How does capitalism have a happy ending?

When a positive externality exists in an unregulated market, the marginal benefit (demand) curve of the body making the decision is less than the marginal benefit (supply) curve to society. In an unregulated market, consumers pay a lower price and consume less quantity than the socially-efficient outcome if positive externality exists. Subsidies increase the marginal benefit consumers receive when they consume the subsidized good.

It seems to me that government regulation prevents concentration of capital. How would monopolies be avoided without government intervention? How would social programs be paid for without progressive taxation?

I don't believe in the peacock effect; I believe that human avidity is an continual incentive, and resource clustering can reach indestructible levels. Like playing poker, the game continues as long as there's chips on the table. When most people lose their chips, and the game is rigged so that those with the most chips get more, free market capitalism is destroyed as the chip holders become "too big to fail". This is when capitalism, and even democracy, is destroyed.

 

The fundamental thing of capitalism is that is starts good and ends bad. Over the decades it grew into three groups, the 'lower class', 'upper class'/rich, and the powers at be/politics in top.
The 'middle class' has disappeared over the last fifteen years (that's why politics continue to use the term 'middle class')
Capitalism is a system on which power is based, the group that has the most wealth (gold, capital, monopolies, oil) has the most influence over society and the media, so can get control over society and people's minds. This kind of capitalism will not have a happy ending (because people are organized, loose power and control) Capitalism could work if the people hold control over the distributon of wealth (don't let governments and banks grow into little empires)

 

Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Synonyms: free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market
Antonyms: communism, socialism

Laissez faire: a policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering

unrealist42: incorrect in definitions.

I still see no connections between Goldman Sachs and Chinese economics.

 

[MENTION=64404]Defender of Freedom[/MENTION] you sound like a 17years old （after I check your profile, you are single so my guess could be very right). There are so many "real history" "real economy" sense missed in all of your posts, plus little to none "practical experiences", which make the difficult for opposite others to debate with you, and you are stubborn like a stone. You don't HAVE your own brain but copied idear/things/words from sources you have absolutely NO IDEA if they are creditable....This is not a personal attack but simply state a FACT. Anyone if they go into a debate with someone lack of so much things, they will have their head a mess just like yourself...

There is no absolutely freedom (you can't control which dame parent to have your birth), we all hold a relatively freedom no matter where we are from, SOMETIMES it's just as that simple like the life we live with it.....Peace and Bye...

 

Madam, you sound like a 40 year old who has been brainwashed for too long. Insulting my intelligence as well as my experiences in order to make yourself feel better does not negate my point of view. I am of this world the same as you. I am 18 years old, but i have those around me whose experiences I have learned from. My opinion, however, is my own. My sources are credible, the same as your sources but how could I know considering I have not seen any. I have learned history from both left-wing, right-wing, and moderate teachers. I am an honors student and a favorite of my teachers, whose political views often differ from my own. Experience is valuable but knowledge of the past is more valuable. You have yet to name what history or economics i have missed, so I must assume that you are only trying to discredit my without making any arguments. But I digress, Freedom is absolute for I believe it is given by God himself. Of course you do not have a choice at birth, but you do have a choice on how to live your life to the fullest, what beliefs you will hold, and what you will do for your future. You should know this if you have so much life experience. Please come back with a better post, and perhaps with an argument against my claims and beliefs. I also suggest that you do not determine who a person is, if you do not know who they are. Judge them by their character, not by the color of their skin, or their online posts.

 

The history of capitalism is still young and it's already clearly dysfunctional. Capitalim has a short history compared to feudalism, and it's a drop in the ocean compared to primitive communism.

 

'Primitive' is the key word. Humanity used to be nomadic in its early days before civilization. If their is primitive communism then their is primitive capitalism. Many farmers are capitalistic in the fact that if you did not work, you did not eat, it was not all sharing. Bartering was also a means of trade between humans, but wait, in communism we all share our goods! Early humanity saw it differently. Bartering is an early form of capitalism, and if it isn't, then neither is your so called 'Primitive' communism.

 

You don't know what you are talking about , stop embarrassing yourself

 

I am well aware of what it is, it was a joke, sir.

 

Very good point Frank!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Bartering is a type of market economy.

Capitalism is a type of market economy.

Do not confuse market economy with capitalism. Not all market economies are capitalist but all capitalist economies are market economies. Barter economies are not all capitalist economies but all barter economies are market economies.

 

Then do not confuse communism, with primitive nomadic man....actually, do it....it really sets the record straight.

 

Barter has never existed as a dominant system. I'll bet you can't name one place, or even one city, which at any point in human history primarily used barter.

