So I was wondering what the end result of capitalism would be... Being that it is essentially a system where both the seller and the buyer come out happy, the buyer will kill off sellers that don't offer a product and/or service at the best value (value as perceived in the eyes of the buyer). The sellers compete with each other by referancing what the demands of the buyer are, and trying to meet those demands, but they also create fads that the buyers love to take part in (such as the pet rock, or the ipod). So the buyer influences the seller and the seller influences the buyer. As sellers get killed off (I don't mean the sellers themselves, but thier establishments) while others become more powerful in thier social scope and diversity of products and advanced technology that is obtained by thier ability to spend more on development of products at low prices (ie sony, canon, intel, amd, ford, toyota, imation/3m, GE, supervalu, walmart, mitsubishi, Merril Lynch, Visa, BP, AOL/Time Warner, Clear Channel, etc. etc.), the new companies (sellers) either get bought out if they pose a threat with the larger ones, or they get stamped out by the larger ones when the larger ones take up the development of a similar product which does one extra thing and is marketed more and is cheaper. Also as these larger companies become to dominate the markets of thier diverse products and services, they make it utterly impossible for others to start a company selling the same type of product (for example the oil industry). This makes me wonder moreso than I have before, with all the mergers taking place, where is capitalism going to in its limit? In the early 1900's there were over a hundred car manufacturers in the US, now there are less than 4 (I think, but the point is, I see a trend here). There were more corner grocery stores decades ago than there are now. We have it better off too, we drive cheap, reliable cars to the huge and expansive supermarkets with rows and rows of foods that most of us have never heard of let alone tasted. We benefit and so do they. I hear walmart is installing gas stations at thier stores, and is also now interested in starting a walmart bank, so you can get all your home ammenities and cash your paycheck at the same store (it could even be a walmart paycheck... eh, creepy). In my mind, This is leading towards one company offering all of us the things we want, and the jobs we want, and at the same time, all those things that we want are influenced by thier ability to market to us. But we can't complain because we want it to happen, because it is the most convenient thing in the limit of the definition of convenience. It would be so much easier to live in the same building you work right? You have an office upstairs, you live in a condo in the middle floors, you recieve your paycheck on the 18th floor, you cash it there too, and then you can go to the bottom floor to pick up groceries and shop the local mall, or you could take your company car to another company owned building, or go on a road trip somewhere and stay at one of the companies finest hotels, maybe even put it on the company credit card as a business expense for a meeting with someone from another department! How could we complain? Sure the United states of america would now have a new name, it would be the united states of Walmart, and it's just one of the plots of land on the earth that Walmart owns! The whole world would be tied together into what Michio Kaku calls a type 1 civilization! Is the end result of Capitalism Socialism? What about our laws against the creation of monopolies? Could those be viewed as limiting the powerful in order to give the less powerful a chance? In otherwords, to prevent the aforementioned limiting case of capitalism (which sounds like it has an extremely creepy bad side to it), we need to implement laws which limit the power of big business, and thus prevent them from becomming too large and powerful such that they don't end up ruling us by shear strength. Rule by strength/force is unjust according to Rousseau (which I think most can agree with). Those laws take power from the powerful, and put the power into the less powerful; they are essentially socialist laws, but they keep capitalism in check. So I guess my argument is that a spoonful of socialism helps the capitalism go 'round. What do ya think, any counter-arguments, supportive-arguments, off-tpoic tangents...?