Phemanderac wrote on Nov 9
th, 2013 at 8:01am:
The only check/balance mechanism that has been built into "employment" within capitalism has been the trade union movement - albeit horribly flawed in its modern incarnation. Prior to that, employers who employed under a capitalist model did indeed dictate what wages and conditions MIGHT be forthcoming.
Whilst the system of itself does not (IMHO) exploit workers, the old story about its inbuilt checks and balances is not consistently demonstrated through out history as being either effective or genuine.
This all comes back to depending on the individual people who are implementing, exploiting and monopolising the system.
That's part of the main argument for a free market. That the reason we've had so many issues in history is because the equilibrium in the market has been distorted with state involvement, with business given powers by the state such as limited liability as far back as the East India Trading Company and so on.
Do you agree with the following logic:5 business' are the only light bulb sellers in the country. They all decide to get together in private (announcing this on public would be ridiculous) and collude to raise prices quite a bit.
This has three consequences that combine to be a natural check/balance:
1. Raise the prices too high and people who can't afford them are no longer buying, people that can afford them are now switching to alternatives IE Candles/Torches, maybe some other alternative is brought it like....glow worms in a jar
2. With the loss in business each of the 5 business' now have a massive incentive to dip just a tiny bit and get all of the customers to flock to them. The moment one breaks ranks and they always do (collusion between multiple business AFAIK has never held long term ever) the start to drop rapidly as they try to out compete each other.
3. You open up competition from entrepreneurs to create a 6th/7th business to compete with lower prices
This is one of the natural checks/balances that prevent collusion and monopolies etc. Also on monopolies in a free market the moment you take on debt to buy up other business you put yourself at a competitive disadvantage to those business that only need to worry about their own expenses. As you buy up companies the subsequent one becomes more and more expensive. You run the risk of the last company saying "No we won't sell out", or collapsing under the weight of debt, or having competitors compete with you whilst you have to pay back so much debt IE raise your prices/cut profits to pay the debt.
Another check and balance in a truly free market is consumers ability to simply stop dealing with companies that don't meet their needs or do something they find reprehensible. If McDonalds starts raising an army to force people to buy big Mac's in the absence of government well first off it has to fight the people, any defense DRO's, people will stop going to maccas, there may be clauses with banks for all business' where if you are found to be doing ridiculous things like that you have your accounts frozen, electricity cut etc etc.
I think we are so used to the way things are now that it would be impossible for business to radically change things such as wages etc unless through market forces. If business cut wages for no reason and stop OHS then you have massive incentive for A. someone to come in and offer those things taking all the skilled laborers and B. A fit workforce is a productive workforce, it's inefficient to have everyone broken and suing you.
No, its garbage and certainly not logical or akin to reality. Its like a 1930s Frank Capra film where everything is contrived to end happily ever after even though we know it could and more often then not, does go badly. What about were the goods involved are essential or vital, like petrol, gas in winter, or the only food stores in town. What about where the business men hold their ground, they don't cave in because they have no cash flow problems or whats at stake for them financially is too important tothem. What about where there just are no viable alternatives. What about where people just simply put up with it, which is more often exactly what happens. What if this oligopoly holds the town to ransom for a year and then breaks. Are you going to say "seee, see, the system worked" What garbage. it didn't work. A whole township was held to ransome and screwed over by 5 little men. You cant run a community that way. Some times people have to put their personal interests aside for the sake of the whole.. That's how humanity has achieved all it has. Because of that kind of co-operation. And what you refuse to discuss is the morality of what these cronies are doing.
You keep asserting without properly arguing that the system you are advocating is highly moral. From where i sit not only is it not moral, its evil. You need to stop avoiding the main issue and answer the questions i have asked on the moral issues otherwise we're just listening to these stupid fairy tales over and over with no end in sight.
Forum
Pages: 
Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? (Read 59678 times)
