Capitalism doesn't produce the best product at the lowest cost and price, that's a lie.
Capitalism doesn't produce the best product at the lowest cost and price, that's a lie
99.999% of criticisms of "capitalism" are criticisms of monopolies
Capitalism doesn't produce the best product at the lowest cost and price, that's a lie.
That's because a small percentage of people have too much disposable income, who will buy slop at any price, making everything more expensive for the rest of us
The Best Product doesn't have to be cheap to sell. You seem confused. This rule applies only to mid and low range products.
Not really.
A good example is incandescent lightbulbs, which they are intentionally engineered to have a limited lifespan
Read Mises' Economic Calculation Problem.
The Best Product doesn't have to be cheap to sell. You seem confused.
Never said that, you're the one who's confused.
what does?
Price per hour of use until it expires is so laughably low, it's the most retarded argument you could've come up with.
Capitalism is about information control. If the buyer knows your true expenses then you can't make a good profit.
Capitalism doesn't produce the best product at the lowest cost and price, that's a lie.
It's easy to prove it does.
When you go to the supermarket, what do you buy? The most expensive and worst quality? Or the cheapest with best quality?
Unless you're retarded you buy the best, as far as you can tell. You vote with your wallet. The good stuff stays, the niggers go bankrupt.
This depuration process over time results in profits flowing towards best products. This isn't just at final consumer stage... every link in the supply chain is doing this natural selection of the fittest product, every appliance is looking for the best little screws and wires for their thing; pizza pies try to find the best ingredients at the best price. It's a constant effort of fractal complexity IMPOSSIBLE to replace, even AI would have a hard time guessing, because only each individual player in the economy knows exactly what's best for them, and how much their own thing is worth. Pic related is how I sleep knowing Free Market is King.
But it dopes produce a product.
every link in the supply chain is doing this natural selection of the fittest product, every appliance is looking for the best little screws and wires for their thing
They all get the cheapest chinese shit for the basic components, trust me. A regular consumer can't always tell the quality. Superficial things like prestige and reputation matter more. Adidas shirt is no different from Fruit of Loom, but it costs a few times more because of the marketing and label.
It's not a critique of capitalism, just an observation that the consumer doesn't simply follow the price to quality ratio as a golden rule.
When you go to the supermarket, what do you buy? The most expensive and worst quality? Or the cheapest with best quality?
The average consumer buys the best brand they can afford.
Which has little to do with quality or price and everything to do with what they saw a commercial for most recently.
Yea. Or just disingenuous kikery
It would, if capital actually reached the workers.
It would, if there were no protectionist regulations on goods.
It would, if every country was allowed to meaningfully compete.
It would, if the world were not owned by debt-slavers.
Capitalism is the only system that actually creates the peak quality product though, so your point is still null.
Capitalism is just democracy's way to impose monarchy in the working world. Ask yourself why small, privately owned businesses can't compete in the modern world?
The best you can do is some kind of support for corporate products, like a computer tech or a mechanic. The end result is that the corporations fuck you over for the parts because they still want to be a monopoly.
Figure out how to make monopolies less desirable. I can tell you what you're lacking that we boomers had. ...unions...product standards enforced by law...less profits from stock market speculating instead of dividends.
This all should be obvious to you, but you're playing your master's game, as usual. You're funding the new colonialism.
Ask yourself why small, privately owned businesses can't compete in the modern world?
Because more often than not they are run by actual retards who don't know how to sell.
We had corner stores, they got all replaced by a franchise because the franchise used the forbidden arcane knowledge of fucking bargains and discount offers. When they started to also serve fastfood it was a final nail to the coffin. Meanwhile small shop owners bitched and complained and didn't change shit, just waited until bankruptcy.
Also resources are cheaper if you make a large purchase, which favours large producers.
sorry but you seem to be confusing capitalism with rule by might and rule by skill issue
neither of those 2 are sustainable economic or governance models, they all always collapse when they reach their logical conclusion: the monopoly
you are criticising monopolies not capitalism
I'm not criticizing shit, maybe you should learn to read.
It's a good thing that retards fail.
Correct. But as long as you can't collect enough data to beat the market, the market is more efficient. What I found more interesting is that capitalism needs unemployed people. If there were no unemployed, so no demand for jobs, the price of labor would adjust to the price of the goods that this labor produce and the capitalist would earn nothing.
it's not a good thing, because if you kill everyone except only the strongest, you end up killing the strongest as well
believe it or not people need others to survive
Capitalism doesn't produce the best product at the lowest cost and price, that's a lie.
