Capitalism- Inherently bad or grossly misunderstood?

[brenn]

Originally Posted by derchin

Many people assume its [Capitalism] bad on the premise that rich are wealthy while the poor and working class suffer.

But on the other hand a handful of the richest, safest, and lavish countries in the world happen to be capitalist.


Opinions?

I don't think capitalism is bad and I do think it is the natural state of human economic interaction. However, I have read enough posts on JREF to know these aren't people who are likely to understand or accept capitalism. Compared to the JREDF community, Occupy _____ was a collection of hardworking capitalists.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I was in a East vs West Germany debate a while ago (Apologists seem to creep into every corner). The pro-Communist cited a bunch of stats to try to prove that East Germany really was better. One of them was that East Germans had longer penises.

I think that was the most productive Apologist debate I've ever seen.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by brenn

I don't think capitalism is bad and I do think it is the natural state of human economic interaction. However, I have read enough posts on JREF to know these aren't people who are likely to understand or accept capitalism. Compared to the JREDF community, Occupy _____ was a collection of hardworking capitalists.

So how do you explain its very late development in human history?

[timhau]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

It is not an argument, because the people who are trying to get into places like the US and Europe are coming not from communists countries but from crazy dictatorships in Africa and lawless places in central America. I said capitalism is failing. I did not say that that makes Zimbabwe or Columbia a more attractive place to live.

In other words, it's failing less than existing alternatives.

BTW, do you have a guarantee that the "revolution" where you want to "do your part" will bring about something better, and not a crazy dictatorship like Zimbabwe or lawless anarchy like the Democratic Republic of Congo?

[timhau]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Cf. the story of the sad lump who defected to North Korea. He eventually escaped, but he hasn't heard from his wife or children for twenty years.

Well, yeah... there were also a few American defectors in the Korean war, most of whom eventually returned to the US. Lee Harvey Oswald also defected to the USSR for a brief time. You could say that defections between communist and western countries were a one-way street -- there's always going to be some idiot going the wrong way.

[NewtonTrino]

I defected from Canada to the US. Does that count?

I still think there are two discussions going on. One is about capitalism and the other is about democracy. They are orthogonal issues.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

It is not an argument, because the people who are trying to get into places like the US and Europe are coming not from communists countries but from crazy dictatorships in Africa and lawless places in central America.

Right. And why is it, do you think, that we're not seeing more immigrants from North Korea or Cuba? Or... What, Laos maybe? Those are the only remaining communist countries in the world. China is capitalist, Vietnam is becoming increasingly so. Everyone else has abandoned even the label.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by brenn

I don't think capitalism is bad and I do think it is the natural state of human economic interaction. However, I have read enough posts on JREF to know these aren't people who are likely to understand or accept capitalism. Compared to the JREDF community, Occupy _____ was a collection of hardworking capitalists.

I have a job. I also own my own business. And I bathe regularly. So no, I don't think so.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I defected from Canada to the US. Does that count?

I still think there are two discussions going on. One is about capitalism and the other is about democracy. They are orthogonal issues.

Orthogonal yes, but not unrelated.

[CharlesCollom]

If by "capitalism" you mean voluntary and honest trade of goods and services, then it's wonderful.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by CharlesCollom

If by "capitalism" you mean voluntary and honest trade of goods and services, then it's wonderful.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Capitalism features markets, but not all markets are capitalist.

[CharlesCollom]

Well, then I guess it depends on your definition of Capitalism. Give it a go, and I'll tell you if I approve. (not that you care)

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by CharlesCollom

If by "capitalism" you mean voluntary and honest trade of goods and services, then it's wonderful.

One of the major shortcomings of the theorized justness of free market economy is the lack of honesty and lack of equal chances. There is so much bribing BtoB and BtoPolitics, money sourced from criminality, inherited wealth giving some individuals better chances than others get in the "fair free race", tax evasion nationally and in tax paradises, price cartels, corporate espionage, marketing which misleads the customers with exaggerated or outright false view of the product, etc. etc.

