Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
It is not an assumption, it is a fact. When has it been disproven. I assume that, because you say it is incorrect, you have a defense companies.
|
No. It is a misguided opinion with little basis in reality. Saying that this is a fact is like saying a coin will always land on tails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
But this is, in no way, a bad thngs. Being private companies, they would have to allocate their resources in a way that maximized their profit. How is this done on the free market? It is done by minimizing costs while maximizing the utility that your customers derive from your product. In other words, frims attempt to satisfy their customers for the smallest cost to them.
|
Wrong. Firms attempt to maximize profit at the lowest cost to them. That does not necessarily mean offering a superior product to consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
There will not be anything that unifies them as the US army is unifed within itself. But, the US Army (and when I say "army" I mean the military as a whole) has a monopoly on derfense. Monopolies are bad for the customer.
|
Public industry and institution is not a "monopoly". A monopoly is one of the many failures of an unregulated market economy. Public institutions, in a democratic society, are regulated by the people. Monopolies are not under government control, so cannot be controlled by the government or the people in your system. What is to stop one of your little private armies from monopolizing defense if there is no government there to regulate it? (If you're wondering, the answer is nothing.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
When gov't grants an entity a monopoly, such as the US Army, resources are allocated ineffcently.
|
Again, the army is
part of the government, not a private business granted monopoly
by the government. Your failure to differentiate between the two makes it seem like you have little knowledge of what you're saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
The company loses sight of satisfying the customer (the only way to make money in the free market) and begins to do things inefficently.
|
If you think satisfying the customer is the only way to make money in a free market, you need to take a trip to the real world, my friend.
For evidecne of this, just remember when the defense department lost boatloads of money. It is no big deal for them because they will get more money from taxes. But if this happened to a private firm, it would have been devastating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
So, why wouldn't they fight eachother? Because fighting is expensive. Unlike the US Army, private companies much really pay attention to the ammount of money that they spend. If they go to "war" with another company, the company is going to have to pay for the "war." And to pay for the war, the company is going to have to charge its customers more money. If a company is constantly going to silly wars with other companies, its customers are going to have to pay high prices. Because customers don't want to pay high prices, the customers will get a differen company to protect them.
|
So basically, we won't be able to afford to defend ourselves against any foreign hostility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
This answers your silly little assertion that there is no one to make sure companies don't atom bomb eachother. Atom boms cause much colladeral damage. The company that dropped the bomb would be held responsible for this damage. This will serve as an important check on their willingness to drop an A-Bomb.
|
But will that ensure that something like that won't happen? I think not. Some people are crazy. A crazy person can easily gain a lot of power if any private company can own an army.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Further, which country has dropped an A-Bomb on innocent people? Is it a smaller army from a small country that can't afford to piss too many people off? Or, was it the biggest Army in the world that caused such a huge ammount of destruction? I think you know which one it is.
|
Yes, I do. Unfortunately, a smaller army can't defend the people efficiently, especially when half of its resources have to be set aside to be used to compete for power with similar companies. It's inefficient and ineffective. You admit one of your little system's flaws right here. If we piss people off, even accidentally, we won't have the capability to defend ourselves. Would you rather have private militias, with no cohesiveness whatsoever, squabbling for power; or the most powerful military in the history of the world protecting your country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
In short, I can't see how you think a BIG army is a good thing.
|
Well, we've only lost one war so far and are the most powerful military ever... I guess those are some plusses... A powerful nation needs a powerful army to defend it and its interests. What you are saying is we shouldn't be powerful and run at our full potential. That is downright idiotic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
The colonists fought a big army because the big army was oppressive. Big, gov't armies: bad. Small, private derfense agencies: good.
|
Wrong again. The colonists fought the British because they wanted independence. The fact that they were oppressive is a given. Imperialist Monarchies have a tendency to be oppressive, there is little-no balance of powers. That is a political problem, not an economic one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Also, the CEO's decided what to produce only in the sense that they make the decisions on what the company does. A CEO can decide to make whatever he pleases, but if it does not please the consumer, he will go out of business.
|
Maybe, but not necessarily before the damage is already done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
For example, if the CEO of Nike decides to put nails in Nike Shoes, he will likely go out of business. The same applies for defense agencies. If Defense Agency X engages in numerous wars against friendly people, it must cover the cost of the wars by charging its customers more money. This will likely cause him to go out of business.
|
Who pays a defense agency? That's why we have taxes. Are private companies going to tax us? Your system is unworkable, because defense is something a private company cannot put a price on. It is a person's basic right as a member of a nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Oh, you must be kidding me. The New Deal kept America in the Depression. It did not allow wages and prices to fall, it put restrictions on the ammount of work indivduals could do, it destroyed farm products. It was a disaster.
|
Again, I am talking about the real world here. In the real world, history and statistics disagree with you. Allow me to enlighten you.
