question about a theory

marx saidd that supply and demand rules the capitlaist economy

if something is desiarble, more people sell it, thus lowering the price, but if it isnt, less people sell it, and it increases the price, am i right?

Well they wouldn't produce as much so in that chain of though it would sell for more. But I think that they would just sell it cheaply anyway.

partly.
when demand is high supply usally catches up and lowers the prize but sometimes supply is limited for example oil.

if supply exedes demand then pepole are likey to go out of buisness or decrese supply so that they don't loose any money.
a self balancing system.

hm, that only works in a monopoly, because only then does the company fully control the "supply" aspect - take for examply diamonds =D

otherwise, if one company decides its price is too low, decreases its supply in order to make it seem more valuable, then increases price - people will just buy from the companies with lower prices, right?

(or did i entirely miss the argument? lol)

and in most capitalist societys, monopolies are shunned.

not really. Microsoft?

yeah, actually, lol, i had this major debate with someone who said that monopolies are "illegal" in the u.s. XD

believe me, monopolies are NOT shunned D= in fact, i might go so far as to say they are encouraged - you get more money from a monopoly. its just hard to manage that.

in the eu they have some laws about monopolies but its nothing a company that has gotten that powerful can't handle

microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on computers, though, it just has a monopoly over certain programs - it likes to think it has a monopoly.

diamonds are an example of a monopoly. walmart is trying to be a monopoly of everything.

also, marx said that capitalism was plagued by "overproduction", something unheard of in earlier epochs, where capitalists would improve the means of production to produce too much of something than their given markets could handle - meaning they either destroyed the extra goods or closed down factories to the extent that demand was once again greater than supply (causing starvation, etc.) or would conquer a new market for itself OR exploit its existing markets to a greater extent...this is what he called the bourgeoisie's economic crises, which he took as evidence enough that the capitalists had overgrown their stay and needed to be overthrown

correct me if i'm wrong =D

monopolies destroy competition, and because of that, increase prices, and make crap products so i cant see why they would be encouraged, except for the company thaat monopolizes

capitalism is all about competition.

yeah, and in competition, there is always a "winner" =]

plus, the products aren't always crap, it depends on the company - theoretically if a company producing a popular product starts making it crap, people will stop buying it and they'll be destroyed. but i've never heard of that happening, so...

and yeah. its all about the individual...COMPANY. =D

well it depends on the elasticity of the product. a monopoly over something a great deal of people want will thrive because of the demand, they dont have any competition, so they dont have to worry about people buying a different company's product.

monopolies are not good!!!

no, of course not, i'm just saying that capitalism naturally flows towards more monopolies, more production, etc....its because of the bourgeois freaking out about "overproduction" that they try and backtrack, and try to keep things stable - they will inevitably fail in their attempts, because as long as socially necessary labor time is dictated by greed, capital will fluctuate between too much production and economic crises

oh yeah. i'm reading capital. =D and i understand this much so far. =D

well yeah companies want to kick other competing companies out business, thats why anti-trust laws are set in. ideally a perfect competion would exist, altho its only theoretical. a perfect competion encourages the economy to thrive and everyone is happy.

perfect competition is impossible.

only so far as production increases and price does not plummet.

price plummets when overproduction occurs.

think about it - you agree that pure free trade is not good then? because that WILL lead to monopolies and brutal exploitation of just about everyone.

neoliberalism and anarchocapitalism (same thing really) is all about creating pure free trade again.

not one country exists with pure capitalism - actually, CHINA is the country with the closest thing to free trade! doesn't this tell you something...?

you do know i am talking on a purely theoretical level right? the reason why i dont like monoplies is because it destroyes incentive for competion. but the government can generally discourage this. also it is good in some cases encouraging new inventions. i also dont think china is capitalist purely it is mostly market socialist like what gorbachev wanted to make the ussr

people have more free reign over what they do in china when it comes to economical pursuits than just about anywhere else - the penalties for fucking up are worse though (execution was the punishment to the heads of a company that overlooked putting poison in children's toys)

in the us they'd be slapped with a fine and some jail time, especially if the toys hadn't killed anyone yet.

yeah, the goal of a good debate is to talk on a theoretical level and then back it up with real life instances if possible, at least...that's what i do =D

i don't like monopolies because it means that a crises is just around the corner....

Monopolies make it easier for the bourgeoisie to oppress us. Also allowing them to further gap between the rich and not rich

calinis wrote:

you do know i am talking on a purely theoretical level right? the reason why i dont like monoplies is because it destroyes incentive for competion. but the government can generally discourage this. also it is good in some cases encouraging new inventions. i also dont think china is capitalist purely it is mostly market socialist like what gorbachev wanted to make the ussr

'Market Socialism' is a contradiction in terms. Socialism is necessarily a post-scarcity society, therefore the existance of a market, wage labour, money etc. etc. means not that it is a form of 'market socialism' but that it is not socialism at all.

As Daniel De Leon once said:

"Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at an end. That is socialism; nothing short of that."

well apparently the chinese think otherwise
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/dengxiaoping/103388.htm

yeah, so what? just because someone says they are something doesn't make them that

if some guy walked up to you and told you he was a thirty pound flying giraffe, would you believe him?

your seriously going to believe that?
if so you really need to read more calinis.