You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
You have a point in that scarcity in a factor in any economic system, though I think you're missing that capitalism is the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources. TANSTAAFL, but capitalism does result in the most lunches.
Efficient in physical terms, but not necessarily the most efficient in social terms. If we lived in a jungle, the epitome of capitalist systems, then we would have no choice. But we are humans, with social systems in place to insulate us from the jungle. The original term for economics was political economy, in recognition of this.
And I haven't even discussed market signalling among market oligarchs. For example, Coke and Pepsi sell sugar water. Nothing that can't be duplicated. But they never seem to compete on price. If they were competing on price, their profit margins would certainly not be in the double digits. They aren't collusive in the sense of holding meetings, but they have reached an agreement through market signalling, that they won't compete on price. The same goes for credit card rates. And many other goods. I think it becomes evident that we don't live in a truly capitalist system.
Coke and Pepsi try to differentiate themselves on non-price measures in order to insulate themselves from competitors who are trying to compete on price (e.g. store brand cola). This decreases the price elasticity of Coke and Pepsi, but not cola in general. That people choose them over store brand cola is indicative that they're selling an image or reputation, not just sugar water. Which is a pretty good example of capitalism in that they're competing to fulfil multiple consumer desires, not just to spit out a single uniform product like you'd see under other economic systems like communism.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] daskapitalist [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You have a point in that scarcity in a factor in any economic system, though I think you're missing that capitalism is the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources. TANSTAAFL, but capitalism does result in the most lunches.
[–] ougNaHadNepVed 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Efficient in physical terms, but not necessarily the most efficient in social terms. If we lived in a jungle, the epitome of capitalist systems, then we would have no choice. But we are humans, with social systems in place to insulate us from the jungle. The original term for economics was political economy, in recognition of this.
And I haven't even discussed market signalling among market oligarchs. For example, Coke and Pepsi sell sugar water. Nothing that can't be duplicated. But they never seem to compete on price. If they were competing on price, their profit margins would certainly not be in the double digits. They aren't collusive in the sense of holding meetings, but they have reached an agreement through market signalling, that they won't compete on price. The same goes for credit card rates. And many other goods. I think it becomes evident that we don't live in a truly capitalist system.
[–] daskapitalist [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Coke and Pepsi try to differentiate themselves on non-price measures in order to insulate themselves from competitors who are trying to compete on price (e.g. store brand cola). This decreases the price elasticity of Coke and Pepsi, but not cola in general. That people choose them over store brand cola is indicative that they're selling an image or reputation, not just sugar water. Which is a pretty good example of capitalism in that they're competing to fulfil multiple consumer desires, not just to spit out a single uniform product like you'd see under other economic systems like communism.