My alternative busines model

[Wim De Smet]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:19:23 +0100
"Niall Douglas" <s_fsfeurope at nedprod.com> wrote:

> 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.

You are true it is harder to prevent monopolies from forming, and I agree
with you that it happens faster in a capitalist system. But, the basic principle
of capitalism is a competitive economy. A monopoly is something quite different.
When there is no competition, a capitalist economy suffers. So this is why there
are laws against that. Off course this can take a while in court, but pure 
monopolies should always be eradicated, lest they stifle innovation and progress
(the goal and reason of existence of a capitalist economy). It is therefore
not because monopolies can form faster and easier, that they should be allowed to.
This is indead a big difference with original capitalistic ideas which (AFAIK)
did not include government regulation into it all. Probably because in that age
they were trying to get rid of protectionistic economies.

And money is (+-) power indead, but that doesn't matter overall if the
governments do their job.

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

What it should be is about what it is now without the protectionism IMHO.

Cheers,
Wim