This is the case with any retail store that sells a new private label product.


This just is not true, and it misses the key point. You have to offer value to the consumer (and that does not mean just price), if you do that, your product will still sell, just now with price competition. Coca-Cola stays in business, despite many private labels, from many stores. This was why Verizon is able to charge a premium. They don't compete on price, they compete on quality of service.


This is wrong as well. There are several retail outlets online, and in real world, that compete for the cost conscious customer, if you don't sell milk, not many people are going to shop at your grocery store. These folks are really good at market intelligence, and if Amazon is getting traction with a generic product, they will make one as well. Also, if someone makes a product that has traction, Walmart, Amazon, and many other merchants are going to sell a generic, weather the first one is being sold in their store, or not, becasue then you will visit that other store that has that product, i.e. the grocery store with milk. You see this occur quite often in the video game community. A new genre is created, and distributed by someplace like steam, and whole host of competitors follow suit, and through many other distribution channels, and yeah, sometimes the initial developer gets beat.

You don't get this why new technology/products becomes cheap, and better, eventually. It's strange because you want to stop the natural progression of competition. If a person is unwilling to compete with the likes of Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc, etc, then you need to look at that person and say they were not ready to be a business, but rather just a salesperson, product developer.

You can respond to my comment to Willd.

yes it is automatic. but thats not really may point.

why cant there be checks and balances in socialism or communism? also, why are you conflating checks and balances with democracy? democracy is a system where the people have the most input. by its nature democracy is actuall socialist. and this has been proven in tons of countries that voted for communist or socialist reforms or govt itself and were promptly destroyed by the right wing death squads of the USA. I am talking about damn near every central and south American country.

I'll answer your question, but you have to accept a premise. Is your view the government is what is controlling the means of production in socialism/communism?

sounds like a snuck premise

The original maker of the mousetrap isn't seeing a reward for its contribution in terms of validating the market demand for mousetraps.
As if plenty of suppliers haven't gone into competition against their customers based on proprietary data. Way more common are companies with better marketing resources 'stealing' product ideas from lesser equipped companies based off easily acquired sales data. Do you want to make that stuff illegal as well?

At least you and ItsHot are being honest about the fact that capitalism isn't a meritocracy and the people at the top of the pyramid prey on the people below them.

You guys only care that you get cheap stuff. That's your value system.
I think it's a bit narrow but I can see the selfish logic in it. Monopolies often do provide the consumer with lower prices. But it's at a cost to the general economy.

Also, I'm not convinced that you need private ownership of the means of production if all you want is cheap. I think capitalism's strength is in innovation, not the cheapest prices possible. But that's just me. I like living in the modern world and I liked paying more and getting brakes on my truck that didn't come warped from the factory.

He doesn't like to have his ideas challenged.

I mean, Heritage Foundations ideas. lulz.

What you keep calling wrong is not wrong just because you can offer examples of brand loyalty situations.

Sure some brand loyalty will exist especially for items where taste is key.

Time and again with blind taste tests they show the loyalty is not merited. Coke lovers cannot tell the difference between Pepsi and No Name and huge percents of them get it wrong, but they immediately go back to their brand when they can see the name. So yes that type of blind brand loyalty exists but how many product categories does it apply to?

And besides the massive companies (like coke) name some small and newer companies you think have that?

Besides brand loyalty what other factors do you think over ride price.

You, itshotinvegas, spend tons of money and time to innovate a new widget product. You spend years doing your proof of concept and getting some local traction for your product. All local data shows this product to be of value to the market and you assume a National and international launch will be similarly successful.

You launch on Amazon, It starts to take off and Amazon sees it, watches and sees the product as complementary to the new directions they are adding. They copy it and offer a cheaper version as they have none of the legacy costs but also make profits thru distribution and off of advertising on their site, so they don't need to make as much profit solely on the product. That come come later once they drive you out of business.

Now, you, itshotinvegas, please give me 3 ways you think you, the entrepreneur can protect your product and value (that are not brand loyalty tied to taste or longevity) when it comes to opening up NEW markets where the customers do not yet know you, do not have any loyalty and would see the 'Amazon' name on the product as being more known/reputable than your company name.

Please focus on that and give me 3 reasons you think new buyers would pay the higher price.

You are missing my point.

Lets assume the people below the systems are the same people and you just interchange the system.

Now assume we do not have 'perfect people' and corruption and self interest will always creep in.

My point is that within the Western form of democracy there is automatically more checks and balances present than you would find in a Socialist Form of Gov't or Communist one.

In the Western form of Democracy here are all the layers that would need to be fully corrupted to have a completely corrupted market.

And don't make the mistake of arguing what you BELIEVE people would do or not. I am talking about what is 'available' and 'possible' even if not always utilized.

From top down these are the layers of control and who can (if they have the will) check the power of

- Citizens (with their vote can clear out the Politician layer if corrupt and replace it)
- Politicians can utilize legislation if corporate layer has been corrupted
- Competition in corporate layer can weed out corruption or corrupt companies can be shut down with others taking their place.