Capitalist farmers are actually new. Before the commons were enclosed most farmers were peasants practicing subsistence farming, they would not employ workers to work under them. Capitalism arose as the commons were enclosed and displaced people would become wage workers producing goods for the nobility. Once the capitalists naturally tried to extend their wealth by producing goods for the general populace they came into conflict with the traditional nobility, and this is where we see the revolutions which replaced the nobility with 'representative' democracy either executing them or reducing them to a quaint institution with no real economic power.

 

Primitive nomadic people practice communism because the direct producers are in control of both the means of production (nature in this case) and the product of their labour.

 

Country: Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt Two places for you.

Capitalism is at its best when coupled with democracy. Freedom of the Individual.

 

When man began to settle land, that form of economics ended and turned to Feudalism, then eventually capitalism and Marxism. From Marxism came Socialism and Communism, from there came Fascism, and all of them battled each other throughout the 20th century with capitalism winning out by the end. Now politicians have messed it up big time.

 

The first paragraph of the economy section on Mesopotamia's Wikipedia page says "Irrigated agriculture spread southwards from the Zagros foothills with the Samara and Hadji Muhammed culture, from about 5,000 BC.[36] Sumerian temples functioned as banks and developed the first large-scale system of loans and credit, but the Babylonians developed the earliest system of commercial banking. It was comparable in some ways to modern post-Keynesian economics, but with a more "anything goes" approach.[31]"
This indicates what is obvious, trade in a market is extremely difficult without some form of credit to use as a medium of exchange. So in reality every market system has relied mainly of currency.

I am not in the business of choosing lesser evils, but yes a 'democratic' capitalist state is better than a dictatorship.

 

This is not a scientific analysis of economic or social systems, you'd get laughed at by any sociologist worth his salt. Fascism is a nominally populist dictatorial political movement, not even a social system. Marxism is one competing theory of sociology which attempts to explain the development of class societies, not a social system. These 'systems' have never 'battled'. The USSR was state capitalist and the Fascist states gave more influence to private capitalists than the west did.

 

History of Bartering-Mint.com

The history of bartering dates all the way back to 6000 BC. Introduced by Mesopotamia tribes, bartering was adopted by Phoenicians. Phoenicians bartered goods to those located in various other cities across oceans. Babylonian's also developed an improved bartering system. Goods were exchanged for food, tea, weapons, and spices. At times, human skulls were used as well. Salt was another popular item exchanged. Salt was so valuable that Roman soldiers' salaries were paid with it. In the Middle Ages, Europeans traveled around the globe to barter crafts and furs in exchange for silks and perfumes. Colonial Americans exchanged musket balls, deer skins, and wheat. When money was invented, bartering did not end, it become more organized.

Due to lack of money, bartering became popular in the 1930s during the Great Depression. It was used to obtain food and various other services. It was done through groups or between people who acted similar to banks. If any items were sold, the owner would receive credit and the buyer's account would be debited.

I think democracy has been corrupted by career politicians, just as Patrick Henry once said it would be.

 

This does not say anything about bartering being dominant. In fact it indicates that monetary systems were dominant. If soldiers were paid in salt then salt was used as a currency the same way coins are - as a medium of exchange. Obviously barter was not dominant during the depression.

The main economic base in Mesopotamia would have been subsistence, with most of society working land to feed themselves and trading the surplus for money.

 

The ideologies battled each other throughout the 20th century, the cold war was such a battle between them. Fascism, communism, socialism, and capitalism are social and economic systems. State capitalism is communism. Fascism is a radical form of socialism. Communism, socialism, and fascism are usually totalitarian. In fascism, the state takes control over private companies.

 

There was a lot of surplus grain produced in ancient Mesopotamia, the land was highly productive and owned communally. Because the temple was the centre of the community the people would bring their excess grain to the temple, where it would be warehoused to be disbursed back to the people in times of famine. Taxes were community based and paid to the state in grain out of the temple. There was money, but most people had little need of it and never saw it.

Salt was just a convenient commodity to pay soldiers with. The soldiers accepted it because they could easily exchange it for actual money or goods. Salt was widely traded across the Roman Empire but goods were not generally priced in quantities of salt so to make the claim that salt was the same as coins in the Roman Empire is more than a little ridiculous.

A medium of exchange, i.e. money, does not need to be traded for some other thing in order to buy any other thing. Roman soldiers paid in salt had to trade their salt for money in order to buy any other thing they desired. Since the Roman Empire had a long established monetary economy, paying soldiers in a common commodity like salt cannot be considered anything but a barter arrangement.

 

... by solving for simple poverty.

 

get gov outa the way
end all regulations
then tons of high paying jobs
many people used to being on welfare jobs for life
they are illusions created by government but paid in real money raped from taxpayer

 

how much is government, really in the way? shouldn't better planning be a part of private sector endeavors?