I am interested in why those who speak against it, dislike competition. Often it gets set up "against" cooperation as if they were mutually exclusive. They are not and indeed it is difficult to envisage any society that did not comprise of elements of both. Personally I do not think competition deserves a bad name. It is "unfettered" competition that is a problem. In fact if you regard competition as the natural way for improvements to come about then you would always advocate a degree of it. When firms are in competition it tends to lead to innovation and improvement. Nationalised industries with a monopoly can get away with whatever they like. Oddly those in favour of nationalisation are often those who decry monopoly in the private sector. Provided society has rules and laws to protect us against unscrupulous practice then competition has to be seen as the natural way of things.
The thing is Arturo, monopoly is not just an incidental by product of capitalism, it is contained within it's DNA. Nearly every industry (even violin making) has become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Formerly competitive sectors, like retail, are now the province of enormous monopolistic chains. Monopoly is the logical result of competition, concentration of capital is it's offspring. The political defence of capitalism is that economic power is segmented and cannot be aggregated in such a manner as to have undue influence over the democratic state. Look at the case of Maersk shipping, which indirectly employs around 40% of all workers in Denmark, and has a turnover nearly as high as the GDP of the country - there you can kiss democracy goodbye. I am not using the word 'monopoly' to describe a situation where only one product is left on the market, but to describe firms with sufficient market power to influence price, output and working conditions of an entire sector (or, in the case of Maersk, several sectors), thus limiting new competitors entering an industry. This is not the exception, which I am describing, but the norm. The inevitable product of competition. Trying to regulate this natural tendency involves too much energy and resources on the part of the state. Capital has become more and more concentrated, and more privatized, meaning that the state no longer has the resources to execute the democratic wishes of it's citizens.
A bit of humpty-dumptyism here perhaps? "When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
I disagree. Monopoly only takes over when the market is unregulated or distorted. The DNA of capitalism is competition. If "super-profits" develop through market distortion then it becomes advantageous for others to enter the market to gain a share of those profits. The monopoly will only survive if it can put up barriers that are not dealt with by rules and regulation. Most of your criticisms of capitalism apply to unregulated areas. I strongly doubt your blanket assertion that nearly every industry is becoming concentrated into fewer hands. Some industries - perhaps Violin making - are esoteric enough or there is so little profit that there is no temptation to enter it. If I set up as a manufacturer of purple ten foot mushrooms I would expect to be in a monopoly (and to lose money) Your last sentence just sounds like a slogan - sweeping and unsupported. Yours may be one political defence. Another might be that capitalism creates the wealth that enables a society to flourish and prosper its citizens. In another place I gave the separation of North and South Korea where the half that chose capitalism developed democracy. Another slogan - I consider Denmark a democracy whatever you think of it. I know what a monopoly is. It does not mean one product and I know nobody who thinks it does. It is the domination of a sector or industry by one entity - often the government which under some people likes to have a state monopoly. In an International world even huge corporations rarely maintain a monopoly position for long - look at the FTSE 100 and see the changes from one decade to another. You might thin you are describing the norm - I do not. "The inevitable product of competition" - another slogan, soundbite and unsupported assertion. Who says regulation takes too much energy etc - for the state? States regulate all the tine and step in when areas they missed become apparent. I do not even understand what you mean by capital has become more privatised. Tell that to Rothschilds or others from past eras. I fear that in your dislike of capitalism you accept phrases without stopping to challenge them and to see how much truth or evidence there is in them. Even if I were to accept all of your points you have not begun to mention the myriad of advantages of capitalism. How you think that something so poor could become the world's pre-eminate form of trading and has lifted the condition and welfare of millions out of poverty (real poverty) I do not know. I doubt you can name one single country that has achieved the success of capitalism.
I wasn't suggesting it did...merely that if it's well defined it's questionable to hint at personal specific definitions.
Arturo, of the one hundred richest entities in the World 52 are corporations, 48 are countries - this is a process which has been creeping up on us over the last 30 years or so. Capital is becoming more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands - this is what I meant by it's privatization - the state does not have the resources which it had 30 years ago. You say that my criticisms only relate to unregulated competition - yet it appears that the state is fighting a losing battle in this regulatory process. When the privatized economic sector becomes too powerfull in a country it starts to encroach upon the area of political power - I would rather bring political and economic power under one roof than allow this to happen. I want industry and services to be brought into the service of the nation - is that so difficult to understand ?
Sorry - but I think you have lost me. Cologne told us he was not using monopoly to describe a situation where only one product was left on the market. I responded by saying that is because nobody defines a monopoly as that. Monopoly is defined in economic theory as something else. (whole books have been written on the subject though so some form of precis is needed).
I am not sure that there is a point in how many rich entities are countries and how many are corporations is there? What is the process that has been creeping up? Is it better or worse to have a rich country or a rich company? Is not the important thing the benefit that is brought about by either of them? I think you will find those corporations have millions of shareholders - many of them pension funds so indirectly you probably have a stake in them all yourself What is your evidence that the state is losing the fight in the regulatory process? Many have criticised the EU for the opposite. You gave Denmark as your example citing Maersk. Who is claiming there is anything wrong with Danish democracy? I have not seen such a claim. You do make some sweeping generalisations: When the privatized economic sector becomes too powerful in a country it starts to encroach upon the area of political power. Says who? Evidence? Examples? So you want to bring industry and services into the service of the nation? So your answer to monopoly is to have a state monopoly. Curiouser and curiouser to quote Theo's book. And yes it is impossible for me to understand that is your answer. How you think a state monopoly is good I have no understanding.