Correct.
What is planned obsolescence.
What is trusts and monopolies
What is counterfeited and sugar ladden food.
those are a result of monopolies
you have a problem with monopolies, oligopolies, centralization of markets, etc..., not with capitalism
It's a good thing that retards fail.
Would it be. But capitalism doesn't work that way. Unscrupulousness and, above all, luck are rewarded the most.
You're saying that consumer judgement isn't perfect. But what is perfect? . . . The Government? Nancy Pelosi is going to tell (You) which brand of spaghetti is best for you? Gross.
Consumer DOES factor in quality and price. Better quality isn't always better. It's truly a judgement call, that applies to each individual situation. You even have the option of going into debt if you assess that you'd benefit from quality that will pay for itself in the future.
Perfect? No. But beats the heck of elites choosing how to spend other people's money, for other people's needs.
But they are a natural product of capitalism. Only state restrictions can prevent them, and only to a limited extent.
The franchise is easy to beat by increasing quality of service and goods offered.
Meanwhile boomers couldn't be bothered to fucking sweep the dirty floors in their hovels and bitched about the franchise.
Nah, you either adapt or fall behind. No one is slowing down to keep lazy retards on life support, buddy.
All uncontrolled or "free" Capitalism IMMEDIATELY results in Monopolies .
another words, there is no such thing as "free capitalism" is a lie and a utopia
and especially when finances / banks /stock market is available where corp can raise money and bankrupt (or buy) the competition.
you cannot provide a single proof that a company with the best quality product
, and not THE WORST quality with the highest margin, wins.
they are a natural byproduct of any economic system, be it capitalism or socialism
you can't pin it on capitalism entirely, because at least capitalism has some mechanisms aimed at dealing with these
yes, an uncontrolled capital system will reach its logical conclusion: battle royale
but good thing we don't have uncontrolled capitalistic systems, those all have a government and regulatory body keeping it in check
Stop putting words into my mouth and go bitch at a wall if you just want to argue with a phantom communist in your head.
they are a natural byproduct of any economic system, be it capitalism or socialism
No monopolies are formed under socialism. Rather, monopolies are the basic idea. Because the whole economic area is seen as a company and everything is planned. If you can collect and apply enough data, the planned economy is always superior. But the effort is probably still too immense.
capitalism has some mechanisms aimed at dealing with these
?
Unfortunately. While we have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.
They have not been applied really in decades , other than in obvious monopoly cases.
Capitalists can run a duopoly (2 companies) that is owned by the same mutual funds and pretend it isn't a monopoly.
Then capitalists start making too much money and start buying the government .
sounds like you guys have a problem with the regulatory systems aimed at preventing monopolies, not capitalism itself
Btw, nobody would think of relying on markets instead of a planned economy within their company.
even the sociopaths in the government understand that they need individuals of varying might to survive and that total battle royale is not a sustainable model of government
how come you don't?
How much regulation is allowed so that capitalism can still call itself capitalism?
If you can collect and apply enough data, the planned economy is always superior
If you can tell the future, the outcome is positive no matter the system. Void argument.
you mean how much regulation should be allowed before you lose the anarcho- part of anarcho-capitalism? according to libertarians, literally anything
It's been mostly about the price recently. You avoid inflation this way. Sacrifice quality for low price, pay low, keep demand for goods low, keep supply of goods high.
It's not about predicting the future perfectly, you just need to be able to determine enough of the future to beat the market's efficiency.
my name is anon and I'm super gay
ew
what kind of person says that out of nowhere?
Yeah, you need the whole pyramid to be stable, sure, I just don't see where vestigial organs such as dirty run down corner shops without working fridges fit into the equation.
How is it a good thing for them to exist? Why would we prop them up against a better competitor just because he is a single entity?
for the simple reason that when market power is concentrated into a few hands, everyone ends up losing, including the few hands that hold all the power
You just did, kike.
Nice greentext.
Wallstreet does this with its market prediction systems. Which, admittedly, also contributes a little to efficiency, but mainly fills their pockets.
Actually, I meant in general. How can we still call our system capitalist after 2008?
Stock and bond markets still exist
I don't buy it.
It's one thing to defend against unfair monopoly practices, it's completely another to try and pretend that normal competition is bad when done by a larger entity. You're saying pretty unhinged stuff mate.
No one will go buy a warm beer if they can get a cold one. Having a running fridge is not unfair competition.