[NewtonTrino]

I think any scheme that aims to make life "fair" for everyone is going to be a massive failure. People are different, there's no such thing as fair. Some people are born with more wealth, better families, natural talents and just plain luck. Too bad, so sad.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

The relevance is that we have no right to tell them that their best option is to "balkanise" themselves.

Why not?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

I don't think you can compare them, because they have very different sorts of problems.

Which of the problems that exist in Syria but not Ireland are not a direct result of Syrian dictatorship?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

I don't hate societal stability. I'm defending the Chinese for having a more stable system than our own.

No, they don't. They went into several major upheavals since they established their present system. Thus far they managed exactly one (1) peaceful transfer of power. This years' has already been tainted by at least one major scandal.

Quote:

I hate it because it is immoral, unfair and pays no regard to the real problems humanity faces. The western world is run in the interests of a tiny minority of already-obscenely-rich people. The needs of the common people are ignored, as is ecological reality.

This description is way more accurate for China than it is for the West. It's China that bulldozes poor neighborhoods and then beats up people who come to Beijing to ask for compensation, not Germany, Canada or US. It is China that is ignoring ecological standards to gain a competitive edge, not France, Belgium or Italy. On the other hand you buy Chinese propaganda hook, line and stinker. I can't imagine why.

You apparently think the West is as it was in the 19th century, probably because then, at least, Marx had some small relevance.
Newsflash: 19th century is done and gone and so is the 20th.

McHrozni

[PixyMisa]

Right. China today is as close as you get to the 19th century capitalism that UE so deplores.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by CharlesCollom

Well, then I guess it depends on your definition of Capitalism. Give it a go, and I'll tell you if I approve. (not that you care)

Er, this isn't a matter for personal interpretation. Even my Econ 101 textbook noted that you can have non-free market capitalism (their prime example was Japan's highly centralised and planned economy, but today we'd probably add China to the list) and market socialism (which hasn't existed, but is possible and has proponents).

Capitalism is highly associated with free markets, wage labor, and a variety of other things. But what distinguishes it from earlier economic systems (that also had markets) is the private ownership of the means of production for profit.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I think any scheme that aims to make life "fair" for everyone is going to be a massive failure. People are different, there's no such thing as fair. Some people are born with more wealth, better families, natural talents and just plain luck. Too bad, so sad.

Maybe, but I think saying "well, those people are poor. Sucks to be them" doesn't help either. We are a social species and we CAN help each other, and we know that doing so gives us positive results.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I think any scheme that aims to make life "fair" for everyone is going to be a massive failure. People are different, there's no such thing as fair. Some people are born with more wealth, better families, natural talents and just plain luck. Too bad, so sad.

I disagree. We can clearly see differences in comparing social mobility, education scores, income inequality, etc. among the various nations. There is a clear trend, and it is not in favour of the "too bad, so sad" approach.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Which of the problems that exist in Syria but not Ireland are not a direct result of Syrian dictatorship?

McHrozni

Loads. The most obvious being the struggle in Syria between Islamists and secularists (the Assad regime being on the side of the secularists.)

Whereas in Ireland there is a vicious, still-unfinished dispute that can be traced back to the Catholic/Protestant schism in Europe and the actions of Oliver Cromwell immediately after the English Civil War.

The whole world is currently facing a massive crisis, but each country/region has its own specific cocktail of problems.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Why not?

McHrozni

Because it's their business, not ours.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by timhau

In other words, it's failing less than existing alternatives.

No. There's two things wrong with that statement. The first is that not all of the alternatives are the same. Zimbabwe is not China. Saudi Arabia is not Russia. The second is that we've spent the last four years pretending that our system has not suffered a catastrophic failure. The financial crisis of September/October 2008 actually broke the western system, and since then the powers that be have been holding the system together with sticky tape, secret manipulation of supposedly free markets and outright fraud. When we face up to the reality of our predicament then we will see that our system has failed completely and that we need to go back to the drawing board.

