News Stability of anarchy.

  • Thread starter vanesch
  • Start date
A

Art

Townsend said:
Like Smurf suggested let's look at Cuba. What a great example of the good times people can look forward to in a socialist society.


Supply and demand issues to no end is really something to look forward too....
If you look at the revision history for Cuba on wikipedia you will see there are a few dorks who keep editing the page with anti-Castro nonsense for the craic. I looked at the blog site of one of the worst offenders and it appears he thinks he is being funny. :rolleyes:
 
Art said:
If you look at the revision history for Cuba on wikipedia you will see there are a few dorks who keep editing the page with anti-Castro nonsense for the craic. I looked at the blog site of one of the worst offenders and it appears he thinks he is being funny. :rolleyes:
Yeah...I see that now. I won't be making that mistake twice... :blushing:
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
Anttech said:
I understand the ecconomy thank you very much! I just dont believe it is healthy for the global ecconomy to have these Bloated bigger than belief companies,who basically can print there own money becuase they have cornered a certain market... as I said before it takes away our scope of choice, and it can lead to stagnation of products development... **Pure** Capitialism cant be trusted for our future because the ideal prays to money and doesnt give a ****e about social values...
I don't think there is anybody here that is pro-corporate monopoly. The difference seems to be that you think these things are inevitable given capitalism. Russ and Townsend and I do not. We see that, historically speaking, corporations have only been able to grow to their ridiculous sizes and market shares with help from governments. Corporations are legal entities that would not even exist in a pure capitalist state. Essentially, you are arguing with a strawman, something that pure capitalism does not either sanction or result in (at least theoretically - in practice, we have never experienced pure capitalism and so cannot know for certain).

About Microsoft: They do not have a monopoly. There are plenty of operating systems out there, many of which are available for free, many of which can use file formats that work across all platforms. People don't have to buy a computer with windows preinstalled and use only Microsoft programs. They're just too lazy to look around for a better option. I've never used a Microsoft program or OS (on my own computer, anyway) and it has hurt me none. People do have choices, many choices. They simply choose not to exercise that faculty.
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
Capitalism doesn not produce monopolies, but it does produce oligopolies. Contrary to the Austrian school of economics (who only site the misleading case of Germany), it is a natural evolution, not something promoted by government.

It is in the interests of the larger competitors in an Adam Smith landscape to buy out the smaller, so as to reduce competition. This will go on until the smallest competitors are all gone, and eventually until only a few huge competitors remain. These can well arrange to lower competition between themselves under the table, and this is apparently a stable condition. Look how many products you depend on, from fruit juice to automobiles are from industries with just three biggies and maybe a handful of pigmies.
 
210
0
About Microsoft: They do not have a monopoly
I have to say I think they do, when you have more than 90% share of the desktop market, it is fair to say you have a monopoly in that sector, isnt it?

I use Linux too, but I am a Network Engineer so I know my way around, for a novice to intermediate use Linux is NOT an alternative...

There are 2 Major player in the desktop Market Mac and Windows... Linux right now just isnt user friendly enough for it to be used in this environment (server sector : yes)..

This is Capitalism in work, the consumer looses..

Selfadjoint hit the nail on the head to be honest, and communicated what I was getting at more elegantly
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
Anttech said:
I have to say I think they do, when you have more than 90% share of the desktop market, it is fair to say you have a monopoly in that sector, isnt it?

I use Linux too, but I am a Network Engineer so I know my way around, for a novice to intermediate use Linux is NOT an alternative...
I actually rarely use Linux. My primary OS is Mac OS X. The main point I'm trying to make is that while you might say that Microsoft has a de facto monopoly, they do not have a stable monopoly. There are increasingly more options out there and non-Microsoft products are becoming more and more popular. They were simply the first ones there. Not too long ago, AOL had a de facto monopoly on internet service, with very few people using alternatives like Prodigy or Compuserve (which was bought by AOL anyway). What we see in the software market is a move away from concentration in the area of further choice. It is pretty much inevitable in a market where anyone with a computer can write a program. This isn't like the airline industry, where you must invest hundreds of millions of dollars to get off the ground. A new software venture can be launched with pocket change.

This is Capitalism in work, the consumer looses..
Come on, the consumer loses? How spoiled must one be to say that? What industry has ever advanced faster than the software industry? Consumers have thousands of times the choices, performance, and ability that they had just ten years ago. There wasn't even a public internet until 15 years ago, and now half the world is fully wired. Sound mixing, video editing, online conferencing, can all be done by anyone that is willing to invest several hours to learn how to do it, at least at an amateur level. A teenager sitting in the basement can do things that government-trained PhD's could not dream of when I was a kid, and you want to tell me that the consumer is losing?
 
