The fundamental problem with capitalism is that in most sectors, free competition is wasteful, and a monopoly or cartel is more efficient. So, in the absence of strong anti-monopoly laws - something anathema to capitalism - these sectors will end up dominated by one or a few players. And then they will vertically integrate, further shutting out any competitors.
Take carmaking. If we did not have tariffs, import regulations, subsidies for local manufacturing, etc. (all government interventions), BYD would have 90% of the world car market in a decade. They have the best batteries and the most efficient supply chain - the only constraint would be how quickly they can scale up manufacturing!
So either we accept some government regulations to protect capitalism from itself, or we nationalise the largest and most mature companies and run them for public welfare rather than profit. Social democracy, or socialism. These are the only ‘good’ ways out. The alternative is whatever horrors England had during the Industrial Revolution, and the collapse of our environment due to overexploitation.
Your critical analysis of capitalism is spot on. Monopoly is definitely more efficient than competition.
But your solution is incorrect. Socialism is not the answer. For one thing it still uses a monetary faith based currency system. And more importantly it’s literally never worked.
I’ll ask you what I ask everyone I encounter that attempts to support socialism: which socialist country past or present would you like to live in?
If this is true, then the only solution is to have strict anti-monopoly laws that give newcomers a level playing field, and powerful and impartial regulators to enforce these.
But I’m not even sure that socialism has never worked. The USSR moved more people out of poverty than any other country from around 1920 to 1950, and since then that position has gone to China. The USSR also industrialised a backwards country despite two world wars, and sent the first satellite, man and woman to space. China now leads the world in reforestation, the production of solar panels, batteries and high-speed rail (well, any manufacturing in fact), and quantity of scientific research. So there are facets where ‘socialism’, however mangled and compromised, can excel. If socialist policies (not full-scale revolutionary communism) can be done by a democratic government, there is no reason to think that the benefits would be even greater.
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that in most sectors, free competition is wasteful, and a monopoly or cartel is more efficient. So, in the absence of strong anti-monopoly laws - something anathema to capitalism - these sectors will end up dominated by one or a few players. And then they will vertically integrate, further shutting out any competitors.
Take carmaking. If we did not have tariffs, import regulations, subsidies for local manufacturing, etc. (all government interventions), BYD would have 90% of the world car market in a decade. They have the best batteries and the most efficient supply chain - the only constraint would be how quickly they can scale up manufacturing!
So either we accept some government regulations to protect capitalism from itself, or we nationalise the largest and most mature companies and run them for public welfare rather than profit. Social democracy, or socialism. These are the only ‘good’ ways out. The alternative is whatever horrors England had during the Industrial Revolution, and the collapse of our environment due to overexploitation.
Your critical analysis of capitalism is spot on. Monopoly is definitely more efficient than competition.
But your solution is incorrect. Socialism is not the answer. For one thing it still uses a monetary faith based currency system. And more importantly it’s literally never worked.
I’ll ask you what I ask everyone I encounter that attempts to support socialism: which socialist country past or present would you like to live in?
If this is true, then the only solution is to have strict anti-monopoly laws that give newcomers a level playing field, and powerful and impartial regulators to enforce these.
But I’m not even sure that socialism has never worked. The USSR moved more people out of poverty than any other country from around 1920 to 1950, and since then that position has gone to China. The USSR also industrialised a backwards country despite two world wars, and sent the first satellite, man and woman to space. China now leads the world in reforestation, the production of solar panels, batteries and high-speed rail (well, any manufacturing in fact), and quantity of scientific research. So there are facets where ‘socialism’, however mangled and compromised, can excel. If socialist policies (not full-scale revolutionary communism) can be done by a democratic government, there is no reason to think that the benefits would be even greater.