Some insight into problems with market economy

[classicalliberal]

Vaggabonddreamer what would you rather have, pure capitalism (which doesn't, never has and never will exist) rather a mixed-capitalist society where everyone has an equal opportunity and some get rich using this "cheap" imported labour rather than high priced, low productivity unionized labour (which is why north american vehicles are pieces of shit relative to the same priced German or Japanese vehicles) or a mixed-socialist society were very few people are rich and equality of an impoverished outcome is the focus?

Sumdumb guy, it sounds good to have your own flour mill but the wheat board would make you buy back your own wheat at a lot higher price than the market is. Also, there would be no economies of scale that bigger mills would have and each farmer would have to spend a huge amount on advertising so that people would buy your products over the next farmer who has the same commodity (flour) and is also trying to not let anyone make money off him.

[classicalliberal]

dreamer, free markets and capitalism don't inherently create monopolies, things like government regulation, nationalization, unions and protectionism create monopolies. In a free market society, people are free to enter and exit businesses and if someone is making too much money, someone else will enter that business creating competition.

Cottonpicken will know Ludwig von Mises of Austrian Economic's quote "Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire."

[cottonpicken]

Cant wait till everyone heres about the 16th amendment and taxation on labour.

[vagabonddreamer]

actually i only got into the conversation to prevent Cotton from pistol whipping Keyenes and Shiller..lol...didnt want him to get blood on his Colt...it messes up the action...

i agree with most things said in this thread...from both sides...because most of it is laid out in an intellectual framework that makes sense...just as i think Keynes has a right to espouse his own political rhetoric...

liberty...i will never defend socialism...OR capitalism...as classylib pointed out...neither can really exist in pure form...and i think that was Keynes' point...

i absolutely HATE the fact that i can be smarter or be willing to work harder than someone else... and not only is there the possibility that i may not be rewarded for it...there is a good chance i may be penalized for it to "even" out the playing field...

classylib..i DO sincerely believe that society needs SOME sort of check and balance...but i DO not believe that the meek should inherit the earth...

i dont believe that capitalism "breeds" monopoly..i just asked Francisco if a monopoly would be acceptible in HIS version of capitalism...i do understand the machinations of a free market society...but the behaviour of the oil companies with respect to the price of fuel...does not compel me to have 100% faith in the free market system either...they arent EXACTLY a monopoly...but they are colluding to practice monopolistic policies...the "government" is supposed to regulate this type of corporate behaviour...but they either dont have the cajones...or they are listening to you guys...(wink)... and moving to more a laissez faire type of governance...

there are gajillions of dollars to be made in fuel...but there doesnt seem to be a lineup of companies moving into the industry and lowering prices...

anyway...truth be told...my personal political stripes tend to be more inline with Francisco's and possibly classylib's...but i am LEFT of Austrian economists...and Cotton and his pistol...lol...its a good discussion though....(Cotton...i use a Marlin guide rifle to beat the socialist into submission..the stainless steel cleans up better)..lol...vs

[vagabonddreamer]

now...classylib and francisco and liberty and cotton...i KNOW you guys dont care about us cowboys...but maybe while you are driving around in your Lamborghini's (rom a previous post)...have a thought about these random comments from the beef side of things..

Willowcreek posted Mar 12, 2009 20:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kato {Anybody seen any "ABP/CCA/AMI cult followers" around here? If they're here, they are laying low. LOL }

Kato-- well all I've seen on here and many sites are the Canadian Packer backers- that support the Packers with their control of the captive supply and ownership of the feedlots, monopoly slaughter houses, generic worldwide meat and refusing to want to identify their product while riding on the shirttails of the industry the US producer has built thru the years...
IP: Logged
Edit?

smcgrath76 posted Mar 12, 2009 20:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I get pretty frustrated when I see the struggle that some of these plants have had. Competition has to be a good thing. Cull cows were 10 cents higher in SK when the pressure was put on NVF.
I worry about producer owned packing initiatives from the perspective that we are probably overbuilt and operating at 70% of current capacity. The only way to make producer owned plants work is to have one of the big two pull out. I doubt with their Canadian presence and new debt load that NB is going anywhere, so that leaves Cargill. Is that a possibility? I don't know, or do NB try to scoop that up as well.
Is there a structure we are missing where capacity can be taken over, rather than built? 10B would help with plants that already exist and with marketing and establishing the cattle supply to really make things work, but I am pretty sure we are not on the radar.

