Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by yesboii, May 21, 2009.
The last time you tried to defend this, it was hilarious
I think I won that because none of the opposing arguments made too much sense either.
Them trying to prove that society hasn't always had some kind of social stratification ever since humans began settling down and farming was an utter fail.
Whenever I debate with you, I sense an utter unwillingness to face reality of things.
Well, that's mostly because you couldn't understand them.
No, they really didn't make any sense and I disapproved every one of your points.
Someone even tried to use feudalism as an example of how society was not always stratifieid. That argument = Epic Fail.
Also Epic fail where trying to use mercantilism and other government types popular in the past to disapprove social stratification and that people weren't always being exploited by others.
Yea, peanuts compared to what they benefit from, say, universal healthcare or subsidized post-secondary education..
(I guess these are considered 'liberal' views in the US?)
It's just funny when you claim that stratification promotes competition. Yeah, sure. I'm sure monopoly also promotes competition
You still don't get that do you? Seems like your still hung over it. Competition is the reason we have social stratification. Everything from grades to who athletic skills, to mental ability is what we use to compete to gain social standing. Those things and personal connections are what forms social stratification.
You can't seem to comprehend that without competition, there would be no social stratification because everyone would just be equal.
How do you think that monopolist got that monopolist. People didn't just give it to him. He outcompeted everyone else and drove them out of business. Thats competition at its finest.
All these end forms whether monopoly or oligopoly comes about due to competition. I don't see how you can't understand that. People compete, and the winner or winners end up with the monopoly or oligopoly. Is that so hard to understand?
The only time it isn't competition is when the government gets involved and it becomes a government endorsed monopoly like some of our utility services.
Is the article in the OP actually trying to tell us....
It sucks to be poor?
Why...I never would have imagined it.
Maybe. But social stratification also dampens competition. There's a flip there.
You seem to have a very naive idea about social stratification.
Does not follow.
And monopoly is anti-competition. The fact that it may be the product of competition is irrelevant.
No pro-competition person is going to advocate a monopoly. That's ********.
Do you happen to be a Randist?
And the winners then go on to try and seal their position regardless of whether they continue to be competitive. In fact, in the case of companies, they would immediately stop being competitive once they have gotten rid of their rivals.
That is not to mention that the winners might not actually be the ones who are the best. They may be good at manipulating the game. A monopolist may be good at getting political support to establish its monopoly, not that it is good at being a producer.
And these monopolies also don't work like normal monopolies. Seems like you failed economics or something.
No, social stratification and the fear of falling down or the hope of rising up is the reason for competition. It doesn't dampen competition.
I'd say you don't understand social stratification at all.
It follows, you just don't seem to get it.
A true pro-competition person is not going to advocate the government stepping in to break up a monopoly either. Monopolies have been broken in the past without government intervention. People are going to compete less if the government makes the prize less. Monopolies don't last forever, the products or services they offer will get obsoletes as was with railroads or steamboats. Even if they have a monopoly, there's still the threat of a newcomer coming in and taking it from them. They still have to compete somewhat to keep their monopoly.
You can never completely get rid of your rivals because newcomers can always step in. Even places like wal-mart has to keep prices at a decently low price after ousting competition. In order to seal and keep their monopoly, they still have to set competitive prices and services in today world.
Monopolies are always the result of brutal competition, its the prizes at the end that inspires competition, at least for large corporations
You seem to miss the fact that I said these monopolies are the exception. They are the only ones that really aren't competitive because the government decided to meddle with them. You either didn't read it or never touched an economics book.
Yeah, as if by repeating your statement you are proving it.
What? Just how do long do you want to wait for those to happen? And, guess what, a company is a monopoly only if barriers to entry are high enough. That may indeed mean that they lower prices to drive out competition sometimes, but you are assuming there's a ready supply of sacrificial lambs who would enter the market knowing that they would lose against the monopoly. Do you understand what barriers to entry mean? You can climb a spiked barricade, sure, but that doesn't mean you won't get impaled on it.
So the result of monopoly is about the same as perfect competition then? This is the most BS economic theory I've ever heard
Wal-mart has economies of scale, and they also have competitors. The barriers to entry in the retail market might also be low enough to ensure that it has to be on its guard. Is that the case for every market? Of course not.
I dunno about you, but takeovers don't really count as competition.
Your last statement is simply hilarious in its irony. Do you think the government intervened in these monopolies so that they could set monopoly prices? Competitive or not is not the question with them. Setting lower prices than would otherwise be the case is usually the goal of government intervention there, especially in cases of natural monopolies.
You're really weak
It does the opposite. Mr Monopoly is a bloody ideological traitor!
Maybe there's that theme, but that's not the gist of the article.
"There can be no competition without social stratification", would that be a better way of saying this?
EDIT: You can also say "Competition inevitably leads to social stratification".
