Posted on 08/02/2004 11:25:35 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
No. It in the interest of both to have a successful business.
Regardless of the economic system, the basic inputs of production are resources, labor and capital. Nothing can be produced without these three inputs.
Certain individuals may benefit if they can monopolize one of these inputs. However, it does not benefit society as a whole when an input is monopolized.
A labor union is simply an attempt to monopolize labor. It is no more moral or productive than a similar attempt to monopolize capital or resources. The way to thwart any monopoly is to introduce competition. The way to create a monopoly is artificially, through the use of laws and regulations.
When capitalism is abolished, there won't be any need for all this talk of classes; we'll all be able to live together as free and equal persons.
Also, I never said I supported the kind of "socialism and communism" I assume your talking about. Marxism-Leninism as was practiced in Russia and elsewhere was really just state-capitalism, with the state as the sole employer. I do not support the seizing of state power to effect change. Rather, I think the abolishment of state power is part and parcel to the cause of revolution against capitalism. I believe in "horizontalism", not the rule of some Bolshevik techno-managerial elite.
No. Look at any supply / demand curve. There is a difference between the amount that some people would have been willing to pay for a product, and the market price they actually would have paid. This is called consumers surplus. For instance, you are so thirsty you would pay $10 for a Coke. But it only costs $1, so you profit $9 worth of benefit.
Similarly, there is a difference between the amount that people would have sold their product for and the price they actually did sell it for. This is called producers surplus. For instance, it only costs 25 cents to make a can of coke but it sells for $1. So the producer gets 75 cents profit.
The supply and demand for labor works the same way. If someone can push a button and make you $100, it is worth up to $100 to have them push the button. It doesn't matter if it's easy work or back breaking work. What matters is the value to the consumer of the labor.
Similarly, a person might be willing to push the button for $5, but gets paid $50. So they benefit.
In a free market, no transaction will take place unless both parties perceive a benefit.
In a free market, it is not possible to sell someone something unless they perceive a benefit. Therefore, the only way for the capitalist to make money is to sell things people want at prices they want to pay.
Check out the history of the Irish potato famine
That would be an example of an immoral attempt to monopolize resources, which was created by government regulations and would have been eliminated if Ireland had a free market economy.
Just because a company increases profits, why do you think they would naturally want to pay workers anymore. It's never happened.
It happens all the time. Successful companies pay their employees more because they can pick the best and brightest people who in turn are more productive. If you make my company $1 million per year, I will happily pay you more than an employee who makes my company $1,000 per year.
However, if your attitude is that I owe you a job and that I'm screwing you just by showing up, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere. Unless I'm forced to hire you by some union thug.
All societies, going back 10,000 or more years, have had something of value that can be exchanged for goods and services. It might be food. It might be gold. It might be livestock. It might be seashells. In a prison where there is no money, people will trade cigarettes and other things. The medium is unimportant.
All economic activity requires resources, labor and capital. It does not matter whether the system is feudalism, communism, capitalism, or anything else. The argument is over who controls which inputs.
In the example I gave, the market price of the coke was $1. The perceived benefit to the consumer was $10 and the cost to produce was 25 cents.
In reality, different people will be willing and able to pay different prices for the same item. Different people will be willing and able to produce the item for different prices. However, there will ALWAYS be a difference between market cost and real cost, and there will ALWAYS be a difference between perceive benefit and market cost. If there is not, then no transaction will take place.
Part of Wal-Mart's pay is in shares of company stock. As the company makes money, they make money. There are thousands of former Wal-Mart employees who are multi-millionaires.
OMG, you sound just like my son -- he considers himself an anarchist, by the way. We have some HEATED discussions around this house, as you can imagine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.