I don't have time to answer at the moment Arturo, because I have to work - but will come back with an example on Denmark and Maersk later.
Your response was not there when I posted my original comment. I should have quoted Cologne's words. I am agreeing with you in fact...saying nobody defines monopoly like that or at least they shouldn't choose how they individually define a word which has a broadly agreed meaning. I shall retire gracefully...
I plead senility - I thought you were sort of agreeing with me but got confused. And I am admitting that too often recently.
OK - look forward to it. Will be amazed if you show a member of the EU to be in danger of losing democracy to corporate forces.
You are aware that the US. defence department does not have enough ships to transfer military equipment without hiring commercial carriers for this purpose ? The American commercial fleet has also become so run down over the last 30 years that they also cannot perform this service. Maersk and Neptune Orient Lines Ltd (based in Singapore) have handled more than 90% of all military cargo to, and from, Iraq and Afghanistan. Maersk are the World's biggest shipping company, as well as having oil concerns in Kazakhstan and supermarket chains in Denmark. This contract with the USA. meant mega profits for Maersk. At the time Bush was coming out with phrases like 'You're either with us or against us', and Blair was also trying to drive a wedge between European states on this. Little surprise that Denmark was one of the states so solidly in support of the US. military actions - they profited from them more than any other country. I cannot 'prove' that there was a connection here between big business and politics - I do not believe that the Danes are a particularly warlike nation, any more so than the Belgians, who were rabidly against the Iraq war. It is a chicken and egg situation Arturo. I do not expect any country to make decisions which are bad for its economy, but does that leave us with a situation where countries are bound to back what their firms do - firms which are not subject to democratic decision making. The same applies to Germany - when have you ever seen Germany take a political stance which may have negative consequences for their car or weapon industries ? In the USA. the connection between big business and politics is even more clear, because political parties do not pay for election campaigns there. So individual senators have to pay their own - which normally means sponsorship from the dominant industries in their state. I cannot prove that there was a direct connection between the Danish government and the interests of Maersk - not without being able to tap into private conversations, but the evidence appears strong, though admittedly circumstantial. Politicians are not going to bite the hand that feeds them - and so will represent the dominant business interests of their particular land. But if those business's are not subject to any democratic restraint then we have a problem. A nationalized industry would need to be more subject to democratic controls.
Is the Pope a Catholic? I am sorry but this just seems like stating the obvious and has no connexion with capitalism that I can see. All states act in their self interest - from UK and USA to Cuba and Korea. Democracy is about what the people of a country vote for - and that may not always be what is in the country's interest (any recent example in the UK spring to mind). I am sure the Danish people value Maersk and so will encourage activity that make sit flourish. So what?
If you are telling me that it is obvious that people will vote according to the interests and activities of the biggest firms within their country then all the more reason why those firms should be subject to the same democratic principles as the country itself - and also the same laws of transparency.
Curious how the outward appearance of the capitalist system with the drive to generate larger entities which will eventually control life, Japanese corporations are a good example, directly mirrors the centralised political/economic model of the former Soviet bloc nations. The underlying profit for the shareholders paradigm could even be regarded as the same ethos, except in the former the shareholders initially invested financially in the model and in the latter are shareholders just by being in the territory controlled by the supreme soviet. Both have hierarchical structures within the organism, although ultimately how much they ultimately contribute to the overall is debatable when the directors/commissars decide something. It may even be said that the operational style of the Japanese corporations benefits its employees (members) more than being a citizen (member) of the soviet society.
This shows the variety of the capitalist model. Japan was a closed society until the late 1800s under strict central control of a nature I am sure Stalin would have approved. That it then embraced capitalism did not ever take away the basic Japanese ethos which tends to subject the self to a more central authority. I am not too sure many other societies around the world would embrace quite the form of a capitalist ecnonomy that the Japanese have - but that is their democratic right so good luck to them.
But you did not show how any of this is relevant to your argument - namely that due to Maersk, Denmark has lost its democracy. All you have showed is that governments are able to hire shipping. Why on earth should they not? If it makes sense to have a "core" requirement but to go to a specialist to hire (non warfare) vessels then I cannot see what point you are making. It benefits the taxpayer in the US by not building "reserve" vessels and it benefits Maersk and its shareholders and employees. I am afraid that it is not an argument against democracy that people support what they value. Admit it - you just do not like large corporations although you have yet to demonstrate any anti-democratic process. When the people of Port Talbot vote for a party that might keep their steelworks open is that not the same - good democracy in action. I am saying people will vote for what they want - and mostly believe is in their best interests - not a firm's. If they coincide good. That is universal. The odd example are those that confound common sense - how the people of Sunderland vote brexit despite the potential loss of their car industry. I have no knowledge that Maersk are not subject to international and domestic law - do you?