US GDP 1920-1940
US Employment Statistics 1920-1940
US Manufacturing Employment 1920-1940
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Look at how Harding handled his downturn: he did nothing. What happened? The economy recovered before anyone knew what happened.
|
Because nothing happened in the first place. This is completely insignificant compared to the worldwide economic collapse caused by the stock market crash, and the resulting great depression. If nothing had been done, we would have gone to shit. The Depression and the New Deal are great examples of socialistic economic policies repairing the damage caused by the failures of market economies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
This is the exact opposite of reality. The market's sole motivation is to meet the needs of people. This is the basis for all trade. What you suggest is that people trade, but do not benefit from trading. This is completly insane. They would not trade unless they derived some benefit.
|
You contradict yourself here. At first you state that markets are motivated to meet the needs of the people; then you say they are motivated by profit. The second one is correct, the first one is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
A company can undertak monumental marketing campaigns, but the bottom line is that if people don't like the product they aren't going to buy it. If they buy the product, this means they expect to derive utility from the product. Now, you might think that the product is inferior, but you don't really matter.
|
Contradictions again. Yes, as a consumer, I do matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
You are just an arrogant outsider, attempting to enact his subjective value scale into law.
|
I think something's true value is based directly upon how much it contributes to the advancement of the society and the economy as a whole. Arrogant indeed
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
The common argument is that capitalism concentrates on the indivdual while the masses are poor and destitute. This is completly wrong. The only way that one makes money in a free-market system is by meeting satisfying the needs of consumers.
|
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The way one makes money is by getting consumers to buy their product. If consumers don't like it, will they stop? Yes, eventually, but that doesn't stop new consumers from buying it. The person has now made money without contributing anything to the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Contrast this with socialism. In socialsim there is no rational price system. The economic planners have no idea how much of one thing to make and how much of another to make. If a plant manager is wasting resources, making things that people would not want to buy on the free market (but they get them in the socialist country because there is no rational price system so they are cheaper than they should be) the plant stays open making the current product and wasing respurces.
|
So, I take it, when a private company uses tons of money and resources to mass produce a product that noone buys, they are
not wasting anything??? You're argument makes no sense. Let me clarify myself; I am not advocating socialism, at least not in it's pure form. I think a capitalist economy has some use. I believe that industries that are involved with production of consumer products can be private, albeit regulated. Industries concerned with production of military and government equipment should be public, so the government isn't paying to have done what it can do itself better and cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
If this scenario occured in a capitalist economy, the plant would stop making whatever product it is making and switch into a more profitable industry. Now, when a company makes a profit what does it mean? It means that company has satisfied consumer demand. What does it mean when a company makes a loss? It means the compay hasn't satisfied the consumers.
In a capitlist ecnonomy those companies that satisfy consumers stay in business; those that don'y satisfy consumers don't stay in business.
|
This is true theoretically, but not always true realistically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Two things:
First, private enterise, being motivated to allocate resources efficently, will not waste money on devoloping something that no one wants.
|
Yet they cannot no for sure whether someone wants something or not until they have already made and attempted to market the good or service in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
The only people who want machine guns is the government (well, not exactly, but mostly.) It was the Soviet Government that had the guns made. If there had been a want for AK-47s on the private market, the private market would have devolped them. The Soviets went around bragging about odd things. For example, they were happy that they made a bunch of concrete. But they made too much! No one needed all that concrete and they had surpluses.
|
Sorry if I didn't clarify this, but I was referring to the quality of military weapons produced by public industry vs. the quality of those produced by private industry. I am not referring to any consumer demand besides that of the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Second, are you suggesting that the Soviet Union was more successful than capitalism? If so, explain why the Soviet Union no longer exists.
|
The Soviet Union fell apart because of the rise of nationalist feelings in its satellite countrries, and the revolutions that resulted from those feelings. You'll find that this is usually the case in the fall of any imperialist country, capitalist or communist. In essence, the failure of the Soviet Union was the failure to keep its satellites satisfied by not giving them enough say in their own affairs. The satellites broke apart because they wanted to control their own affairs. The demise had little to do with economics. If America started bringing satellite states under its control, you'd find that they'd eventually rebel too and cause America to fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
This point that you are trying to make ironicly helps me make my argument. We see in the AK-47 example that the private market does not like to make guns as much as government. This means that not as many people want guns, which means that private indivduals are less violent than gov't. This means that there will be less fighting when the armies are privitized.
|
First of all, this has nothing to do with what I said. Second of all, I personally want my army to be quite concerned with fighting. It is an army, after all. Thirdly, what you said about the AK and the private market is both irrelevant and untrue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
In what do you have more of a say: the shoes wear or the defense you recieve? I'm guessing shoes. And what is the difference between shoe companies and the army...
|
Shoes are consumer products. They are not "needs". Shoes do not define the difference between life and death. Shoe companies do not need to unite together. A nation and an army do. Multiple armies with different heads that aren't at all controlled by the government can not be trusted to unite and efficiently defend our country in times of need. Private companies, whether you are willing to admit it or not, exist to serve their own interests. Thus, defense, which is something that every person deserves equally, must be provided by an institution that exists solely to serve its people, not itself. This institution is the government.