Phemanderac wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 6:21am:


Left to itself, the "market" doesn't bring fairness, it brings monopolies. Monopolies are the greatest source of unfairness, as all freemarket theorists argue.

Monopolies produce fiefdoms and corruption, but they can also be a far more efficient way of producing goods. Why have hundreds of factories producing ball bearings, when one can do it all? This is why the "market" tends to gravitate towards monopolies, but the biggest cause is politics.

Take News Ltd. Its business model is based on dominating national news coverage. News Ltd backs political candidates and uses its newspapers and TV stations to get them elected. It then lobbies governments to skew media laws in its favour, as if such political bribery could ever be seen as "lobbying". News Ltd keeps dirt files on its political enemies. It has destroyed many politicians and public figures through tabloid sex scandals and mere allegations of corruption. A number of scandals have been prevented after back room agreements. In the UK, Tony Blair's staff and Gordon Brown have disclosed details of blackmail.

In the UK, much of the information obtained by News Ltd was gathered illegally - a massive surveillance network that was deliberately covered up by the police over many years.

It works both ways. News Ltd is the go-to source for politicians giving leaks and breaking stories. If a friendly politician doesn't use a News journalist, News gets stroppy. With its monopoly over the Fleet Street tabloids, News Ltd holds many politicians over a barrel. Those it doesn't are subject to its dirt file, its hit list. News Ltd editors like Andy Coulson boast over the number of political careers they have destroyed, and this is a huge source of power.

Rupert Murdoch is a freemarket ideologue, but in reality, he's a pragmatist. He will go with whatever political party that will further his company's interests. His son James, the new CEO, is reported to be a much bigger freemarket zealot. Where News Ltd's media monopoly will go when Rupert dies is anyone's guess.

Such monopolies are a tendency of modern capitalism - particularly in information, which requires networks and distribution chains. News Ltd has been able to dominate daily newspapers because news there is highly centralized - newspapers are produced in London and, historically, were distributed throughout England by train. This was much harder in the US, where newspapers are published in capital cities, great distances apart. All this is changing as print news moves online. Media monopolies are now much easier to run. The new media buzzword is "synergy" - different publications sharing the same stories. Local news is slowly dying out as print news gradually becomes centralized in one national location.

Monopolies are created through a combination of political favour and the capitalist tendency towards centralized production. They are what you get when the "market" rules. Capitalism is not about competition, but monopolization.

If economies were really competitive, we may well have the sort of equality of opportunity and share-ownership the freemarket utopians champion.

But we don't. The biggest freemarket ideologues own the biggest global monopolies. They only argue for competition when it's in their own interests. The Murdochs, the Koch brothers, the Russian oligarchs and Chinese princelings, are protectionists. The last thing those who run the world want is free markets.

Karnal wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:


How much of our economy do you think is based on food production?

Do you think population growth is driving China's boom?

What do you think happened to European economies in the middle ages following great plagues that reduced the population?

Karnal wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 12:11pm:


I think you will find.. that Socialism is the champion of monopolization than capitalism is...No system is perfect and our current system is a very corrupt system because our once decently regulated market that kept unchecked by regulations has slowly been dismantled by both sides of the coin, But compared to the alternatives its the best we got.

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:


A hell of a lot. From the patents for seeds to the chemicals for farming to transport and distribution, food is one of the biggest industries in the world.

And don't forget fast food companies like McDonalds and processed food companies like Nestle. Food and pharmaceuticals are two of the biggest global industries.

As every schoolboy knows.

Pantheon wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:


You're comparing developing and developed economies. You might as well compare medieval Europe with Aboriginal settlement.

But in the 1950s, the USSR had high growth and, compared to undeveloped countries (like China), a high average living standard. The USSR propped up a number of developing economies during this time. It became an economic basket case in the 1980s.

Command economies have their benefits, particularly in the transition towards development.

Growing inequality can be the sign of a sign of a struggling economy. Growing inequality leads to social and political unrest, if not upheaval.

Karnal wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

Bollox, PB.

Not every economic theory is aiming for communism - which is what "prosperity for all in equal measure is".

Quote:


It is down from close to 100% to under 3%, and still falling.

Quote:


They tend to hinder development. Most of the "advances" under early communist Russia were the result of forcing people off the land and into industrial centres - something they had already done voluntarily elsewhere. It was a huge advance on the old system of overcrowded farmland and not much to do, but it was only ever going to be a poor imitation of what happened elsewhere. You can get rapid and sustainable improvement by simply allowing people to do it themselves. This is no different to the standard benign dictatorship fantasy that the government can manage the end product better (do you think we have 'finished'?). Russia has fallen in a heap precisely because the government managed the transition. Now they have to start from scratch and do it properly.

Quote:


Or a booming one. Or a steady one. Or no economy at all. Or crushing dictatorship. Or liberal freedom. I suppose it's a bit like reading tea leaves.

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:


So utilise your marvellous university education and tell us all which economic theories don’t seek to maximise prosperity for all, dear chap.

In the words of your prophetess, please explain.