Turn on thread page Beta

Are you a socialist or a capitalist? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seanisonfire)
    I'm a troll.
    :rofl:


    I'm sane-minded, well-educated, understand basic economic theories and am not impoverished. Guess whether I am socialist or capitalist!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Maybe that's because almost all economic theory has been designed to defend capitalism and takes certain institutions for granted (e.g. private property)?
    I am going to become an economics student in September. Personally, I have reservations about the way alot of economics students worship free market capitalism.
    It can't be all like that. Whilst socialists can miss some points of economic theory which work regardless of capitalism or socialism, there are many others who know the ropes and are still socialist. So I agree, at least some economic theory is biased towards capitalism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    ...
    Great posts by you both. I will try to keep this brief by picking out some key points:

    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Are you saying that there are not restrictions that new teams would have in competing for those players, or state granted advantages to established ones that given them advantages? Aren't most teams heavily subsidised, susidies that new firms, sorry, teams would not get?
    AFAIK, major league baseball does not enjoy any State protection. The same with the NFL. If MLB or the NFL operate an internal free market for players, then I have no objection. But without regulation the potential is certainly there for MLB and the NFL to abuse their powers. I think these are good examples of how a monopoly can arise without state intervention. Whilst you never have an absolute monopoly without state intervention; you can get what is for all intents and purposes the same thing.

    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Why is any of this a problem? It still implies that the dominant firm is selling gas to customers more cheaply than anybody else could, and that if they attempt, it will benefit the customers even more by waging a price war?
    It implies that the dominant firm can sell gas more cheaply than anyone else, but instead sells it at very high prices. This potential is enough to stop well informed competitors from entering the market. If you know that investing massively in gas infrastructure is just going to cause the monopoly to drop its price to an extent where the investment is not worth making, then you aren't going to invest.

    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Railroads...Such collusion or private cartel arrangements are therefore constantly arising. However, they are generally unstable and of brief duration unless they can call government to their assistance. The establishment of the cartel, by raising prices makes it more profitable for outsiders to enter the industry. Moreover, since the higher price can be established only by the particpants' restricting their output below the level they would like to produce at the fixed price, there is an incentive for each one sperately to undercut the price in order to expand output. Each one, of course, hopes that the others will abide by the agreement. It takes only one or at most a few "chiselers" - who are indeed public benefactors - to break the cartel. In absence of government assistance in enforcing the cartel, they are almost sure to succeed fairly promptly.
    Clearly if a cartel does raise its prices to a certain level, then it will attract new entrants. If this level is £15, then a cartel will still happily raise its prices to £14 even if £7 would be the likely level if the cartel did not exist and firms competed. The point I'm trying to make is that whilst you don't have monopolies in a free market in the traditional technical sense, you are still able to get firms who are able to considerably increase their margins, to the detriment of consumers and suppliers, by virtue of their market position.

    You are correct to point out that cartels often don't work and that often they only exist because of the state. But this isn't always the case. The problem with using examples is that cartel agreements are often implicit and are rarely public. I agree that state intervention prolonged the high prices in the 1973 crisis, but OPEC itself does not exist because of state intervention. Neither did the Seven Sisters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_S...il_companies)). Another example of a cartel is trade unions - I don't think I need to comment on the destructive impact they can have (n.b. yes this is often due to state protection, but not always).

    "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

    n.b. ive got to go, will read DH's post later
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    I am going to become an economics student in September. Personally, I have reservations about the way alot of economics students worship free market capitalism.
    It can't be all like that. Whilst socialists can miss some points of economic theory which work regardless of capitalism or socialism, there are many others who know the ropes and are still socialist. So I agree, at least some economic theory is biased towards capitalism.
    My observation is that some economics students, understandably I suppose, have a tendency to see such things as 'systems' rather than 'processes'. By tending towards systems rather than processes the economics student seems less open to see in terms of historically generated developments or changes and where economics generates, and is generated by, non-economic factors.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Neither. Anarchist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    My observation is that some economics students, understandably I suppose, have a tendency to see such things as 'systems' rather than 'processes'. By tending towards systems rather than processes the economics student seems less open to see in terms of historically generated developments or changes and where economics generates, and is generated by, non-economic factors.
    True. true. From experience, I have come across several people who think like that.
    The problem is that they fail to distinguish hard theory from reality. It's a poor creed of economist who falls into that trap.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DAFOne)
    Also for capitalists, think of somebody who is smarter than most of the people out there, has more desire than anybody else out there and will not go to university because he cannot afford it. Then think about the fact that George Bush went to Yale University.
    Then think about the fact that Barack Obama went to Harvard...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PGtips92)
    Then think about the fact that Barack Obama went to Harvard...
    :yes: He did... what abou tit?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DAFOne)
    :yes: He did... what abou tit?
    That for every George Bush who goes to Yale (rich but stupid fella), there's a Barack Obama who goes to Harvard (poor but clever fella). And they were both president, awww isn't capitalism great- if you work hard enough you can achieve anything....
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by PGtips92)
    That for every George Bush who goes to Yale (rich but stupid fella), there's a Barack Obama who goes to Harvard (poor but clever fella). And they were both president, awww isn't capitalism great- if you work hard enough you can achieve anything....
    Was Obama from a poor background?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Socialist. I have a conscience.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Socialist. I have a conscience.
    Well, I have a brain. :eviltongue:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Well, I have a brain. :eviltongue:
    Oh droll. :grumble:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PGtips92)
    That for every George Bush who goes to Yale (rich but stupid fella), there's a Barack Obama who goes to Harvard (poor but clever fella). And they were both president, awww isn't capitalism great- if you work hard enough you can achieve anything....
    Good point, but why should the stupid guy go to Yale just because he's rich? I bet there were about 200 million people who deserved that Yale spot more...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Was Obama from a poor background?
    Later, describing his own biography, Obama noted that there were a few times in his youth when his mom had to get food stamps "so we had enough to eat," that he studied on scholarships...

    Certainly wasn't from a wealthy background.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DAFOne)
    Good point, but why should the stupid guy go to Yale just because he's rich? I bet there were about 200 million people who deserved that Yale spot more...
    He shouldn't. But that's America.

    Would Bush have got into Cambridge? Perhaps, but if he did then its cos they deem him to be better than the other candidates...

    ... And if thats solely because he went to private school, then state schools must improve.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    George Bush is more intelligent than you. You can't be a leader of a nation like America and be stupid.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    George Bush is more intelligent than you. You can't be a leader of a nation like America and be stupid.
    I seriously doubt that that man is more intelligent than anybody on TSR.

    And yes, you can be stupid and run the United States - that is what he did. In eight years in which he has been in charge, he has fought two wars and lead the country into two economic crises. Statistically, that makes him the worst president in history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DAFOne)
    I seriously doubt that that man is more intelligent than anybody on TSR.

    And yes, you can be stupid and run the United States - that is what he did. In eight years in which he has been in charge, he has fought two wars and lead the country into two economic crises. Statistically, that makes him the worst president in history.
    There's a difference between bad policies and stupidity. He is bilingual for one thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    There's a difference between bad policies and stupidity. He is bilingual for one thing.
    No, he can read Spanish of an autocue. Big difference. Anyway, any idiot can learn a language - it only requires a certain degree of exposure time which when daddy paid for most of your life Bush II could easily afford.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.