Quote:

BTW, do you have a guarantee that the "revolution" where you want to "do your part" will bring about something better, and not a crazy dictatorship like Zimbabwe or lawless anarchy like the Democratic Republic of Congo?

I can only speak for my own country. What might be true in the UK does not necessarily apply to places like Greece or Spain, which were military dictatorships within living memory. The reason Zimbabwe and the Congo ended up the way they did depends on their own culture and history. Just like when there was a revolution in Egypt it ended up with a power struggle between the military and the islamists, and in Libya in a struggle between Tripoli and Benghazi. There can be no guarantees, but I can tell you with absolute confidence that a revolution in the UK would not be followed by, say, a power struggle between the British army and the Church of England. And it would be followed with lawless anarchy either. That just wouldn't be British. In such a situation the army would be deployed to get the anarchy under control, but they would not attempt to take political control of the country (again, because of the history of the relationship between the various power structures in the UK.)

What I'm actually expecting to happen in the UK is for the Labour Party to win the next election by a country mile, and for this "revolution" to occur via the ballot box. Ed Milliband is likely to come to power in very unusual circumstances, and there will be an opportunity to reshape the UK of the sort which only comes along once in a few hundred years.

[McHrozni]

Quote:

Because it's their business, not ours.

I don't actually dispute that, but what has the age of national identity got to do with it? It may be relevant if it's very short, say less than 100 years, but in all other cases it seems completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Loads. The most obvious being the struggle in Syria between Islamists and secularists (the Assad regime being on the side of the secularists.)

Whereas in Ireland there is a vicious, still-unfinished dispute that can be traced back to the Catholic/Protestant schism in Europe and the actions of Oliver Cromwell immediately after the English Civil War.

The whole world is currently facing a massive crisis, but each country/region has its own specific cocktail of problems.

Yeah, and you just showed how comparable Ireland and Syria are. We can quite safely assume the difference in crisis is a result of different systems of governance by that logic. Fine by me

McHrozni

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Yeah, and you just showed how comparable Ireland and Syria are. We can quite safely assume the difference in crisis is a result of different systems of governance by that logic. Fine by me

McHrozni

That is another gross over-simplification. The fact that Ireland is part of the democratic western world did not stop it from suffering several decades/centuries of vicious sectarian warfare.

The topic we are discussing is very complicated. Too many times during this thread, people have tried to reduce it to "look how messed up Syria is, capitalism must be the best system" or "why haven't you moved to a communist banana republic?"

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Because it's their business, not ours.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

No. There's two things wrong with that statement. The first is that not all of the alternatives are the same. Zimbabwe is not China. Saudi Arabia is not Russia.

People are people. Mathematics is mathematics. Communism depends on people not being people and mathematics not being mathematics. That's why it has never, ever worked.

Quote:

The second is that we've spent the last four years pretending that our system has not suffered a catastrophic failure. The financial crisis of September/October 2008 actually broke the western system, and since then the powers that be have been holding the system together with sticky tape, secret manipulation of supposedly free markets and outright fraud. When we face up to the reality of our predicament then we will see that our system has failed completely and that we need to go back to the drawing board.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

The topic we are discussing is very complicated. Too many times during this thread, people have tried to reduce it to "look how messed up Syria is, capitalism must be the best system" or "why haven't you moved to a communist banana republic?"

Yeah, better be quick or there won't be any left. If you want real communism, you're down to North Korea and Cuba.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Because it's their business, not ours.

...because their culture is old ? And it's not entirely true either, right ? I mean, both the premise and the conclusion.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

One of the major shortcomings of the theorized justness of free market economy is the lack of honesty and lack of equal chances. There is so much bribing BtoB and BtoPolitics, money sourced from criminality, inherited wealth giving some individuals better chances than others get in the "fair free race", tax evasion nationally and in tax paradises, price cartels, corporate espionage, marketing which misleads the customers with exaggerated or outright false view of the product, etc. etc.

