Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Drewigi]

Some folks are scared to think.

Heh, I know how to think, the "cock contest" thing was to be honest, enjoyable. I auctually got mad because the thread derailed into an argument over 2 people while others were wanting to talk about the challenge. I'm sorry if I got anybody mad.

[Verjigorm]

It's not much of a challenge honestly:   there's already nothing like an economy in DF, so there's nothing to worry about there.   Every dwarf is fed by the industry of the dwarves as a whole and gain the fruits of the entire communities land.   If we want to get rid of personal property, we just make sure all bedrooms and dining rooms are Dormitories and Meeting Halls.  Which most of us already do for a prolonged period.

all Labors don't have to be assigned to all dwarves, as specialization is used even in communist countries.   

Nobles of all sorts have to go:   there's only room for titles assigned via merit or job description, not just for being some fancy pantsy persons kid.   You get in the mines and pull your shift like every other proletarian, comrade!

Now, if we wanted to model the old Soviet Bloc, we should probably also segregate different groups of dwarves in burrows and forbid interaction except when express needed.   And you'd better have your papers too, Comrade.

[fearlesslittletoaster]

I for one was rather enjoying the derail and will be doing my part to keep it going. I live in a very conservative part of America and its very rare that I run into somebody who is polite, articulate, and willing to defend some of the views here. Not that I agree with them, but they are interesting. As long as this stays polite and people want to read it where is the harm?   

My questions to the communists in the house is this: Do you think the way Marxist theory claims to be an all encompassing solution inevitably leads to what always seems to happen in what we would recognize as a modern "communist" (read: totalitarian) state? One of the central tenants of Marxism is its historical inevitability, that Communism will and must happen as the end goal of all civilization. Outside forces will try and prevent its rise, but they are only doing so out of their own selfish interest and must not be allowed to interfere.

As far as Marxism is concerned it seems that Marxism is THE answer. The only answer. It can't be wrong, and anyone who says it is or even might be is trying to delay paradise on earth. This matters because it both makes the message both extremely powerful and perfect for hijacking by selfish jerks.

Since to be a Communist you must embrace Marxism, and Marxism defines Communism as the only valid form of government, can a Communist tolerate dissent from anyone who advocates a form of government other than Communism? Is there even any room inside the Communist tent to debate how it should be implemented? Can a true Communist ever allow himself to be voted out of office, or are any and all tactics valid to advance the revolution no matter how brutal?

[Torrenal]

Any true communist would allow himself voted out of offices, if the sacrifice served the good of his/her people.  Health might be the easiest reason to argue that on.  "Sir, you're not sane, for the love of all that is holy, if you want to help  your nation, step down!  If you can't do that, could you at least see to rescind the mandate that everyone dress uniformly?  The men are threatening to revolt, what with having to wear bras and short skirts..."

But then, how closely does this theoretical government adhere to communism?

A failing of some systems is that they have an idea of how they want to run.  They may even put this down in written form...  and they call themselves by that name, but then actually implement a different system.

Or they  may incorporate a blend of ideas.  As I understand it, China has a reasonably free market these days.  Oh, forbid that anything should happen to you if you disparage the government inside their borders...

(how close does the United States adhere to a free market economy?)
//Torrenal

[Samarkand]

I for one was rather enjoying the derail and will be doing my part to keep it going. I live in a very conservative part of America and its very rare that I run into somebody who is polite, articulate, and willing to defend some of the views here. Not that I agree with them, but they are interesting. As long as this stays polite and people want to read it where is the harm?   

My questions to the communists in the house is this: Do you think the way Marxist theory claims to be an all encompassing solution inevitably leads to what always seems to happen in what we would recognize as a modern "communist" (read: totalitarian) state? One of the central tenants of Marxism is its historical inevitability, that Communism will and must happen as the end goal of all civilization. Outside forces will try and prevent its rise, but they are only doing so out of their own selfish interest and must not be allowed to interfere.

As far as Marxism is concerned it seems that Marxism is THE answer. The only answer. It can't be wrong, and anyone who says it is or even might be is trying to delay paradise on earth. This matters because it both makes the message both extremely powerful and perfect for hijacking by selfish jerks.

Since to be a Communist you must embrace Marxism, and Marxism defines Communism as the only valid form of government, can a Communist tolerate dissent from anyone who advocates a form of government other than Communism? Is there even any room inside the Communist tent to debate how it should be implemented? Can a true Communist ever allow himself to be voted out of office, or are any and all tactics valid to advance the revolution no matter how brutal?

I love you right now for understanding that Marxism is simultaneously a proposed model for society and a statement of the unchangeable direction of history. However, the orange part above is not strictly speaking true. There are communists who agree with Marxist political theory, but not his "history has a direction" stuff, namely communist existentialists. Jean Paul-Sartre, for example, identified with Socialism and Communism at different times, but was never a Marxist because he believed the course of humanity is determined by the individual. As for the green, the answer is yes, philosophically speaking. Marxism does not advocate violence towards those not embracing the system, necessarily, but rather states the inevitability of it. It's not "there can be no dissent" its "In the end, there is no alternative". Communism is the point at which history will come to a rest (according to Marx). Honestly, he'd be surprised there was genuine dissent. As for political realities, those are another question. I just know philosophy.

