This caveat applies for your entire line of responses: While your responses are logically valid within their own parameters, they do not equate with the classical uses of the terminology we are utilizing, or a classical understanding of the concepts those words connote. I think it wise to take a few steps back and mutually define these terms as either; a) you are misusing some of them or; b) I am misunderstanding your uses!
For example, to abstract something logically is to remove it from its basis in a material reality, and make for it a completely theoretical replacement. In this respect, Marx's works are not logical abstractions, as they deal with specific socio-historical phenomenon, in certain socio-historical periods of development occurring in the material world - i.e., a material conception and solution to reality. The Pure Free Market - especially as you have used it: separated from its composition by human agents - is an abstraction because it does not and cannot exist (some would say, never would) - it is a hypothetical ideal, and therefore is nothing but a mere abstraction.
Actually you did! Look at the exchange below. I said that a laissez faire market with no government intervention should be the basis of our conversation. You said it didn't exist and your comments were geared to reality, implying that government intervention was the baseline. The conversation is below:
Again, possibly some definitions are necessary to clear up some of the muddled confusion.
in⋅ter⋅ven⋅tion [in-ter-ven-shuhn]
–noun
1.the act or fact of intervening.
2.interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another.
n⋅ter⋅ven⋅tion⋅ism [in-ter-ven-shuh-niz-uhm]
–noun
the policy or doctrine of intervening, esp. government interference in the affairs of another state or in domestic economic affairs.
Intervention necessarily implies momentary involvement, as there must be a foundation within which to intercede. Therefore, I said that Government
intervention is necessary, but not the fundamental basis of an Interventionist Economy. This is where I feel you have made an unwarranted leap of semantics and logic; both in respects to previous replies and the discussion at hand. To intervene implies to act momentarily, to intercede into the
basis of an economy - i.e., a Capitally driven economy.
Theres no partisanship involved here. I became a Republican well after I adopted these beliefs and understandings. I was registered as a libertarian for 8 years. I joined the Republican party not because I particularly believe in the party, but because I am so adamantly against the platform of the Democratic party. I truly believe they are a scourge to our nation and represent the worst our country has to offer.
par⋅ti⋅san [pahr-tuh-zuhn, -suhn; Brit. pahr-tuh-zan]
–noun
1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2. Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, esp. a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.
–adjective
3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics.
4. of, pertaining to, or carried on by military partisans or guerrillas.
Political Partisanship is merely one form of Partisanship. The word itself merely implies the first distinction: Adherently supporting a person, group, or ideal with biased emotional allegiance. I told you to cast this partisanship aside, as it is obviously tilting your judgment.
Not so. Compare it to the nanny state idea. When individuals get handouts they lose motivation and personal responsibility. There's no reason that same ideal can't apply to businesses.
Most definitely so! Here is an example for you:
You are driving along a sparsely populated road when you come to a stop light. There are no other cars within view whatsoever, what do you do? Most likely, you go through it unabated.
Now, applying this same logic, how is it you feel companies would spontaneously adhere to stringent, non-existent health-regulations? Those corporate entities (such as Tyson and McDonald's) who deliberately ignore regulations do so for the purpose of cutting costs and maximizing profits - to, as you have said, achieve the goal of market domination. When one removes all regulations whatsoever, I fail to see how you believe these companies would cease such activities in light of an altruistic approach! In fact, I would posit the exact opposite, that if no regulations were present, the vast majority of companies would supersede morality in the favor of profit maximization (an act of Irrational Rationality); just as most individuals would run the red light.
Yes, I'll admit, people could die from a company's faulty product. It sucks. However, theres no better way to develop an educated consumer than to make it so their life depends on it!
Again, this assumes a transparency of information which barely exists now, and surely would not exist in a Free Market. So we are clear, a Free Market denotes a complete lack of governmental regulation; both in respects to health and fiscal policy. So (say) Company X is making a product that may kill people ten years from now, would they reveal that? If you apply your own logic, they of course will not! This destroy their credibility and sales. Again, logical determinations come into play here: You posit the corporate entity as a thing wishing to maximize its profits as the primary goal even in a regulated market, but then, contradictorily, assume the cessation of this goal in an unregulated market? How so?
Because government is incompetent and can't regulate effectively. If its on the business to not kill the customers(which believe it or not is a bad business model) they won't, or customers will go elsewhere.
Once again, you are denying the antecedent which is a logical fallacy. Your reasoning is incomplete, and you have merely denied my initial antecedent (Government Intervention) without replacing it with a plausible replacement. You have not yet answered this question:
Why, if McDonald's does produce food now which kills its consumer base, would it produce healthier food in a unregulated market?