Several issues are being conflated here.

Capitalism is specifically about the private ownership/funding of production, as opposed to say socialism where the state or collective owns the means of production. The public funding of Solyndra is a more recent example of non-private funding.
--
Free-market exchange is about the mechanism of trade or exchange. This is a contractual issue. In the US it's largely controlled by the Universal Commerce Code, who the foundations of this law go back at least 4 centuries in N.Europe; perhaps a lot longer. There are some important aspects of contract law that you seem to ignore,

For a free-market exchange both parties must voluntarily agree to the exchange with a common understanding. So the only way an exchange occurs is if each party estimates they get an advantage - a marginal increase in value from the exchange - value is not a zero-sum game. Fraud and deception is a sales contract violation - we don't need new laws or to abandon capitalism.

The exchange must be for a lawful purpose (the reason illegal drug exchange devolves into self-enforcement, firefights & chaos).
----------

Quote:

... lack of honesty and lack of equal chances.

Strange view. I rarely see any lack of honesty when I go to the grocery or mall or hardware store or choose to purchase a car or house. UCC includes an implied warranty of merchantibility when you purchase from a regular vendor.

In a free market sellers are generally reluctant to give any buyer a selective advantage, and buyers are usually reluctant to give any seller a selective advantage as it's against their fiscal interests. No one promised an equal outcome which would certainly be very unjust IMO. You can vend your skills and time and assets according to their market value, and buy according to your means. How is that not equal treatment ?

Perhaps you are one who imagines that everyone in society (aside from yourself and other progressive thinkers) is a "poor little dummy" who must be protected by big paternalistic government. I don't think that is an acceptable model for the state. Yes government does have a role IMO, but it's merely to determine what level of information disclosure is required for a meeting of the minds.

Quote:

There is so much bribing BtoB and BtoPolitics, money sourced from criminality,

How much ? Anti-competitive, monopolistic behavior, collusion, price-fixing is of course illegal and prosecutable. That the justice department doesn't enforce anti-trust law, so we get dumping, price-fixing, isn't a failure of capitalism. Blaming capitalism generally is as wrongheaded as blaming every driver for the few who speed. It's not business' fault for using the currently legal methods to fund politicians to their advantage. It's a major fault in government that they regularly do pass laws to selectively advantage certain parties.

Quote:

inherited wealth giving some individuals better chances than others get in the "fair free race"

The idea that parents won't regularly advantage their own offspring is simply too ridiculous - it's a genetic imperative like reproduction. The fundamental fallacy here is that you suggest success is a zero sum game - that someone with the advantage of inherited wealth somehow diminishes your chance to succeed. Your argument is envy cloaked in a success-is-zero-sum fallacy, with an implied redistribution-ist solution. It's unsurprising that we only see arguments this hollow and immoral during times of economic distress.

Quote:

, tax evasion nationally and in tax paradises, price cartels, corporate espionage,

These aren't problems addressed nor created by capitalism per se. Are you going to blame capitalism for the common cold next ? Is OPEC the result of capitalism (no). Are ubiquitous French, Israeli, Chinese and other government industrial espionage more noble than privately funded forms ?

Quote:

marketing which misleads the customers with exaggerated or outright false view of the product, etc. etc.

That's a violation of contract law and you have plenty of recourse already. Not a significant problem, just an excuse to create a massively invasive government rationalized as protecting the "poor little dummies" of your imagination. I suggest you stop arguing from the standpoint of these hypothetical others and tell us instead how YOU were personally duped. Then we can address whether you acted as a reasonable person to avoid or recover damages.

==================

Let's take a different tack,

In some idealized society would you prefer to make individual consumption decisions, as we generally do, or would you prefer that the government choose the products you consume ? I can't think of any aspect of my consumption where I would prefer the government, or anyone else decide on my consumption. If you agree this argues in favor of half of the free-market proposition.

