My alternative busines model

[Niall Douglas]

On 9 Dec 2002 at 16:39, Wim De Smet wrote:

I've not bothered replying to the other points about capitalist 
economics as I feel they are too off-topic, but I do want to correct 
this procedural point.

> > > No, monopolies are a breach of the underlying principles of
> > > capitalism.
> > 
> > But only if we agree on the same definition of capitalism. Similar
> > to the question "What is OpenSource?" that shows significant
> > differences in the answer depending on who you ask ;-)
> 
> The idea of the capitalist economy was pioneered by one Adam Smith in
> (among other works) his notorious book "An inquiry into the nature and
> causes of the wealth of nations". The basic ideas for a capitalist
> economy were launched by him and are still considered the basics for
> what we define as capitalism as far as I know. So your argument
> doesn't make much sense to me, maybe I understood it wrong.

You're quite correct that all the classic books on capitalism say 
monopolies must be avoided - however, I don't think that changes them 
from being an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Interestingly 
enough (and Marx had some thing to say about this), capitalism 
encourages monopolies /more/ than the feudal system did because at 
least then a monarch could remove the monopoly with a single word. 
With today's capitalistic world, it's actually harder to prevent 
monopolies than ever before because now there is recourse to the 
courts and besides, capital itself is a weapon of great power which 
can be used to devastate countries, kill millions and wage war. If 
you don't believe me, read "Unrestricted Warfare" by two chinese army 
blokes (never can remember their names) and they show how capital is 
an extremely effective weapon politically, militarily, for propaganda 
and of course for making even more money. George Soros of course 
knows this when he laid siege to the UK govt and won and he indeed 
did so again with Indianesia whose civil war and resulting deaths of 
100,000's are directly linked.

I think the source for your misunderstanding is differentiating 
between what capitalism /should/ be and what it actually *is*.

Cheers,
Niall