Simply, it would not. There is no motivation to change, and no guidelines to adhere to. They kill their consumer base now (which, believe it or not, is
their business model), so why would things alter?
Actually, if we're saying the free market is the natural state of the economy, the person arguing intervention should be forced to justify his position.
I'd compare it to the Atheist being forced to argue against the existence of god. Theres nothing to substantiate that god exists so the burden of proof doesn't fall on the Atheist.
Again, a misunderstanding afoot, so let me clarify what 'Denying the Antecedent' means:
Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called Inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
Arguments of this form are invalid (except in the rare cases where such an argument also instantiates some other, valid, form).
Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true.
The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause of the conditional premise. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion.
For example:
If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.
Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.
Essentially you are positing
if there is Governmental Regulation (p),
then there will be Market Failures (q). Following, you are attempting to say
if there is no Governmental Regulation (~p)
then there will be no Market Failure (~q). Why is this logically invalid? Because there are a myriad of other situations within the which the market can and does fail, aside from Governmental Regulations. In this sense, it is not like your counterexample whatsoever. So, I say again, you have replaced my antecedent without a plausible explanation, and therefore (objectively and formally) your logic is invalid.
You are a history major, so this should be short task for you! Why does the Market keep repeating the same perpetual failures?
No it doesn't. You're taking my arguments out of context. Every company in the market competes against every other company. If there is an opening, a company will find it and take it.
Monopolies go under the assumption that each industry is independent from all other industries. It doesn't take into account that me driving to visit relatives is competing with me flying a commercial flight. If the flight costs too much, I drive
.
Rob, I think you have a very fundamental and basic misinterpretation of what Monopoly denotes; both in respects to the immediate term, and its implications. As I have said, Monopolies are the antithesis to Perfect Competition; you should know this as, Free Market economics
necessarily assume Perfect Competition. This is from the Wiki:
No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolised product.
A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.
Other common assumptions in modeling monopolies include the presence of multiple buyers (if a firm is the only buyer, it also has a monopsony), an identical price for all buyers, and asymmetric information. A company with a monopoly does not undergo price pressure from competitors, although it may face pricing pressure from potential competition. If a company raises prices too high, then others may enter the market if they are able to provide the same good, or a substitute, at a lower price.[5] The idea that monopolies in markets with easy entry need not be regulated against is known as the "revolution in monopoly theory".[6]
A monopolist can extract only one premium, and getting into complementary markets does not pay. That is, the total profits a monopolist could earn if it sought to leverage its monopoly in one market by monopolizing a complementary market are equal to the extra profits it could earn anyway by charging more for the monopoly product itself.
However, the one monopoly profit theorem does not hold true if there exist:
Stranded customers in the monopoly good.
Poorly informed customers.
High fixed costs in the tied good.
Economies of scale in the tied good.
Price regulations for the monopoly product
Now, I have bolded what you have misunderstood, and italicized what you were exactly right about. However, keeping in mind, this is a Monopoly Theorem
specific to your intended use of the word: A uni-industrial Monopoly. As recent history shows, multi-industry monopolization does pay, and is an aspiration of most TNCs.
What you're not factoring in, is that in a free market, with vigilant consumers and stiff competition, wouldn't the transparent company be the one you want to spend your hard earned money on? Its certainly a selling point to me when you open your chicken farm to the public and let me inspect how you make my food for myself.
I am factoring in exactly that, but you are overlooking a few key points in this debate! Modern consumers are uninformed, Rob; this is not a posit, but a reality. Herein, your concept of a Pure Free Market fails miserably, as I have said previously. The belief that the Market will regulate
itself (untrue, as the regulation would necessarily come from the microscopic level)
fundamentally assumes Perfect Competition (the utter and total complete opposite of Monopolies, which is why they are a detriment to a Free Market) and informed consumers.
Yes. Again, you're not factoring in that regulation is already in place. Think about it. Knowing that you have a regulatory agency watching your every move, would that encourage transparency in your operations?
I think you may have misunderstood again, as you did not provide a plausible basis for your assumption. Rob, answer this basic question:
In a Market complete lacking any regulations - i.e., incentives, and/or legal obligations - to be transparent, fair, and carry out actions in the public health - which, in most cases, ADD cost - why would a corporate entity do so?
This question is very fundamental to your belief, but presents to you even more fundamental contradictions. You yourself have stated companies act in Rational Self-Interest; this equates to nothing more and nothing less than the maximization of profits; corollary, implementing health and competition regulations necessarily takes more capital in the form of expended labour and extra machinery. So, if not forced to do so, why would a company acting in Rational Self-Interest do so?
Can you see what I am driving at here?