Now on the production side would you prefer to see multiple vendors offering various price,quality propositions or would you prefer to have a single vendor who is unmotivated by your value ? Dead obvious we don't want government in the production side of a trade either.

Should we have many competing investors risking their own assets funding and choosing the production method, or should we have a single source of capital - one that is unmotivated by profit and therefore consumer value and production efficiency ? Very obvious choice again.

A free market exchange requires that both parties are advantaged - so private capital would only invest in businesses that seem to generate a profit, or viewed from the other side - would only create products and services that customers believe are of value. This creates the conditions for a highly efficient symbiosis between consumers and private producers in a competitive free market. This doesn't seem to allow for government production which is typically monopolistic, and almost by definition non-competitive. Further, government funding of any production (Solyndra and subsidies for Chevy Volt and corn-ethanol come to mind) and not motivated by what is of value to the customer/consumer but by more politically motivated concerns that create harmful market distortions.

So I think FM-Capitalism is nearly ideal IF we are willing to create and enforce some fairly basic law wrt property rights, tort law, and the more grey-area monopolisitc behavior. These laws already exist, but IMO the anti-competitive/monopoly laws aren't well enforced.

Crony capitalism is a fault of government, not capitalism. The politicians who divert public money to subsidize the Chevy Volt or Cash-for-Clunkers should be vigorously punished, just as much as the policeman who accepts a $100 bribe to tear up a ticket. Punishing the bribers doesn't readily prevent the problem since money/value is fungible and there is always a way to create a hidden 'pay off', so practical enforcement means punishing the government employees who vend influence.

==============

I 'vote' for many products and against far more products in the free market every day. Producers make the obverse decisions based on sales in a similarly detailed and variegated way. It's a brilliant system of information flow to meet a desired end. It's a crack-pot idea to imagine that voting for a choice between two politicians, each with a composite of many poorly explained positions once every few years can possible convey even a tiny fraction as much information. Government can't be responsive in the same way.

When we have a direct Constitutional Democracy we can revisit this terrible idea of demolishing capitalism.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Belz...

...because their culture is old ?

Mainly because it is theirs. Who gave westerners the right to tell everybody else how they should best run their affairs?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

Mainly because it is theirs. Who gave westerners the right to tell everybody else how they should best run their affairs?

That makes more sense, now. But still, we're not talking about forcing them or even telling them to do anything. We're talking about them in the third person and, I guess, at best, we would suggest something to them.

[NewtonTrino]

Brilliant post stevea.

[Senex]

Originally Posted by epepke

When it comes to health care, or dog treats that might kill your dog, or septic conditions, capitalism sucks big hairy donkey penes. That's when you need something else.

I couldn't disagree more. Have your appendix taken out with acupuncture as an anesthetic. The dog treats from China are the ones that put my dog at risk. Finally, the US has the worlds greatest plumbing.

Capitalism kicks ass.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yes, in fact. They were BORN POOR, Balrog.

So was I, so were most of my friends; we CHOSE not to stay that way.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Hoarding all the wealth and slowing down the economy, etc.

You think they are keeping dollars in their mattresses rather than investing them?

Even if so, there might be very good reasons for that ... go have a talk with Helicopter Ben.

Originally Posted by Belz...

That is a powerful argument.

Compared to yours, it actually is.

Originally Posted by Belz...

And we're right back to where we started. Let me know once you're done understanding what I told you about poor people.

I don't think you understand much about people, poor or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Belz...

"Limited" doesn't mean "only works for the benefit of the rich."

It means limited. I see your understanding of the Constitution matches your understanding of people.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I think any scheme that aims to make life "fair" for everyone is going to be a massive failure. People are different, there's no such thing as fair. Some people are born with more wealth, better families, natural talents and just plain luck. Too bad, so sad.

Excellent summary.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by balrog666

So was I, so were most of my friends; we CHOSE not to stay that way.

