like "capitalism isn't going anywhere. It's not gonna happen" for breakfast.

Better things are possible and discussion is the first of many steps towards those better things.

A lot of things are killing the world. It can’t all be blamed on capitalism. North Korea and Cuba don’t have capitalism, and they’re doing pretty badly.

[Soppa Saia People]

well Cuba also has had a huge trade embargo for like 60 years so that's probably not helping.

[JulieYBM]

Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. It’s not gonna happen.

Considering how capitalism is what's killing the world in so many millions of ways right now I feel like this is an extremely silly thing to say and will be proven wrong.

Also, like, I'm sorry, I'm just not impressed. I eat bullshit like "capitalism isn't going anywhere. It's not gonna happen" for breakfast.

Better things are possible and discussion is the first of many steps towards those better things.

A lot of things are killing the world. It can’t all be blamed on capitalism. North Korea and Cuba don’t have capitalism, and they’re doing pretty badly.

They aren't the empires violently spreading their forces across the planet to extract its resources to sell back to the human race for non-material bullshit like 'profit'. That's the United States of America.

Like, you literally picked the two least involved nations on the planet, both of whom the US has decades-long histories of trying to antagonize into open-warfare so as to have an excuse to invade. For profit.

[ABED]

It absolutely is a feature of unfettered capitalism.
Contrary to your statement, it is the lack of effective legislation that leads to corporations merging and gaining power. Big corporations are able to keep legislators down with lobbying groups.

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

But it IS a capitalist system. Just because we have some welfare programs doesn’t mean the system has socialism. Compared to the other developed countries, the USA has very few socially owned sectors.
If you want proof for how monopolization is a feature of capitalism, look at 1880s America, before all those regulations were enacted. There is a reason why the Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed.

If you want proof of how it's not a feature, look at the reasons why the Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed. It's a matter of public record. It was a protectionist tool used to reduce competition. Besides, if there are no legal barriers to entry into an industry, how can companies keep out potential competitors?

Plain and simple, we don't have capitalism and the government has ZERO business telling companies whom they can buy.

[Shaddy]

A lot of things are killing the world. It can’t all be blamed on capitalism. North Korea and Cuba don’t have capitalism, and they’re doing pretty badly.

They basically do, actually. Privately-owned means of production don't necessitate that there be multiple owners, just that it's not in the hands of the working class, which those definitely aren't. A private state is functionally indistinguishable from a private ruling class.

Statist communism is capitalism rebranded.

[WittyUsername]

A lot of things are killing the world. It can’t all be blamed on capitalism. North Korea and Cuba don’t have capitalism, and they’re doing pretty badly.

They basically do, actually. Privately-owned means of production don't necessitate that there be multiple owners, just that it's not in the hands of the working class, which those definitely aren't. A private state is functionally indistinguishable from a private ruling class.

Statist communism is capitalism rebranded.

If that’s the case, you might as well say that communism in general is just another form of capitalism. Technically though, Cuba classifies itself as socialist. Of course, so did Nazi Germany, so who really knows what the hell any of it means.

[JulieYBM]

A lot of things are killing the world. It can’t all be blamed on capitalism. North Korea and Cuba don’t have capitalism, and they’re doing pretty badly.

They basically do, actually. Privately-owned means of production don't necessitate that there be multiple owners, just that it's not in the hands of the working class, which those definitely aren't. A private state is functionally indistinguishable from a private ruling class.

Statist communism is capitalism rebranded.

If that’s the case, you might as well say that communism in general is just another form of capitalism. Technically though, Cuba classifies itself as socialist. Of course, so did Nazi Germany, so who really knows what the hell any of it means.

Abigail Thorn of (PhilosophyTube) has a great series on the subject of Marx and his assessment of capitalism. I suggest checking it out, as well as her series on liberalism and neoliberalism. Her Darwin versus Marx video also has a nice, concise summary of what Communism is.

Be warned that she made these pre-transition and looks heavily depressed in a number of them.

[PurestEvil]

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

But it IS a capitalist system. Just because we have some welfare programs doesn’t mean the system has socialism. Compared to the other developed countries, the USA has very few socially owned sectors.
If you want proof for how monopolization is a feature of capitalism, look at 1880s America, before all those regulations were enacted. There is a reason why the Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed.

If you want proof of how it's not a feature, look at the reasons why the Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed. It's a matter of public record. It was a protectionist tool used to reduce competition. Besides, if there are no legal barriers to entry into an industry, how can companies keep out potential competitors?

Plain and simple, we don't have capitalism and the government has ZERO business telling companies whom they can buy.

The Sherman Anti Trust Act was literally the opposite of what you claim but go off.
Monopolies form in a free market simply by the corporations being large enough to buy out or snuff out competitors. John D Rockefeller ring a bell?
Also “The government does stuff therefore there is no capitalism” is a null take. Capitalism is characterized by by private enterprise and the trade of capital goods, regulations do not automatically make a country’s economy “not capitalist”.

[ABED]

You have a poor grasp of history and economics. I get it, public schools are terrible at teaching both, but the fact still remains that you don't know what you're talking about. If Rockefeller was a monopolist, why did he have plenty of competitors, prices fell, and output and & quality increased when he ran Standard Oil? When I said the protectionist use of the Sherman Antitrust act is a matter of public record, I meant you can look up the congressional debates over the bill and see even they understood this but still saw it as restraint of trade because apparently trusts being too good at what they did harmed their competitors.