210
0
The main point I'm trying to make is that while you might say that Microsoft has a de facto monopoly, they do not have a stable monopoly
There "Monopoly" maybe under threat in the Long term, BUT as a corp they are under no threat, sure there share will decrease, but who will take it? Linux maybe, Mac more probably.. So you come to what selfadjointed said, we will have 2 (a few) very large companies splitting a huge market 2 (a few) ways, which is an "oligopoly" ... this equates to far less choice for us...

I am talking only about the Operating System Sector.

Software is a different Animal, however within this sector we see the same things, take Adobe.. You know who they just bought out? Macromedia.. Well you see what will happen there, dont you.. Two companies offering the same sort of software, both geared towards multimedia, the bigger company just ate the smaller one, and will merge the products and give us less independent choice...

Another example Databases/ERP, Oracle a huge company, has just swallowed whole one of its main competitor, Siebel... what does this mean for us, well we will soon enough has less ERP choice, I can think of only two other serious main competitors in the ERP field (I am sure there are a few more) SAP, and Peoplesoft... Ohh wait Oracle also eat Peoplesoft.. Ok 1 main competitor, SAP... Not much choice is it?

We really dont have that much choice, and as these huge corps get bigger and bigger we are going to have less and less choice...
 
Anttech said:
We really dont have that much choice, and as these huge corps get bigger and bigger we are going to have less and less choice...
I feel as though if a corporation gets too big it should be broken up to keep competition going. This has worked with AT&T twice....I don't understand why they haven't broken up MS yet? I think they need to. Make one section the OS, one section the office and business software and one section for games.
 
Anttech said:
There "Monopoly" maybe under threat in the Long term, BUT as a corp they are under no threat, sure there share will decrease, but who will take it? Linux maybe, Mac more probably.. So you come to what selfadjointed said, we will have 2 (a few) very large companies splitting a huge market 2 (a few) ways, which is an "oligopoly" ... this equates to far less choice for us...
Do you seriously think that you would have any more freedom of choice in a system other than capitalism? If a community or state owned the means of production why would they waste resources on multiple projects with the same end goals?
Remember that the creators of Linux hadthe benefit of a capitalist system where they could own means of production and use them as they saw fit. Just because they don't make a profit doesn't mean it isn't a capitalist endevour. If you look up capitalism you will find that profit is not required for a system to be capitalist.
 
310
2
TheStatutoryApe said:
Do you seriously think that you would have any more freedom of choice in a system other than capitalism?
Yes, of course. Well, maybe not *I* (actually definitely not me, I'm pretty well off on account of my family) but more people would have more freedom of choice, yes.
 
Smurf said:
Yes, of course. Well, maybe not *I* (actually definitely not me, I'm pretty well off on account of my family) but more people would have more freedom of choice, yes.
How so?



8910
 
310
2
TheStatutoryApe said:
Well it wouldn't help me any, I'm shamelessly taking loads of money from my parents to pay for my education. But not everyone has that financial aid, and often times people sink themselves into debt trying to pay for it. Even more limiting if someone has a baby or other relative to take care of. This is touching on education alone. Do you seriously think this is the most freedom of choice people could ever get?
 
Smurf said:
Well it wouldn't help me any, I'm shamelessly taking loads of money from my parents to pay for my education. But not everyone has that financial aid, and often times people sink themselves into debt trying to pay for it. Even more limiting if someone has a baby or other relative to take care of. This is touching on education alone. Do you seriously think this is the most freedom of choice people could ever get?
I don't entirely get what you're saying here...

As far as whether or not what we have now gives the most choices, I couldn't say. If we didn't have such a corporatist business environment it's possible. It could also be possible that with out large corporations doing business over large areas our only choices would be what ever we can find locally which may not be much depending on where you live.
The problem I am pointing out is that capitalism allows for diversity of product and choices because the people own the means of production and are able to compete with one another. If there was no private ownership of the means of production why would the community allow for competition between providers of product? Wouldn't that be a waste of time and resources that could better be alocated else where? Just let one operation come up with the product that is needed and alot the man power and resources that would go toward competition in a capitalist model toward other things. That would seem the logical solution to me for the anarchistic model you are advocating as well as communism. So where are the choices? It looks to me like they disappear in both of these models.
 
310
2
TheStatutoryApe said:
If there was no private ownership of the means of production why would the community allow for competition between providers of product? Wouldn't that be a waste of time and resources that could better be alocated else where? Just let one operation come up with the product that is needed and alot the man power and resources that would go toward competition in a capitalist model toward other things. That would seem the logical solution to me for the anarchistic model you are advocating as well as communism. So where are the choices? It looks to me like they disappear in both of these models.
Oh right, talking about products, I don't know. In many forms of anarchism (and communism) it would be entirely localised. You could get a different product just by going to the next town.