[fearlesslittletoaster]

True as far as it goes, but its basically human nature to advocate violence toward any group who are "bad people." The big flaw here is how Marx constructed his argument, as far as I can tell it goes like this:

1. Communism is inevitable and this is obvious.
2. Communism will be better than anything we have now and this is obvious.
3. Because of steps 1 and 2, only a complete bastard would not want communism.
4. Therefore, by extension, anyone not on board with the Revolution is in fact a terrible human being and should be treated accordingly.

Anything that can be read to give blanket moral authority to a group of people while also giving them a reason to hold power seems to end poorly. I have a hard time distinguishing how Communism and a major faith relate to unbelievers... after all wasn't Trotsky really just declared a Heretic?

[Verjigorm]

(how close does the United States adhere to a free market economy?)
//Torrenal

Better and worse.  If you have the ability to lobby for preferential treatment, then you can gain an unfair market advantage.  Take Monsanto, for example, who have profited in a big way from licensing laws:   if your neighbor has monsanto soybeans, and they pollinate YOUR soybeans, Monsanto can have them tested and require you to pay a licensing fee for using their genetic license.  Trying to fight that will get you mired in court with huge costs, and eventually when you can't afford it anymore, Monsanto makes you an offer you can't refuse.   And now they own a controlling interest in your debt and you have to grow monsanto crops. 

That's not exactly a free market.   

The Free Market is an illusion.  What we do have is varying degrees of economic freedom.

[Samarkand]

True as far as it goes, but its basically human nature to advocate violence toward any group who are "bad people." The big flaw here is how Marx constructed his argument, as far as I can tell it goes like this:

1. Communism is inevitable and this is obvious.
2. Communism will be better than anything we have now and this is obvious.
3. Because of steps 1 and 2, only a complete bastard would not want communism.
4. Therefore, by extension, anyone not on board with the Revolution is in fact a terrible human being and should be treated accordingly.

Anything that can be read to give blanket moral authority to a group of people while also giving them a reason to hold power seems to end poorly. I have a hard time distinguishing how Communism and a major faith relate to unbelievers... after all wasn't Trotsky really just declared a Heretic?

I think Marx would have agreed with step four. I think there is room for dissenters on the original philosophy, but they're just beating their heads against a wall. Think of it this way, if communism is inevitable why do anything about the crazy guy in the corner chanting "free market"? He's sorta a non issue.

In real manifestations you are entirely correct.

[Roach]

PTF, grabbing popcorn

EDIT: oh ye who is most Toady, forgive my sins. I was unaware.

[Samarkand]

PTF, grabbing popcorn

JSYK, Toady doesn't really approve of the whole popcorn bit. Made a comment about it on a thread about feminism.

[Torrenal]

...
1. Communism is inevitable and this is obvious.
2. Communism will be better than anything we have now and this is obvious.
...

The danger of anyone thinking that "My way of thought is correct, and therefore every other way of thought is flawed," is in assuming that you are superior.  You are, at best different.  What is superior or inferior depends on the yardstick you use, and different people use different rulers.  I use the ruler of "Freedom".  Others use the ruler of "Prosperity Equality".  I'm predisposed to measure ideas based on freedom, and thus I find things like Republics superior to Dictatorships, Democracies, and Communism.  Others measure by the ruler of "prosperity equality", and by that ruler, anything that speaks of freedom of the individual is either broken or evil.  Suddenly, Communism takes the lead, followed by Dictatorships and Democracies.

In my view, it's never been a question of which system is superior.  It's been a question of which yardstick is best.

//Torrenal

[Melting Sky]

Communism in a fantasy world generator applying to a fictional race composed entirely of expendable miners, smiths and workers. Possibly the only place where "real" communism can exist, appart from social insect societies. Dwarves=ants.

Yeah, the primary problem with communism in the real world is that it relies on the people being compassionate above all their other driving instincts which is not in our nature. The problem stems from the fact that people must be forced into selfless behavior and forced into placing the greater good above personal ego. This is a fatal flaw. You can't force people to go against their basic nature long term and use it as the basis for a society. 

History has proven greed and desire for power, privilege and self preservation to be humanity's primary motivators. As a general rule you can always count on people to look out for number one. Thus greed and self interest driven social systems don't require the government to force unnatural behavior patterns on people which makes them inherently more stable social systems than one that does.

Letting greed run unfettered does of course come with some other potentially society and even humanity ending problems but at least you generally don't have to execute millions of your own people in order to have them step up and participate in the great money and power grab that is society. Avarice may not be an ideal motivator but it is the one we have to work with. This is why communism was doomed from the start. Self indulgence and self interest will always trump compassion and the greater good as the primary driving force of most people. It is just the way we are and if you try to force people to act differently you have to do it with brute force and fear which doesn't tend to end well.

[Verjigorm]

Communism in a fantasy world generator applying to a fictional race composed entirely of expendable miners, smiths and workers. Possibly the only place where "real" communism can exist, appart from social insect societies. Dwarves=ants.