Private ownership means people own property and determine how it's used. If you have mountains of regulations determining how it's used, then it's private in name only. At best, you have a title. Again, we have a mixed economy with some elements of freedom and some elements of government control.

And buying out competitors is a really bad strategy to monopolize an industry. If anyone can enter, you're begging for companies to form JUST to be bought out.

The government has no business telling a damn anime company who they can buy. No one's rights have been violated.

Saying we don't have Capitalism is about being clear with one's thinking. My issue with the way its talked about pretty much most places is that it's vaguely defined and includes Laissez Faire Capitalism (redundant term, but sadly necessary) and anything short of outright statism. When people criticize Capitalism, are they criticizing freedom or control?

[PurestEvil]

You have a poor grasp of history and economics. I get it, public schools are terrible at teaching both, but the fact still remains that you don't know what you're talking about. If Rockefeller was a monopolist, why did he have plenty of competitors, prices fell, and output and & quality increased when he ran Standard Oil?

Rockefeller and his company used dirty tactics to stifle competition, and was even willing to lose money in the process. This is undeniable. The trusts lowering prices does not nullify the fact that Standard Oil controlled the majority of American oil.

You persist that capitalism can only exist with a laissez faire economy, but that is simply not the case. Even with our mixed economies, private enterprise is the biggest contributor to the Economy and owns the VAST majority of the means of production. This is the key factor of capitalism and shitty regulation policy does not nullify this.

[ABED]

You have a poor grasp of history and economics. I get it, public schools are terrible at teaching both, but the fact still remains that you don't know what you're talking about. If Rockefeller was a monopolist, why did he have plenty of competitors, prices fell, and output and & quality increased when he ran Standard Oil?

Rockefeller and his company used dirty tactics to stifle competition, and was even willing to lose money in the process. This is undeniable. The trusts lowering prices does not nullify the fact that Standard Oil controlled the majority of American oil.

You persist that capitalism can only exist with a laissez faire economy, but that is simply not the case. Even with our mixed economies, private enterprise is the biggest contributor to the Economy and owns the VAST majority of the means of production. This is the key factor of capitalism and shitty regulation policy does not nullify this.

It's a mixed bag. They weren't perfect but the issues people have with monopolies (high prices, lower output and quality) aren't present in this case. They brought down prices, increased output. All things you would expect to not be the case if they were a monopoly. They had the largest share of the market because they were more efficient.

By definition it does nulify it as it makes it something else - an unstable mixture. When you aren't in full control of what you own, it's not truly private. To say otherwise is to claim Laissez Faire and the mixed economy are the same thing.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Anything further and it becomes "nuh uh" "yeah huh"

[PurestEvil]

No, regulations do not nullify capitalism, nor is it the same as a totally free market (that is a false equivalence). The board execs still run the companies, they just can’t do stuff like pay the workers shit wages as an example. The profit incentive is still there.
At this point you are playing a semantics game, one that leads to nowhere.

[Skar]

And, if I might add on to your post, if I might remind everyone of how we got rid of those conditions in the 1800s and early 1900s? Violence.

Was it violence? I think that would only lead to chaos and the worse off would be our fellow average citizens. The government split Standard Oil into 34 companies and after decades of mergers and acquisitions, only four of those 34 companies remain. I've read that the inevitability of capitalism is that every major industry become oligopolies with only a few corporations holding the majority of the market share. As long as there's some form of competition, the average consumer benefits since it provides more access to goods and cheaper than what they otherwise would've been. I'm no expert on the subject so I'm sure it could still be argued that there are negative effects but I believe it's a better alternative to violence.

[JulieYBM]

And, if I might add on to your post, if I might remind everyone of how we got rid of those conditions in the 1800s and early 1900s? Violence.

Was it violence? I think that would only lead to chaos and the worse off would be our fellow average citizens. The government split Standard Oil into 34 companies and after decades of mergers and acquisitions, only four of those 34 companies remain. I've read that the inevitability of capitalism is that every major industry become oligopolies with only a few corporations holding the majority of the market share. As long as there's some form of competition, the average consumer benefits since it provides more access to goods and cheaper than what they otherwise would've been. I'm no expert on the subject so I'm sure it could still be argued that there are negative effects but I believe it's a better alternative to violence.

Yup, there was tons of violence involved, typically instigated by the owner class. Workers will turn to strikes first and those are typically met with retaliation that escalates into violence.

Remember, there wouldn't be violence if the workers got what they wanted: living wages, safe worl conditions and short work hours. Those things have historically needed to be acquired with what the wealthy and corporations deem is 'violence', whether that means stopping/delaying work (and thus hurting the profits of the owner) or fucking shit up.

[Skar]

Yup, there was tons of violence involved, typically instigated by the owner class. Workers will turn to strikes first and those are typically met with retaliation that escalates into violence.

Remember, there wouldn't be violence if the workers got what they wanted: living wages, safe worl conditions and short work hours. Those things have historically needed to be acquired with what the wealthy and corporations deem is 'violence', whether that means stopping/delaying work (and thus hurting the profits of the owner) or fucking shit up.

What's the success rate for violent protest compared to peaceful protests and strikes? I ask because I've read the results vary and I don't know if they've been more successful. In some cases, it leads to the company changing their policies but it can also lead to layoffs or the company shutting down that factory/location or going out of business completely.

[Aim]

Wow look at all this free market competition, it’s almost like it’s a complete sham.