except that time and time again when they do that they find... they aren't the only game in town. And, so long as government does not conspire with business to artificially raise the price of entry beyond the ability of start-ups; they never will be.
Unfortunately, we are getting further and further away from that prescription.
Indeed, there is no such thing as too big to fail. That's like saying something is too heavy to fall. But you don't need a new socioeconomic system for that - you simply need to remove the parasites and barnacles that have encrusted this one.
Methinks "Too Big to Fail" is the ultimate goal of every business enterprise, which is why we are where we are now, and why Capitalism, as we presently understand it, is ultimately a doomed socioeconomic paradigm.
:yawn: actually it's the capital that keeps the whole damn enterprise in production. Without it, there is no corporation in the first place. (see how stupid that game is?)
No, capital is merely the grease that keeps the wheels a spinnin'.
Believe it or not, it really is the workers who create the product, not the capital. The capital is just numbers on a ledger. It's a man-made illusion,
an abstraction, invented as a tool for organizing the distribution of a society's total human energy capacity.
Labor is an input. It is a portion of the cost of production.
No,
labor is production. Indeed, that is what is taking place: the energy of labor is being transformed into product. Capital has no direct role in the process.
Indeed. Just as, for example, if you had the ability to use force to stop a newspaper from being able to purchase ink. Or if you had the ability to stop a grocer from being able to purchase food. Or if you had the ability to stop a mechanic from using his hands. If you can coercively interfere with the market to keep someone from purchasing an available product or service... yeah, you can reduce their abilities to produce and provide.
...or if you had the ability to compel people to work for subsistence wages because you owned the factory, and the mayor, and the police.
But we have been through this chapter of human history already, haven't we?
.... I am educated enough to realize that the 21st century economy thus far does not appear made up entirely of 19th century mining camps?
And why is that?
What happened between 1850 and 1950 that changed all that?
we talk about working conditions in the 19th century through 21st century lenses and are shocked. Apparently they were better than the farms so many people were leaving.
Do you mean to say that labor was being exploited in both the arenas of industry and agriculture? Now, that is shocking.
SHOCKING, I SAY!!
:shrug: it's an interesting thought experiment. If the American auto companies had never unionized, their products probably would have been higher quality and their prices lower, which would mean that the Japanese companies never would have been able to invade and take over so much of their market share. Very likely, he wouldn't be working for Toyota because Toyota never would have had such an excellent opportunity to sell a better product at a lower price to Americans.
WRONG!!!
If the American auto companies had never unionized there would have never been any such thing as the American Middle Class, nor that milestone achievement in human experience which we call the "consumer based economy." There would not likely have been a Toyota car company, and there would definitely never been a Toyota car company at which you brother is supposedly employed here in America.
Perhaps, the greatest irony in all of human economic history is the fact that is the unions,
YES, THE LABOR UNIONS, which were the catalyst for the epic socioeconomic transformations that occurred in the West during the 20th century, and which ultimately defeated communism.
Why?
Because the labor unions kept the capital in circulation. The labor unions empowered the proles with the economic wherewithal to buy stuff,
lots of stuff, so much stuff that the upper class nabobs were soon falling over themselves in competition for the emerging middle class market.
Checks and balances. Industrialists and Labor Unions. This is what truly made America great. When we lose that, we lose America.
But I'm pretty sure he would still be doing fine. Thanks partially to our low quality (unionized) public educational system, there is a shortage of science and technology workers in this country.
Now, you are just being an ass. There is a shortage of sci-tech skills in America because too much of America's cerebral talent has been funneled into business studies. You know this.
I am saying that the same thing that you said above. The minimum price that real estate developers can sell housing and survive is slightly above the price of production. When you raise the price of production by unionizing the workforce, therefore, you raise that minimum amount that they can sell at and survive. You have increased the costs that the developer has to recoup.
And when you lower the salary base, you lower the purchasing power of the consumer. Don't you get it, man? Capitalism, or any economic system for that matter, does not work in the absence of free will, and that includes the free will to insure a wage that is commensurate with the prevailing economy.
Who can sell product when there is no one who can afford to buy it?
Nope. Generally speaking (government interference aside), nobody "sets" prices. Unions simply force them higher than they otherwise would have been.
That is nonsense. If I whittle me a widget and decide to sell it on the free market, I,
and no one but I, will set a price for the product. If I am wise, I will set a price just low enough (and no more lower) to make my product a realistic buy for my target consumer base. Nevertheless, I set the price. I don't suppose I need to explain to you how many businesses have come and gone based almost entirely upon their acumen for setting prices.
that is incorrect. Demand as it is economically expressed is a function of Supply. You have to have something before you can trade it for something else.
What did you just say? Did you just say something about
"having to have something before you can trade it for something?"
I am sure you would agree, that in a society where money is the primary means of trade, the less money one has, the less one is able to engage in trade. Isn't that right?
is this the "nuh-uh!!!" defense, of elementary school yard fame?
No, this is the
"See above comment and think about it" decree.
No, I did not. Next time, come back with some proof. It should not be too difficult to obtain.
what a fascinating theory. how do you account for the fact that that is precisely what we have generally seen over the last century? The price of labor has consistently increased, while the portion of labors' income that it must spend on the necessities has decreased.
Still won't cut the crap, I see. What has changed; indeed, what has made all the difference between the 20th century and every era in human history which came before it, is gigantic leaps in technological advancement
and labor unions.
Unfortunately, due to the intrinsic flaws of the prevailing economic system, inflation has been a constant the entire time. Thus, you are completely full of shate on this point, and you know it. Prices on everything have increased dramatically between 1900 and 2000, and you know it. The only way for labor to keep pace with inflation is by demanding a higher salary. You know this much also, and yet you play the fool; or perhaps, you think I am the fool.
The question that needs to be asked now is: "
Are you an honorable man, or just a two-bit "conservative" bullish*tter?"