Capitalism and Communism share a flaw: although they work amazingly well on paper
Don’t let her get away with this. Tons of people say it while it simply isn’t true: Communism/socialism has been disproved numerous times! It does not look good on paper unless you simply look at the pretty parchment and not read the actual words. This is a typical rhetorical device: Hype up something and then say that simply, it’s not like that. Inflating your opponent’s argument and then rejecting it lightly with an air of superiority is super effective. A few others on here can better link you to resources with supporting evidence.
Neither economic theory took into account human nature. Neither greed, nor any other emotion was addressed in these theories
Again, false. Capitalism 100% takes human nature into account.
The Gilded Age, although amazing for those who made it to the top such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan, really really sucked for workers.
Oh, that’s nice, she’s heard some vague idea mentioned in her history book and repeats it without looking up the facts herself.
Here is some analysis on the period:
My post here: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/resources-about-the-history-of-corporatism/20913/6
The Myth of Natural Monopoly (especially starting on page 46 with “How “Natural” Were the Early Natural Monopolies?”)
AT&T was a government-made monopoly (I haven’t read it all, but I scanned over it and it’s good): Unnatural Monopoly
On the topic of unions and capitalism’s “failure”:
- Government used Sherman Antitrust to bust up unions, preventing capitalism from “fixing” itself. Unions were initially capitalistic constructs, with the leaders wanting to buy the means of production, not take them forcefully (see leader of Knights of Labor). The rapid rise of unions alongside big business in the US shows just how quickly a market can respond ot its own “ills.” The government, however, stopped this natural process. When looking to who has weakened customers and employees most, look to government. Like a domesticated animal used to ready food, the teeth and claws fade away.
On “predatory pricing”:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/big-business-will-dominate-the-free-market/18749/9
paying their workers as little as possible and by using the lowest quality materials they can
And hey, if you don’t like their job or product, you don’t have to buy it!
To prove how absurd their logic is, consider a market. Suddenly, company X comes along. Company X offers low wages and low quality goods. Suddenly, everyone becomes their slave and must buy crappy goods!
Do you remember when our Walmart used to carry cloth? Well they did it until just after they forced the cloth stores to go out of business, and then they quit carrying it.
Oh man, now they’re selling cloth at such high - oh wait. They’re not selling it any more. Why would they “steal” a market and then drop it? It’s not like they enjoy simply wreaking havoc on people who buy cloth…
They added a twist- keep the profits high by using cheap labour and materials, but keep the selling cost low in order to force their competitors into either going out of business or into copying their style of marketing.
Why the hell are the consumers buying from them? In fact, I’d say it’s the consumers who “forced” the other businesses out of business. The consumers chose not to give money to others. Consumers aren’t machines which only take prices as input and produce cash as output. They have money needs, emotional needs, personal morals, etc. If you want to “blame” someone for kicking out competition, blame consumers. If Walmart undercuts prices, it doesn’t mean that everyone must automatically buy from them. Really, business could go on as usual if we decide to ignore the price decrease at all! Simply hand over an extra $2 per item bought. Why don’t you do that?
But maybe they argue this is a bit simplistic. Then let’s apply some numbers. In a democracy, you need 51% of the people behind your policy for it to get passed (theoretically). If 51% of people hate Walmart, they can decide to not shop at Walmart. Thus, they drop its market share by 51%! And it’s not like the other 49% simply love Walmart and want it to be a monopoly. Many of them simply don’t want the government to mess with private business. They could also actually be against Walmart.
For an example of capitalism at work, see Netflix’s recent price rise. Customers responded, and Netflix realized its mistake. OMG! How could it be?
Minimum wage laws forces prices of goods produced in America up, however minimum wage is a barely-living wage- one I would be loath to be on
If we didn’t have minimum wage goods would be cheaper… Plus, again, don’t wanna work for them? Don’t! Labor also follows supply and demand. When the supply decreases, people pay higher prices!
Me buying a ham sandwich does not necessarily entail a soon rise in the prices of ham sandwiches
Haha! Railing against big corporations and then assuming they’re all we have! This example she gives assumes she is buying it from, say, Walmart. Indeed, there you would not have much of an effect. But why not buy your sandwich at a family store? There you actually could affect prices. She accepts corporations as the only entity while simultaneously rejecting them.
I must reiterate: consumers suck nowadays because they’re sheep stamped with a USDA seal! If I put a man in front of a TV and give him chips and soda for ten years and then I ask him to get a job and run a mile in under 8 minutes he would think I’m the most insane person ever. But he doesn’t realize that letting me put him on that couch has caused his disability. Not the job or the 1 mile!