If your talking about nationalised production like in Cuba or something, then yeah I guess there would be fewer brands. But I don't really see any real practical reason why you would need any more. You could have 1 brand of say, organic tomatoes, and then non-organic tomatoes, and then specially GM spliced tomatoes with fingernails sticking out of them for that "other" crowd. Why do you need 10 brands of the same product with pretty much the same ingredients?
 
Smurf said:
Oh right, talking about products, I don't know. In many forms of anarchism (and communism) it would be entirely localised. You could get a different product just by going to the next town.

If your talking about nationalised production like in Cuba or something, then yeah I guess there would be fewer brands. But I don't really see any real practical reason why you would need any more. You could have 1 brand of say, organic tomatoes, and then non-organic tomatoes, and then specially GM spliced tomatoes with fingernails sticking out of them for that "other" crowd. Why do you need 10 brands of the same product with pretty much the same ingredients?
Imagine if Windows really had a monopoly and it was the only OS available to use...
 
310
2
TheStatutoryApe said:
Imagine if Windows really had a monopoly and it was the only OS available to use...
I'm assuming that "windows" was a joke. okay, I'm imagining there's an OS monopoly in a socialist-like country, what's the problem?
 
Smurf said:
Oh! Come on! You can't take a capitalist scenario and apply it to a non-capitalist enviroment. That's like saying "Imagine if monsanto really had monopoly and it was the only company experimenting with the gene code."
What I mean is with out choice of "brands" or "designs" you're stuck with the "choice" that has been made by the rest of the people in your community, even if they are too ignorant of the possibilities to make an informed choice. Consider the US elections... You are now stuck with the Bush of OSs. :wink:
 
Ofcorse I'm not saying this is the way it has to be but just the way that it would logically occur in my mind. If you have an idea of how that would be circumvente please let me know.
 
310
2
TheStatutoryApe said:
What I mean is with out choice of "brands" or "designs" you're stuck with the "choice" that has been made by the rest of the people in your community, even if they are too ignorant of the possibilities to make an informed choice. Consider the US elections... You are now stuck with the Bush of OSs. :wink:
of course it could happen. But it happens here too. There are lots of stuff that I can't buy here that I wish I could. Because no one else wants to. Everyone buys the sugar-filled synthesized easy-bake-oven crap these days. So that's the only thing companies sell. I'm stuck with the 'choice' that has been made by the rest of the people in my community. And yet there is almost no way I can change this.

I don't see why it would be any worse, and I think it could quite possibly be improved by a command economy that made sure several choices were available to people.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
Anttech said:
We really dont have that much choice, and as these huge corps get bigger and bigger we are going to have less and less choice...
You missed the main thrust of my post, though. When we have technology today that seemed impossible five years ago, can you seriously complain about lack of choice? Do you really think the average consumer of Microsoft or Adobe products has any real reason to complain? We've got the world at our fingertips and the ability to do just about anything with media for the price of an airline ticket or two. We're talking about arguably the most successful, quickest advancing market/industry ever. It's not a good example to use if you're looking for flaws in capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Smurf said:
of course it could happen. But it happens here too. There are lots of stuff that I can't buy here that I wish I could. Because no one else wants to. Everyone buys the sugar-filled synthesized easy-bake-oven crap these days. So that's the only thing companies sell. I'm stuck with the 'choice' that has been made by the rest of the people in my community. And yet there is almost no way I can change this.

I don't see why it would be any worse, and I think it could quite possibly be improved by a command economy that made sure several choices were available to people.
If there are types of food that you want but can't get that means there is a market there to be tapped. If it's just a market of a handful of people you may not have much hope excepting that a good grocery store do what they ought to by finding what you want and supplying it in order to intice you to shop at their store. If there is a decent market then someone, possibly even you, could open a store that caters to it. The consumer and the business owner both win. And young college students who need jobs win too since there is now a larger job market. :wink:
Considering foods that aren't junk food crap there are actually grocery stores around here where I live that are all about organic health food and what not. They do really well even though the majority of Amercans are fat and lazy and could give a crap about their diets.
 
310
2
Yes, and why couldn't a command economy couldn't provide these options too?
 
Smurf said:
Yes, and why couldn't a command economy couldn't provide these options too?
It's plausible but a command economy generally isn't very dynamic and responsive to consumer needs and demands.
 
310
2
TheStatutoryApe said:
It's plausible but a command economy generally isn't very dynamic and responsive to consumer needs and demands.
hmmm okay. and what do you base that statement on?
 
Smurf said:
hmmm okay. and what do you base that statement on?
Common sense perhaps?
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top