On Sep 9, 6:44 am, Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:> On Sep 9, 1:13 am, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 12:43 am, Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:>>> But in business it is different and whatever other motives you might
>>> have, the financial ones have to be front and center and primary
>>> otherwise you won't stay in business for long.
>
>> This is one of the problems with how free enterprise can hold up
>> progress. Sometimes standards in products are kept alive longer than
>> they should be and we have old technologies put upon us when there are
>> better ways to do it. But the better ways sometimes don't make more
>> money.
>
> It can happen and I, too, can think of examples. But it rarely lasts
> long. Competition takes care of it - assuming of course that
> competition is allowed. But even then - when it is not - sometimes
> technology can leapfrog current limitations (telecommunications is a
> good current example).
>
>>> On the subject of scarcity, I was addressing how *business* addresses
>>> - and solves - the problem. The communists notoriously not only didn't
>>> solve the problem - though that was supposed to have been their
>>> utopian mission - they caused it on a massive scale, including
>>> outright famines, e.g. Stalin and Mao.
>
>> Well the capitalist have not yet notoriously solved the problem of
>> scarcity either. I think that if there is a solution that it would
>> come about by human creativity, whatever the economic ideology. But I
>> agree it might take a longer or shorter time in some world timlines
>> with differing systems.
>
> Oh, but that is the very point. There are in fact *enormous*
> differences among systems. We have been offered a startling example
> with China in recent decades. Ireland is another example. But such
> examples have previously been offered and the messages they sent were
> unmistakable, e.g. East vs. West Germany, Hong Kong vs. Maoist China,
> etc. It is just so overwhelmingly clear now there is really no longer
> any excuse for confusion on the point.
>
> Don't misunderstand my position. At any given moment with regard to
> something(s) there will be scarcity. That is inevitable for example
> with new products/technologies. My point is that where increased
> production is possible, unrestrained capitalism will unleash a vast
> abundance at ever lower prices - in effect eliminating scarcity. It
> has always done so and the evidence for it is right in front of you.
> Just walk into any supermarket or Wal-Mart. The shelves groan from the
> stacks of product with an enormous range of choice in brand, type,
> cost etc. etc. We don't fully appreciate its significance because we
> take it for granted.
>
> Fred Weiss
I suppose that I was hinting that economics gone wild -anarchy/
libertarianism- can take place but it will probably end up on a steep
slope to the left/socialist/totalitarianism or down the right/fascism/
totalitarianism. As Marx claimed that capitalism will do itself in,
which is doubtful, by large corporations merging into one organization
and then subsuming the state itself. AKA Corporatism, like with Hitler
and Mussolini.
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo)
refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to
civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian,
social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies,
known as corporations (not necessarily in the same sense as
contemporary business corporations) are unelected bodies with an
internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over their
respective areas of social or economic life. Thus, for example, a
steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business
leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common
policy on prices and wages. When much political and economic power
rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in
place....
...Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe
a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of
licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious,
economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their
leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority
by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well
as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through shill
corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East
Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