Irrelevant: the point is that it's not that simple. You didn't CHOOSE to stop being poor, you tried and succeeded. Many people don't succeed, and blaming them for the failure, and then saying they shouldn't have a say in anything because they failed, is ridiculous.

Quote:

You think they are keeping dollars in their mattresses rather than investing them?

Yes, actually. When you give money to the poor or the middle class, they spend it. When you give money to people who don't need it, they stash it.

Quote:

Compared to yours, it actually is.

So actually providing an argument is worse than not providing one at all ? You have an inflated opinion of the words you type.

Quote:

I don't think you understand much about people, poor or otherwise.

Rather than throw a tu quoque at me, explain.

Quote:

It means limited. I see your understanding of the Constitution matches your understanding of people.

Oh, that smiley sure showed me !

Why would you expect my understanding of YOUR constitution to be extensive ? And what does my comment have to do with it ?

[brenn]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

So how do you explain its very late development in human history?

Simple: it did not develop late in huiman history. It has existed since the first nomadic human traded a stone knife for an antelope leg on the plains of Africa.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by brenn

Simple: it did not develop late in huiman history. It has existed since the first nomadic human traded a stone knife for an antelope leg on the plains of Africa.

No. If you think barter==capitalism your definition is revisionist and too vague to be useful. And wrong.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by brenn

Simple: it did not develop late in huiman history. It has existed since the first nomadic human traded a stone knife for an antelope leg on the plains of Africa.

Actually most economic systems up until about 200 years ago were based on slavery. Slavery is about as anti-free market as you can get.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by stevea

Capitalism is specifically about the private ownership/funding of production, as opposed to say socialism where the state or collective owns the means of production. The public funding of Solyndra is a more recent example of non-private funding.

In this pure sense, pure Capitalism hardly exists anywhere on the planet, because even the most Capitalist nations support private companies with tax pennies in various ways, as export aid, technological innovation aid or preferential loans, banks bailout, customs barriers, etc.

Looks like no country in the world believes in pure Capitalism, because no country is running it. If so, do you believe in purer Capitalism than any country is currently running?

Originally Posted by stevea

I rarely see any lack of honesty when I go to the grocery or mall or hardware store or choose to purchase a car or house.

The dictionary definition of dishonesty is misleading the target, i.e. not allowing him to realize the true state of things.

I guess you never bought a secondhand car or house. There is a saying that marketing is 10% outright lying to the customer, 80% withholding from the customer information that would benefit him in making an informed choice, and 10% telling necessary truths.

Originally Posted by stevea

In a free market sellers are generally reluctant to give any buyer a selective advantage

? Ever heard of discount codes, or bargaining the price down (while the next customer pays the full price if he doesn´t try to bargain), or club membership prices?

Originally Posted by stevea

buyers are usually reluctant to give any seller a selective advantage as it's against their fiscal interests.

Consumers usually get fixed on a particular brand or seller, and then are lazy to try anything else.

Corporate or communal buyers often get bribed by the seller, and buy what is in their personal interests rather than in the best interests of the company or community they are buying for. Medical doctors most popularly fall to this category.

Originally Posted by stevea

It's not business' fault for using the currently legal methods to fund politicians to their advantage. It's a major fault in government that they regularly do pass laws to selectively advantage certain parties.

Something does not match here. If it is OK for A to pay B to do thing C, how does it magically become wrong for B to do thing C?

Originally Posted by stevea

fallacy here is that you suggest success is a zero sum game - that someone with the advantage of inherited wealth somehow diminishes your chance to succeed.

Fallacy called. All is well at JREF forum.

Now note your own fallacy: you claim that starting a company, and defending it in open competition against other companies, will succeed with the same statistical probability, no matter how much funds the founder has to invest in the company.

Originally Posted by stevea

tell us instead how YOU were personally duped.

The more legal cases include surfing the Internet with a mobile phone near the state border, and oops the operators have a golden handshake to set roaming prices 100x higher than national charges. A thing that started to change in Europe only after EU started to force the roaming fees down with legislation.