In socialism and communism since the corporate layer and the Political layer are the same, it is much harder to protect against corruption should you assume bad actors.

In the West Democracy you would need bad actors at BOTH the corporate and Political layers and for them to COLLUDE, despite the peril from voters, for it to be truly effective. In socialism and communism if one of those layers is corrupt the other automatically is, as they are in the SAME layer.

If you know of checks and balances that exist within the other systems that would be equal or greater, please explain.

Why are you conflating democracy (as a form of western government) with capitalism (an economic system) ?

I'd argue that countries such as Germany have many socialist (at least by the average US definition) policies but are still western style democracies and that helps keep them in check.

The US is actually less of a democracy and more of an oligarchy (we allow our politicians to openly accept bribes). That's really the root of all our problems afaict.

If a country has an actual representative democracy any system should be okay, it would just be a matter of picking the right one for the job to maximize the economy.

I am NOT denying capitlism is not a meritocracy. I am not denying that ASPECTS of what Amazon is doing have always ben present.

What I am saying is that it is becoming MOPE dangerous, MORE anti-competitive and MORE harmful.

And you are wrong as Monopolies/Oligopolies tend to lower prices on their way to becoming a monopoly/Oligopoly but once the competitors are driven out of business (starved of profits) and they no longer compete those prices rise and often rise well beyond where it was prior.

And that should be expected as these guys are not dumb businessmen. Why would they not maximize profits by going back to the old pricing that customers already proved they would pay or even above it if their data shows there is room.

To that, I assume you will say, 'but if they raise prices then that will open the door to new competitors to jump in and compete'. And historically that does happen to some extent but now Amazon DOES have some levels of brand loyalty (awareness) in that space AND MORE IMPORTANTLY they control how the new competition can appear and be found on their site. They can obscure them or make sure they do not rank or show up as easily in searches, etc.

That is the big difference. Monopolies are not unassailable, and historical since most markets were local it was easier to carve out your niche. Now all markets are international. You can live in butt f*ck nowhere but get goods shipped to direct from China, in the mail.

That fact, along with todays levels of data, makes Monopolies far more difficult to compete against if you are a mom or pop or small business trying to break into a market a monopoly controls.

I enjoy these theoretical debates.

We cannot really debate your ideas if you do not answer questions like that and offer your ideas.

I mean fine if you want to instead take the role of critic, where you only try to poke holes in others ideas but that is not debate.

The OP governing this thread defined the problem of Crony Capitalism. The dominant and ONLY form of gov't we have seen in Democracies in the West and elsewhere., as far as I know. It is the defacto. It is the default.

I explained the issue of not having a debate based on PERFECT PEOPLE and how systems could look as ALL systems would work with perfect people with zero self interest.

So while I do not mind discussions or points on the PURE forms of these systems (Capitalism as a system devoid of human factors and frailties) to me it is less interesting or insightful to have.

A discussion of the systems with perfect people starts and ends with 'they all work great'. The SYSTEMS work. And they do.

A discussion counting in human frailties is about which system is most OPERATIVE, hardest to CORRUPT and BEST for its citizens DESPITE human frailties.

I prefer the reality discussion over the fantasy one.

Also, don't fall into the trap that having more left leaning policy positions in gov't equals having Socialism.

I know there is a real attempt to redefine what Socialism is but it is not and has never been some left leaning policies within Western forms of democracy.

If that is the case then all West forms of democracy are socialist. You just have to peg on the spectrum how far.


Again I know there is some attempt now to pretend that is what socialism means but it is not. If it is then any such discussion here is pointless as there is no Western Democracy and only Socialism (on a spectrum).


Socialism as you would have studied in University involves the gov't taking full control of the levers of the economy and controlling all businesses and means of production.

Bernie and the Progressives made a big mistake identifying themselves with Socialism instead of just using Progressivism as their label because people know the historical meaning of the word. Trying to change what it means (to basically just 'moving the current system more left') is Progressivism. And not the rejection of today's system for an entirely different one. You do not need to get rid of today's form of gov't to move it left. You are not replacing the current system, you are simply moving it and that has be done since the systems INCEPTION, as it moves left and right. That is a PART of current system.

But the idea of revolution was too appealing to them. they got caught up in believing this was an over throw instead of a movement, which kept them in niche territory when they did not need to be.

To be fair to old Bernie, he probably is a socialist by nature. I don't think he would mind the community owning the means of production as much as the average American would. Employee coops are a thing. You don't need a top down pyramid where a few people get all the spoils. Americans just aren't bred to think like that.

The 'revolution' is to go back to FDR style policies which were criticized as being socialist anyway. So meh. Bernie lost because he wouldn't fight the corporate dems. Not because his ideas aren't popular.