But the money printers decide who survives and who doesn't. Everything else is pump and dump grifter. I experienced the markets before 2008. It's a new world.
there's nothing unhinged about what I'm saying
people who are really good at winning competitions often are not so good at... many other things, including long term thinking
The best is never the cheapest retard.
I doubt that the boomer who didn't have the foresight to repair a fridge or buy a new one before summer season is a good long term thinker.
Actually fair competition killing lazy enterprises that can't adapt is good for everyone except the loser who wasn't doing anyone favours to begin with.
Keep drinking the warm beer on principle bruh.
I understand you worship those who win, I could tell by your double spacing
but it's not always the best course of action, those who win at any expense don't always do so against people who clearly deserve it, like the strawman you have kept painting the small firms to be like in the last 7 posts
That's not what op claimed.
Yes it does but in the name of profit and at the cost of everything else. That's why you have a powerful computer in your pocket that streams 4K porn on an OLED screen.
Explain to me in simple terms how do you propose to artificially keep lazy businesses that refuse to adapt afloat without causing harm to society.
You are retarded and what you are saying has zero basis in reality.
Fair competition killing a small business is good for everyone except the loser.
Unfair competition killing a small business is bad to everyone except the winner.
again competition is not always against useless businesses that deserve to die
once you are willing to concede this point we can discuss further
but as long as you insist that everyone who loses deserved to lose because they lost, and anyone who wins deserves to win because they won, we will never move past circular reasoning
I need to emphasize, even the sociopaths in power understand that not everyone who loses deserved to lose, and viceversa
The problem is that 'best product' is too subjective and since the buyer has limited purchasing power the 'best product' typically defaults to the 'cheapest product'.
Appliances are an obvious example, well built appliances can easily last for 20-30 years and are repairable so they can last far beyond that. However the markets are instead flooded with cheap, poorly built appliances that barely last 5-10 and cost an amount to repair which is not congruent with their original cost.
Not a strawman btw, real example of Żabka slaughtering corner stores in my country by offering deals and having consistent quality across stores.
Now you give me a working example of the shit you are pulling out your ass.
no other system in effect anywhere on the planet produces better products for cheaper
so yes it does
Burgers can't understand a simple sentence.
I wish I could say I am surprised, but that would be a lie.
true because on average people are poor and will choose the cheapest one over the quality one and whoever can pull off the dirtiest tricks wins that game
but as long as you insist that everyone who loses deserved to lose because they lost, and anyone who wins deserves to win because they won, we will never move past circular reasoning
Read the post you responded to motherfucker:
Fair competition killing a small business is good for everyone except the loser.
Unfair competition killing a small business is bad to everyone except the winner.
I don't have to concede shit because you are repeating the shit I say right back at me.
oh that's simple you seem to think deals always existed and cornerstores were too dumb to offer them because they were lazy or something, which just comes to show how little intelligence you have
you'll probably respond to me incredulous, incapable of imagining any scenario where corner stores had any reason other than laziness or incompetence to refuse to offer deals
killing a small business is not good for everyone except the loser
you seem to think that a battle royale style of competition solves all problems, which is what I'm arguing does not
often the winners of a battle royale do not win by being fair.
Show me a working example of the shit you claim to be the correct way to do things of shut the fuck up nigger.
And yes, corner stores offered no deals and they still don't. Żabka absolutely slaughtered them while maintaining reasonable prices because they face competition from supermarket giants such as Biedronka or Lidl. People will only accept a certain price hike for convenience before they decide to go to a supermarket instead. There is exactly zero downsides to this situation from the perspective of everyone except the corner shop owner.
Depends what your definition of best is.
Best could be a product that only last a month cause that’s all you need it for. Best could be a product that only a limited number of people can afford because it’s a status symbol.
Best is a subjective term that is related to what the consumer is willing to pay.
There's no capitalist country on the planet.
Muh Phoebus cartel is an exact example of monopolies and oligopolies. These companies standardized the lifetime of a bulb to be well below what was typical at the time, and set up geographic monopolies for themselves.
Yeah, you said the statement
capitalism doesn't produce the best product at the lowest cost and price
is a lie. You were unaware you were telling the truth.
LMAO, maybe that Addias shirt will help consumer get laid because women are fucking stupid, and I buy fruit of the loom.
Mom tells me on my $5/mo phone plan which spaghetti to buy. Capitalism wins again.
Or just disingenuous kikery
It would, if the world were not owned by debt-slavers.
Unfortunate that true capitalism has never been tried.
You wrote all this without mentioning state capitalism (or its associated terms) or financialization.
Something something, need more immigrants or we don't make line go up.