Another case: I bought a mobile phone and intended to take a contract of unlimited internet surfing for 10 EUR per month. Somehow I managed to misunderstand or not notice all the necessary buttons for this in the complex online ordering service, and I got several hundred EUR worth internet bills before the first bill arrived to my home and I noticed the mistake. For teleoperators this, multiplied by 100,000 similar customer experiences, is a golden calf to milk dry. Legalized theft I say.

Agains the same story: a service (internet surfing) is priced 100x higher than any customer wants to pay. A fixed price is available, and most customers notice to activate it. But a few hundred thousand customers fail to notice all the options, and fall to the 100x higher pricing trap set up by the operators. Telecommunications is the golden land of this kind of disguised cheating, because the bill arrives long after the costs are caused, and the consumer is not aware of the live situation of how much his use of the services is costing at each moment.

Originally Posted by stevea

This creates the conditions for a highly efficient symbiosis between consumers and private producers

(A displaced quote, as I need it soon below...) This setting is hardly anywhere near the most efficient imaginable.

Free market version:
Factory A produces thing X.
Wholesaler B keeps in storage thing X.
Retailer C sells to customers thing X.
A consumer cannot visit factory A and buy directly from them, nor wholesaler B and buy from them, he must pay the costs of the whole chain until the retailer C, which might in some cases be unnecessary and inefficient.

Originally Posted by stevea

In some idealized society would you prefer to make individual consumption decisions, as we generally do, or would you prefer that the government choose the products you consume?

If I were the guy sitting on top, I would try to get majority of all commerce in the country flowing under these circumstances:
- Sweatshop tax to products which are produced by using underpaid labour, in any country. Direct the competition to innovations and logistical efficiency, not towards paying to labour force as little as possible (which often includes moving the production to countries where this is possible to the most extreme levels).
- Government owns shops, and seeks to give consumers maximal awareness of what options are available, where, and for what prices. As compared to the above-mentioned obligatory chain of factory, wholesaler and retailer (where the customer must buy the product, without being given information about prices of the same product elsewhere than in this particular shop), my system would be informing consumers that product X is available by mail order from factories A1...n for price X1...n, from wholesalers B1...n for price Y1...n, and from retailers C1...n for prices Z1...n. Then public demand would freely reshape and optimize some of the old institutionalized distribution chains, which are rotting to their core as the society moves online. A consumer would no longer buy an expensive product without being told at the cashier that the same product is for sale at a lower price in a different shop.
- Government owns all major companies, especially those whose operation is more routine than innovative. Electricity companies, oil companies are among typical brainless cash magnets for the state. The little thinking that is required in running them, can be hired from visiting consultants.
- Some 10%-20% of commerce would remain free in my system, because a government cannot realistically pay due attention to all small niche products, and also in major products it is good to have a competitor to spar you and act as a measurestick of pricing and quality.

Originally Posted by stevea

Now on the production side would you prefer to see multiple vendors offering various price, quality propositions or would you prefer to have a single vendor who is unmotivated by your value? Dead obvious we don't want government in the production side of a trade either.

Government owning companies has nothing to do with the number of companies. Capitalism can, and often does, lead to companies buying out their smaller competitors and merging into giant oligarchs, the economical system is not directly a factor concerning diversity of actors on the market.

Originally Posted by stevea

Should we have many competing investors risking their own assets funding and choosing the production method, or should we have a single source of capital -- one that is unmotivated by profit and therefore consumer value and production efficiency?

You assume, unfoundedly, that a Socialist government would be unmotivated to aim for maximal prosperity. There have been Socialist dictators living in luxury while the people starved, and there have been Capitalist dictators doing the same. Economical system has nothing directly to do with the question, how much prosperity the system is motivated to create. The more the normal people have power in the system, the more the system is motivated to create prosperity for them.

Originally Posted by stevea

private capital would only invest in businesses that seem to generate a profit

That is why many people vote for the Left, once they have seen that the Right only care about their own profits.