No. Many of them come about through mergers and acquisitions and collusion. You don't out compete the others to get a monopoly. That's just inefficient. You act in concert with them in order to gain the monopoly profits without the hard work. It can be done the other way, but you can't assume that it happens.
That's still crap. Of course there can. You need the incentive of being able to lord it over others to encourage hard work? Not only is that going to lead to bad things, it's not even the only motivating factor for hard work.
That sounds better and curiously Hegelian. So competition can flip into stratification, after which it will be town down in favour competition. Like how the masters become the slaves, and vice versa. But that doesn't mean that they aren't still in opposition to each other.
Oh, quite the opposite! It *can* also exclude competition more or less completely. It all depends on which kind of capital the stratification is linked to. Take a look at medieval Europe, for instance. There was a very rigid social stratification which more or less forbade certain people to compete with others. No (few) noblemen would have even thought of doing manual labour, for instance. A craftsman would not have been allowed to "invest" in other branches than his own and so on.
A clear result of a social order based on status rather than wealth. You could say wealth was the result of your position in society rather than the opposite situation today where wealth determines your position.
You should read Max Weber ("Economy and Society") or Werner Sombart ("Modern Capitalism", not available in English yet, but there is a lot of secondary literature I think) if interested.
Everyone simply working their ...khm... donkey off and still being equal at the end of the day is not competition, but more likely something like a forced labor camp.
For there to be real competition, there must be incentives for the competitors - and lording over others has proven to be the most affective one. Also keep in mind that social stratification must not necessarily be one based on wealth. It can also be based on prestige/respect (although wealth and prestige tend to attract each other).
Of course everyone can start competing while they are equal, but they won't if they can not hope this equilibrium to be altered through competition.
So while if would not say that social stratification encourages competition - in its extreme forms it actually hinders it, albeit temporarily - you can't hope to get rid of social stratification without getting rid of competition as "collateral damage".
We're not out of a Malthusian trap, ready to fall into it again. We're still under Malthusian constraints, but technology has progressed faster than the population can respond. Barring some sort of technological utopia, in which natural resources are not required for further advancement (which continues as fast as now), we will inevitably return to balance, if not soon, then when the resources on which we rely run out and technological progress stagnates or is rendered useless.
We're just stretching the Malthusian elastic; we haven't broken free.
15 minutes' walk gets me to Sainsbury's and Sainsbury's local, an expensive and very expensive supermarket, respectively.
Because milk in corner shops is usually all gone within a few hours of delivery, leaking or not. From my experience working in one, anyway.
The reason for poorly-built cities is misguided town planning for the whole of the last century. It's not just the result of spreading population, but deliberate planning. I'd have thought that a chap with your opinions would love the idea of planned interference messing things up.
Monopolies tend to form through collusion or corruption, because they're far easier and quicker ways of getting there. Mergers also help, and also help give CEOs huge payoffs that they don't deserve. The idea of competition reaching the 'perfect' price is also a type of limit theorum: it relies on the assumption of perfect competition, which is perfect knowledge and access by the consumer, and large numbers of competitors. Fewer competitors increases the likelihood of perfect knowledge and reduces the time taken to reach equilibrium (which otherwise might be a lifetime: i.e consumers never get the best deal) but also reduces the plausibility of the assumption of perfect competition or access.
Just as two or three political parties can't provide the perfect products, fewer companies can lead to less consumer satisfaction even before there's a monopoly.
That some monopolies have been broken does not been that all will be and nor that it is beneficial to allow them to exist and foil attempts to break them.
The purpose of the market is not to allow those who go through the menial process of serving consumers' needs to exploit them, but to serve consumers' needs. Exploitation is as bad as inefficiency, from the consumers' point of view. And they're the people who matter.
Huh? People only work hard so that they can enslave other people? That's twisted. Why can't you work hard because you enjoy it, or because you simply want to get more return? Why is there a need to intensify power relations, to set them in stone? Why can't mensch be equal?
Or are you saying that democracy today is only a cover for the oppression of one group by another? That political ideology be damned, that the free market is where you find the real mechanism of social relations? Well, thanks for baring naked the fetishism of society. If more people would see it that way, then maybe they'd find the desire to reject the system.
Well, I'm sure you'd love to live in the Middle Ages. It's where lords belong!
I've not yet heard of such a theory. Maybe you can write a paper on that. Sounds vaguely Randist, though.
Again, that's twisted. The immediate reason why people enter markets to compete with each other is the profit motive, not the power motive.
You could say that having more money equals having more ability to command other people's labour, but there's no real need to be motivated by that. You could simply want the security that a bit of wealth can afford, or the ability to satisfy unique wants. You want utility for yourself, to gain use-value, not necessarily to hoard exchange value because of the power it grants. How much utility is to be found in that? Does that even make people really happy? If you don't go there, there would be no need for you to set yourself above others and perpetuate stratification, and society would still function.
Separate names with a comma.