But to your point, yes. We are socialist and yes we are capitalist. We are a mixed economy. That's despite any rhetoric you may hear to the contrary, most economists know this.

My point is only that in whatever system you have (capitalist, socialist or full blown communist) if you have a democratic representative form of government the average citizen has the most protection. That may or may not mean anything depending on the details where the devil lives.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not pro monopoly at all and I think Amazon obviously enjoys a vertical monopoly. The arguments I've read itt supporting it are weak.

That being said, monopolies (like the post office or public utilities) CAN keep prices down. I know you can't trust a public business to do what's good for the community because they answer to stock holders. I'm just enjoying the anti government types arguing for a government monopoly and having no idea.

It's like blaming out of control health care costs on 'insurance' and not the profit motive.

lol

You are not contending with the main criticism, for the third time. Unique value. You are also not dealing with the macroeconomics. I've attempted to distinguish this by using "retail", "high-volume distribution", and to a certain degree "commoditization". The widget maker is entering the highly competitive world of retail goods, not unique retail product, where it competes with the likes of Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, Dollar Tree, Dollar General, Cost Co, Family Dollar, who all produce and sell retail products. Wittingly or not, you somehow think these companies should not compete against the new retail product, that somehow that new retail product should have monopoly with that product, without providing anything of unique value, other than being the first person to make it. The entrepreneur does not get an exception to competition becasue they were the first to make it, unless it has IP, in order to compete it has to provide a value proposition it's competitors can't offer.

You have to have something that distinguishes your product from a copycat to consumers, whether that's branding, IP, service, quality, etc, etc.

I've already given an example, Verizon charges more than Sprint, yet maintain their customer base. The reason is, and there is a ton of market research to support this, they offer superior service. Quality of service is the number one reason a person stays/picks a phone carrier. Also, tons of new drinks have taken retail space. I'm sorry, but in retail products, branding and quality is important if you can't compete on price.


You don't want that to be true, and that's fine, you can regulate these companies, but then you will have a black market created, where people will produce the generic version, and still undercut the protected entrepreneur. There is a reason piracy does not put publishers out of business in the video game industry, and it has little to do with anti-piracy, and everything to do with producing a quality product, providing a value to the people who buy it.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3...r-alternatives

Before the internet, the music industry (record labels) were the would-be entrepreneurs you want to be protected today. Those are rich cats.

Indeed Monopolies in those certain areas (post Office, public utilities, Health Insurance) do create value the free market cannot.

However that said the challenge is that the Unions always over take these industries, and will push and push and push salaries up beyond where the skill set would ever get close in the free market as they KNOW they can cause the politicians to lose votes by cutting off these vital services.

The Unions last forever and the politicians only have a few years term. So one is very vulnerable to pressure and shut downs and the other not so much. So politicians increment and increment and increment in the 'giving' (salaries, benefits', etc) to a point where Private run businesses even with the PROFIT motive built in can do the entire services cheaper.

Unions cut off their nose by getting too greedy. The old 'pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered' dynamic at play.

Its a tough balancing act.

I'm not a capitalism ideologue. Basically I agree with Marx's central thesis that capitalism, if left to its own devices, will eventually consume itself and I think that's a good thing. But unlike modern communists, socialists. etc., I don't believe the process can be hastened.
Completely agree with the bolded. In fact in an applied sense, I don't think any other approach even comes close. It's that innovation that leads to "cheapest prices possible" but not in the way you're saying. Rather innovation allows for the output of more stuff with less labor input.

It's the rush to be the first, then the rush to be the best/efficient, that's what a profit motivation does. It guarantees new markets, and the need for labor. Communism, socialism, capitalism, all operate with the same market, capitalism is more efficient, and less destructive to consumer power. People who operate in the market have to serve the consumers and their demands, when it's socialism/communism they are serving some "greater good", which is pretending to be for the consumer, but it just leads to black markets, or more apt, free markets, and significantly more corruption. There's no greater exploitation of consumers than in a heavily regulated economy

LOL

Unions sometimes do that.
Mostly they don't though. What they really do is give the regular worker a seat at the table and that's what the leisure class can't stand. THEY want to sit at the table and divide the excess wealth created by labor.

Also, having a retirement plan and health care is unsustainable in your view ?

If that's the case we should burn our system down and try again. All the wealth we create and no one can live on it ? again. lulz.

Sure. Humans have been afraid they won't be needed in the economy since the Industrial Revolution.

I was speaking of people being motivated to invent things because they won't be exploited by vertical monopolies because that's more in life with the thread though.

Allowing Amazon to steal a man's work is going to make the next guy not do the work.

Just splitting hairs but I don't think socialism is inherently flawed when it comes to meeting existing market demand. I think where capitalism is an order of magnitude better than socialism is when it comes to providing people with what the would want before they even know they would want the product. In other words, capitalism is not necessarily better in meeting existing and known demand but in uncovering and fulfilling latent demand.