unsolicited comments...and this is with a (veiled) government control...a government that just like with the oil industry doesnt have the cajones to deal with a problem they were complicit in allowing...

maybe a true free market economy would be better...but i wonder...vs

[jensend]

i think you have to differentiate between free enterprise and capitalism. the former generally evolves into the latter over time. i also think it's fair to say most economic systems evolve until they collapse.

[tower]

It's pretty evident from the discussion that all the isms are religion. Capitalism, is just as good a theory as communism. And works just as well.

The capitalist bureaucrats work just as hard as the government ones to protect their own butts. Wealth creation doesn't come primarily from the little bit of brainpower or hard work or manipulation that we put into making a living. Wealth comes from the resources that are exploited.

Whether it's socialism or free enterprism, over-exploitation of forests, land, energy, air, people, or nature and its diversity, is and will continue to be the problem we face. Eco-nomically and Eco-logically.

And it is people who pay face to their particular ism, and are at heart envious, angry, or just plain greedy, who do the over-exploitation. Without regulation, which can be twisted beyond recognition, our vaunted capitalism would have screwed us over even more than it has already.

[classicalliberal]

If you think the oil refineries are making too much money, then I suggest you track the crack spread which is the spread between their inputs such as oil and a few other ingredients and the gas futures. If the crack spread is high, then you should figure out what the return on investment is by putting up a refinery and if it is paying those who make more than 20% or 30% without a huge amount of risk, that sounds to me like they could use some more competition. REMEMBER, THE GOVERNMENT WON"T ALLOW ANYMORE REFINERIES TO BE PUT UP TO INCREASE COMPETITION, IT IS NOT THOSE GREEDY BUSINESSMEN BUT IT IS THE GOVERNMENT.

[tower]

Oh yeah, you mean like this,

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/business/story.html?id=def57386-2cc9-42cf-bb68-8a88290e6515&k=69208

Imperial Oil Ltd will add incremental capacity at its four Canadian refineries over the next few years instead of building a new facility, the company's incoming chief executive said on Wednesday.

"The refineries we've got are well situated for the markets we want to be in,... like most other refiners in the world the future is to expand the capacity we have... rather than building new grass-roots refining capacity."

or this,

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/14/nb-environmentalists.html

The lawsuit, launched by Ecojustice on behalf of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, the Fundy Baykeeper and Friends of the Earth Canada, challenges the federal government's decision to restrict its environmental impact assessment of the proposed refinery to the facility’s wharf structure.

Is that what you mean?

[vagabonddreamer]

ya...but there are quite a few companies in the refining bidness right now...enough that there SHOULD be competition without collusion...and with economies of scale...ONE of those that ARE in the "owhl bidness"...will have situational factors that would require use of the free market to get an advantage...but...i never see any difference at the price on the pump no matter WHICH station i pull into...vs

[classicalliberal]

I was speaking of the US.

[liberty]

It seems that Stephen Harper would agree wholeheartedly with the original article cited by this post, judging by his comments today, which is why I've given up on the CPC. It seems I gave those guys the benefit of the doubt for too long. Here's a dandy of a quote from Stephen "Lord Keynes" Harper:

"Regulators may have failed to prevent it [the financial crisis] but, in the end, it was a failure of the private sector to live according to the values we as conservatives know to be true."

Sure, Stephen. Central banks turn the economy into a casino by pushing interest rates to absurdly low levels in the wake of the tech boom bust, forcing the private sector to gamble to make any money at all on housing and hedge funds, and now Harper is mad at people for gambling. It's a classic case of blaming the victim.

It was essentially the public sector, specifically government-run central banks, that were not living by "the values we as conservatives know to be true". It's truly bizarre and disturbing that Harper refuses to acknowledge this, but I guess that if you drink enough of the "stimulus" koolaid, you'll believe anything.