Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

More selfish

December 20, 2013

Its detractors describe capitalism as selfish. Capitalism is a free market where individuals freely exchange goods and services in the self-interest of both parties....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(58)

MrShaman

Dec-21-13 10:45 AM

"To see collectivism in action, one only has to look at Obamacare.

Sold to the masses through lies (that would result in a perp walk for a private sector CEO), waste(overpriced website), fraud (navigators telling enrollees to lie), and its not even two months old yet!

Under capitalism, 97% of those with health insurance liked their health insurance..." - eriklatranyi

*

Ah, yes...the ol' employer-mandate!!!!

*

See:

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Dec-21-13 10:00 AM

Phil, I think our government provides more protection now from monopolies than it did, say in the late 1880s. Then, companies did indeed use the government as their proxy to force workers into compliance with policies that only benefited the company. Of course, as Erik says, the government is the longest lasting monopoly in our country. The power that companies no longer have has gravitated to the public sector. So, companies, or any organization, now have to deal with the government as another player in the quest for power. I think the truth is that however a society is structured, those seeking power will work to accumulate it and keep it from others. I am not sure how much difference it makes if it happens in the private sector or the public sector.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Dec-21-13 1:07 AM

After watching these forums the past few weeks, I think this so-called RealAmerican is actually fortysixandtwo trolling as his small-minded idea of a conservative.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RealAmerican

Dec-20-13 10:39 PM

Wow, I present facts in statistical form from the most reputable polling agency in America and five ppl "disagree" with me. No wonder I just get angry and smart are troll you fools.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Dec-20-13 9:41 PM

Who is to stop that if not a govt. agency? Monopolies squeeze the life out of competition. All big business does is compare time frames for pricing and exchange the hour for another day and on and on. Giant charges $3.00 a pound for hamburger this week, Weis does it next week, Wegman's the following and on and on it goes. We, the little person, pay what the tab is and move on. I've even noticed with the advent of electronics, my PC knows my feeds and businesses that want to compete start surfacing. Surprise, no difference in prices, much...I just don't see the "free" market as reality. Capitalism doesn't start big and divvy to the smaller guy, it starts the other way around. I don't know too many people who can offer a solution to combat "big". Just my opinion...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Dec-20-13 9:29 PM

Phil,

As much as I am an individualist in spirit and understand our country was founded on capitalism, much changes in time. For instance, while capitalism urges competition, several on here have addressed the monopolies that entrench our free market system. Capitalism, doesn't have free reign anymore. We are a cast system sadly. And, while it pains me to agree, in part, with liberals on this subject I find their concerns justified. No, we shouldn't take money from those who have succeeded and give it to those who do nothing. But, you often noted (rightfully so) that what we want something to be and what the reality is vastly differ. Ma and Pa shops are almost antiquity in our market system, the giant corps have taken the reigns. You speak against big govt. (and so do many) and regulation, but balk at those regulations that would prevent monopolies. It is my understanding that it is the govt. agency that oversees two becoming one and growing at rapid rates. cont.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Dec-20-13 9:12 PM

If a company’s going to stay on top, they have to provide products or services that people are willing to purchase or they won’t stay there long; that benefits everyone. Microsoft is a prime example of that. Apple certainly made Microsoft better.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Dec-20-13 9:03 PM

Without government help, there’s no way they can do anything but be more competitive or buy competitors out. It’s only government that can cause coercive monopolies like utility and transportation companies, that requires the use of force, which is illegal outside of government.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Dec-20-13 8:39 PM

Once a company is on top and large enough, they will do what they can to make it harder for similar companies to take advantage of the free enterprise system. It is a variation of the "One man, One vote, One time" idea.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Dec-20-13 6:58 PM

Anti-trust laws actually hurt consumers and help competitors of large and successful companies; another example of how government interference does exactly the opposite of what its supporters claim.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Dec-20-13 6:30 PM

Lsrge corporations rise and fall all the time. None stay on top forever.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Dec-20-13 6:30 PM

Can someone name a monopoly that lasted for any significant length of time? ...other than the federal gov't.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Dec-20-13 5:12 PM

UNAMERICAN, ah heck....forget it.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Dec-20-13 3:27 PM

David, a true coercive monopoly can only exist with government support. In a free market, there’s always competition from other businesses or services. A company becoming large and successful doesn’t make it a monopoly.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Dec-20-13 3:16 PM

Phil, how does capitalism view monopolies?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Dec-20-13 3:06 PM

Enigma, I recon that a lack of self-confidence and a poor self-image has a lot to do with it. To some, a competitive free market is way too scary.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Dec-20-13 2:52 PM

Rick, The "deck is stacked" for those who have money no matter whether you have a free market or not. The difference is that with a free market, anyone has the chance to have money. In a collectivist society, only those in charge have money. It's part of that whole freedom thing.

Phil, Of course those who support the free market are happier. That's because in a free market everyone has the chance to prosper by there own efforts, but collectivists' fortunes are at the mercy of others. It puzzles me why anyone would want that.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Dec-20-13 2:48 PM

Rick, in a truly free market, the only way people can legally become wealthy is to earn or inherit their wealth.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Dec-20-13 2:41 PM

How so phil? I have no problem with free market. But face it, the deck is stacked with those with the money.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Dec-20-13 2:35 PM

Enigma, have you also come to the conclusion that those on the side of a free market have a much more positive view of their fellow man and human nature than collectivists?

It seems to me that collectivists are paranoid as well as selfish.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Dec-20-13 1:49 PM

The music industry lost money because they did not embrace the technology. They fought every way they could and only ended up alienated their customers. If I were an investor I would invest in the new technologies not the old. The problem is when the old fights the new. Then the customers lose.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-20-13 1:17 PM

Rick, whether it's a smoke screen or not, they have to protect their investors and if even some of what they are saying is true, I think it would result in less viewer choices at a more costly rate. The music industry lost billions because of the age of the internet and many lessons were learned.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Dec-20-13 12:10 PM

I read the same article Cap and I think it is an industry smoke screen. With on line streaming they are starting to lose their cash cow and they are doing everything they can to keep it. Content providers are freaking out over Aereo and similar ways people can get content. Instead of embracing the technology they fight it. Just as the music industry and the movie industry has and is trying to do. If you had to deal with the likes of HDCP everyday as I do you soon learn to hate the industry and there antics.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-20-13 11:58 AM

I have been reading some interesting articles on a-la-carte content for television viewing in other countries, yet in this country they say it will never happen despite the fact that the consumer wants it. -Rick

Rick, the industry has done studies on this approach and have estimated that it would result in the loss of at least 124 channels and 1.4 million jobs. Consumers average 20 channels of viewing even though packages offer 180+ channels. It costs media companies an average of 280 million each year per channel and they estimate 45 billion in advertising would be lost. Like anything else, the industry is in the business to make money. Canada is currently switching to this type of programming and we will have to wait and see the impact there.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Dec-20-13 11:10 AM

"The only reason why government is involved in this case is because the lobbyist for the industry buy the government to pass legislation to benefit them and not the consumer."-rick424

Exactly Rick. If the government didn't have too much power, they couldn't do that. If they would stay within the limits of the constitution, it wouldn't matter how much money someone had, they couldn't get preferential treatment from the government. Liberals are so puzzling. They make all of the arguments for limited government and then want a bigger government to make it happen, all the time not seeing the incongruity of it all. The more government you have, the more corruption you have in it. That's an undeniable truth. Nearly all the problems with big business are because of government intervention. Let the market (people) control business and many of the problems will go away.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 58 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web