by Odin » Sat 04 Feb 2006, 21:21:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'A') free market economy by definition has competition between privately owned enterprise and coop enterprises, and the privately owned enterprises usually win out, though there are still some coops that succesfully operate. They just aren't very flexible.
It's delusional to think that we could have a whole economy made up of coops though.
Delusional? How do you know we can't have a co-op based economy if it hasn't been tried on a large scale. I don't see how it would be less flexible, you're just changing who picks the company management and where the capital comes from (banks, also co-ops, instead of rich individuals). In my mind a Market Socialist system like what I am supporting would be better than capitalism since there are no stock-holders parasitizing the system, the money saved thereby could be reinvested by the business for R&D or whatever, or given to the employees, adding money into the economy that can be spent.
The problem you right-wingers have is that you treat the Market as sacred, an end unto self. This is poor logic. The market is a tool, a means to an end, the end being the distrobution of goods and services. No market can be totally free, a totaly free market with no government intervention would distoy itself as it becomes dominated by monopolies, trusts, and cartels.
"Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis." -Starvid
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies in a closed system; Earth is NOT a closed system.