[Jester]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', 'B')usinesses are normally opened using other peoples money. Only a fool would use their own.

[Cid_Yama]

<i>But it's NOT a zero sum game in most cases.</i>

Yes, it is.

The 'wealth of nations' is acquired by taking it from others. More for some means less for others.

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', 'B')usinesses are normally opened using other peoples money. Only a fool would use their own.

[graham]

Hard work in and of itself doesn't make one rich. The key to getting rich is retention of ownership (shares). In fact CEOs and business leaders are usually the first to admit capitalism isn't a meritocracy.

[BlueGhostNo2]

This is because capitalism as implemented in the west does too little to protect the efficiency of the markets. We have anti-monopoly laws but we had Microsoft for years with an effective monopoly.

We have trades description laws but allow advertisers to say 'buying this product will make you happy' or even place the product in a film demonstrating it performing functions it cannot infact perform. (James bond driving a car with a Nokia phone. oh really?).

This is the tragic comedy of recent life in western capitalistic systems, we have so much potential and capacity to make our lives and everyones lives good.

But we squandered it expending huge effort to persuade people to buy our toys and trinkets they don't need so that we in turn could buy other toys and trinkets WE don't need.

For free market capitalism to function it is vital that people know their needs, have sufficient information to choose between providers to service these needs and have a service to sell to other people in exchange for fulfilling these needs.

As the true 'needs' in our society can be provided by a tiny fraction of the workforce we had to break the markets in order that everyone stay employed. This is why our capitalism is so far from a meritocracy.

[graham]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlueGhostNo2', 'T')his is because capitalism as implemented in the west does too little to protect the efficiency of the markets. We have anti-monopoly laws but we had Microsoft for years with an effective monopoly.

We have trades description laws but allow advertisers to say 'buying this product will make you happy' or even place the product in a film demonstrating it performing functions it cannot infact perform. (James bond driving a car with a Nokia phone. oh really?).

This is the tragic comedy of recent life in western capitalistic systems, we have so much potential and capacity to make our lives and everyones lives good.

But we squandered it expending huge effort to persuade people to buy our toys and trinkets they don't need so that we in turn could buy other toys and trinkets WE don't need.

For free market capitalism to function it is vital that people know their needs, have sufficient information to choose between providers to service these needs and have a service to sell to other people in exchange for fulfilling these needs.

As the true 'needs' in our society can be provided by a tiny fraction of the workforce we had to break the markets in order that everyone stay employed. This is why our capitalism is so far from a meritocracy.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', '.')..
Don't markets naturally drift towards monopolisation?

[graham]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', '.')..
Don't markets naturally drift towards monopolisation?

[graham]

A good example of monopolisiation would be the BHP- Riotinto mining merger. Had it gone ahead there would be only one metals mining company in the whole world.

[BlueGhostNo2]

Markets are not a 'natural' phenomenon, they are exactly what we make them.

Most markets left un-regulated will tend towards a monopoly as killing off the competition is an efficient way of increasing your profits (see the illegal drug trade as a good example).

Unfortunately the populace in general is too dumb to understand the system let alone vote for people who have good ideas for reforming it (or even enforcing the current laws properly!). So we're stuck with bad IP laws that favour big business, bad advertising enforcement which favour big business and yes bad monopoly enforcement which favours.... you got it.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', '.')..
Don't markets naturally drift towards monopolisation?

[oiless]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', 'B')usinesses are normally opened using other peoples money. Only a fool would use their own.

[Jester]

Not every business startup is going to be attractive to investors, though it can be plenty attractive to one owner who plans on working in the business. there are far more small businesses out there that make the owner/operator a decent living but wouldn't do so if there were other investors. But to start up a business like that, you still need money, and financing is generally where it comes from. From personal experience in this, I was asked to come up with at least 50% of how much I needed. If I went and got another investor or somehow borrowed for *my* portion that would mean I had that much more debt, as well as the loan debt. I wouldn't be making a living off the small business in that case, because as a start up, it couldn't support that.

The mentality of borrowing for everything is precisely why this crisis is upon us.

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jester', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', 'B')usinesses are normally opened using other peoples money. Only a fool would use their own.

[Bas]

I have a proposition:

what if you had a society of 100 people.

99 of these people would have 1 wealth and the 1 would have 200 wealth, the total wealth would be 299.

Now what if through wealth redistribution these 99 people would have 2 wealth and the 1 would have "only" 20? The total wealth would be 218, so the total wealth would be less.

What system would you prefer?

[ROCKMAN]

Bas -- a question about your model: didn't the 99 get there 1 wealth by being paid by the 1 with the 200 wealth? After all, the 200 wealth individual was the only one with resources to generate the wealth distributed to the 99. If the 1 has her wealth reduced to 20 she'll probably have to lay off, say, 90 of the others. They could get by for a couple of years with their newly acquired 2 wealths but after that they would have 0 wealth for the rest of their lives, no?

[Bas]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'B')as -- a question about your model: didn't the 99 get there 1 wealth by being paid by the 1 with the 200 wealth? After all, the 200 wealth individual was the only one with resources to generate the wealth distributed to the 99. If the 1 has her wealth reduced to 20 she'll probably have to lay off, say, 90 of the others. They could get by for a couple of years with their newly acquired 2 wealths but after that they would have 0 wealth for the rest of their lives, no?

[ROCKMAN]

But Bas...the 99 don't have jobs. Remember they worked for the wealthy guy who had the money to build the business in the first place. Or are you suggesting the 99 will just swap pay checks with each other and pretend they are making a living.

I know it's a worn out phrase but when was the last time you got a pay check from someone who wasn't wealthy?

[BlueGhostNo2]

Well anyone working for a co-operative for starters ROCK.

[Bas]

of course they have jobs at publicly traded companies, or they are small business owners themselves, the rich guy might be the banker. Anyway, like all economic models they are an (over) simplification of reality, I made the point I wanted to make though.