So you're saying that every company is inherently motivated to cut costs at the detriment to the consumer? Wouldn't you say that harming your customer base is bad?
Again, do you feel McDonald's is not aware of the detriment their food poses? I am sure, as this is a reality, you do not. Therefore, I ask you again, why would this situation change in
a lack of regulation?
A good example in a microcosm is a supplement company. Yes, theres muscletechs out there selling bunk, but most likely missing out on the long term business, but theres also the USPs and Designer Supplements of the world, honestly trying to bring a high quality product to the consumer and making money in the process. They know if their products didn't work, they'd lose their repeat customers.
Unfortunately, this may be your most antithetical example! How many times have ingredients been found to be underdosed? How many times have companies been revealed to be putting steroids in natural products? How many companies out there combine three to four methylated steroids and are sold at
mainstream outlets? Creating a product to be sold over-the-counter comes equipped with the assumption that people will harm themselves using your product (a 17 year old destroying his natural hormone cycle, for example).
Do you blame this on a capitalist model or a model of government intervention? I certainly blame it on the latter.
I blame it on a wide range of cultural, geographic and socio-economic factors; none of which can be succinctly and causally linked to either government or the Capitalist model.
Don't you think that the fact that McDonald's pays millions in lobbying fees to a government who regulates farming may have *something* to do with this?
We're really talking chicken and eggs here.
Exactly! You are confusing me, as you seem to be on the precipice of making the logical assumption, and then turning backwards out of partisanship.
McDonald's does EXACTLY that to AVOID regulations! So, in turn, why would they spontaneously clean up their act - so to speak - if regulations are not there?! They are necessarily avoiding regulations rob - i.e., trying to perpetuate themselves in as free of Market as possible!
Also, *if* McDonalds was a monopoly, wouldn't the fact that the government is there to do their bidding for campaign contributions have the effect of further emboldening this monopoly? This was the primary cause of the "Robber Barons" of the 1890s.
I have never once denied this is a possibility. I merely feeling I am illuminating to you that the Free Market is completely imperfect, and presents more harm than an Interventionist Market - that is, the Lesser of Two Evils.
The potential corruption in a system with government intervention dwarfs any free market corruption scheme.
Here is another example for you:
You are a teacher, and have a classroom full of somewhat unruly children who all want the same prize. While you are in the classroom, the children may misbehave somewhat, but the fear of reprimand acts as a mutual deterrent for all of them. Following, your presence ensures that those who break the rules shall be reprimanded.
Now, you leave the room for a lengthy period of time, and leave the prize in the same place. Are the children going to spontaneously regulate themselves to behave in the same polite and respectful manner as when you were in the room? Of course not! That is merely reality.
For this reason, I am having trouble understanding why you would feel a corporate entity would act responsibly if they do not have to.
I disagree. I understand that most people believe in government regulation. I don't. I think it is a tool for corruption and ceding individual liberties. I can quantify why I believe everything I believe about the free market and explain those beliefs in an understandable manner. Thats alone should dissipate any notions that I have a "faith-like" belief in the free market.
You have qualified your beliefs in what you feel to be rationale, but that has since proved to be irrational and an invalid argumentative form; you do so in the face of empirical evidence and rationale which suggests otherwise and; finally, have not responded to logical hypotheticals. I would very bluntly say you have a faith-like belief in the Free Market. You expounded this very clearly when you said the Market exists 'in-itself'. It, in fact, does not: It is comprised of individual agents and conglomerated individual agents, and so to say the Market does anything 'itself' - without prefacing this with the adjunct understanding that the Market is comprised of individuals, and this creates action - is faith-like.
Word. I'm lost on this. :ntome:
I know!
I don't buy this. Think of it like an ant farm, yes an ant can make a tunnel collapse, but the only way you can screw up the whole farm is for an outsider to shake it up.
A few things fundamentally flawed here:
a) Ants are conditioned and do not act in Rational Self-Interest, but in the interests always of the entire colony. Such cohesion does not exist in modern Capitalism.
b) There is nothing to 'buy', as it were. That is, unless you believe companies accidentally create products and services? If not, then you surely come to terms that there are obvious intentions in any Market.
Again, this is hinging on the theory that a monopoly in an industry is independent from the rest of the market. If you acknowledge that even a company who has a "monopoly" is still competing with other industries the entire theory fall like a house of cards.
See explanation of Wiki above.
Never took it! I was a history major! Is it that obvious! :rofl:
Yes and no! You have a very ostensible passion to learn, and even more ostensible adherence to Free Market Capitalism. Unfortunately, you have some fundamental misunderstandings of the relevant terminology, which are leading to even more fundamental misunderstandings of their implications!