Yeah, the primary problem with communism in the real world is that it relies on the people being compassionate above all their other driving instincts which is not in our nature. The problem stems from the fact that people must be forced into selfless behavior and forced into placing the greater good above personal ego. This is a fatal flaw. You can't force people to go against their basic nature long term and use it as the basis for a society. 

History has proven greed and desire for power, privilege and self preservation to be humanity's primary motivators. As a general rule you can always count on people to look out for number one. Thus greed and self interest driven social systems don't require the government to force unnatural behavior patterns on people which makes them inherently more stable social systems than one that does.

Letting greed run unfettered does of course come with some other potentially society and even humanity ending problems but at least you generally don't have to execute millions of your own people in order to have them step up and participate in the great money and power grab that is society. Avarice may not be an ideal motivator but it is the one we have to work with. This is why communism was doomed from the start. Self indulgence and self interest will always trump compassion and the greater good as the primary driving force of most people. It is just the way we are and if you try to force people to act differently you have to do it with brute force and fear which doesn't tend to end well.

Cynicism is fun an all, but it's not true.   Humans are social creatures who have evolved to live in large extended family groups that had to co-operate to bring down prey that was bigger and better equipped for survival than they were.  They also had to withstand rival predators, who are much stronger, fierce and equipped for fighting.  We had to have ways for our pair-bonded mating system, where one male didn't just fuck every female when the other males weren't looking, and if these things had not worked, then we wouldn't be sitting here today talking about it.   

Small bands that are not reliant on agriculture are by necessity egalitarian:  every member of the Clan must be able to perform basic tasks, and if one member begins to lord it over the others, the Clans split, because there's nothing the "leader" can do.  Without a specialize warrior class, any intra-group fighting would be too messy and inefficient to compel obedience, and without a need for agricultural land, there is equally no binding reason to stay and be dominated.   

Non Agarian cultures were quite communal and Egalitarian.  Take for example the Suevi(Though many mesoamerican groups, the Celts and others could equally be used, given the similarities), who were a semi-nomadic tribal confederation of ancient Germans.   They had a very blurry class system:  A Chief, Nobles/Elders, Warrior Elite, Shaman/Priest, Freeman and Bondsman/Unfree man.   The most common class were the Free Men, who all had equal rights and real property in the tribe(personal property being a very tricky thing), and share the same common requirements and duties.   The unfree were generally those who had either impoverished or indebted themselves in some way, or prisoners taken in war, who are admitted into the tribe but not given enfranchisment.   The Warrior Elite were men of the same social background as the Freemen, but they have distinguished themselves through bravery and skill at war, which lead to a degree of social entitlement.   The Nobles and the Elders would be experienced, older members of the tribe whose experience granted them a remarkable lattitude in their areas of expertise:  If Ulric Weaponmaker tells you the best way to make a spear, you listen to him.   The Chief would be chosen by the entire tribe.   No one was born to any condition, however, other than being Free or Unfree(and possibly Priest/Shaman, as there's some indication of hereditary religious figures) and social mobility was high:   An unfree man who demonstrated his bravery in war would earn his freedom, and if sufficiently impressive, be accepted into the Warrior Elite.   If that man then proved to be a skilled warrior and leader, it's quite possible he could claim authority during times of crisis, and be renowned as a great Chief.   Equally, a chief who proved inept could be deposed.

Property in general is divided into Real Property(land, houses, oxen, pigs, cows, horses, plows, wagons, etc) and Personal Property(personal belongings and effects, such as combs, clothes, a spear and shield, axes, saws, hammers, etc), and real property was shared among the tribe as a whole(the Allod).   Some forms of property we would think of as personal(swords, mail, gold or gems, metal objects in general, produce from farming, gardening or hunting) were very special cases, and not generally just seen as "personal" property that one person could dispose of at will.   The principle role of the chief was in distributing the wealth of the tribe to people who needed it best through feasts held at particular times(a feast held around the Winter Solstice is one of the sources for many Christian holidays.   So most "christians" celebrating christmas are still practicing an ancient pagan social and religious rite) where the chief would give gifts that he had been given, to those who needed them.   So brave warriors would receive the rare and treasured swords, helmets and armor of the tribe, those who needed food were fed, those requiring clothing were clothed, and the clan or tribe's land would be divvied out for use:  the best herders would get to take their pigs here, the best beermaker got this land for growing beer weed, the hunters got their lands to hunt in, etc).   A greedy chief could heap up the gifts for his own, but he would soon find that no one wanted to give him shit, and he might be deposed(which definitely meant a gruesome death).   So a successful Chief would have to be able to divide up the wealth of the tribe in such a way as to not piss off everyone.   

Agrarian societies, on the other hand, are far more specialized.   Some people grow the food, others cook it, others make clothes, others make weapons, others use those weapons and still others don't labor, but oversee everything.  If you don't like it, you can leave, but the real property is tied to the land and can't be taken with you.  If the farmers are pissed, they can't get up and take the land with them.   If they try to go somewhere else, they're going to run into the problem that the best land is occupied, so they have to fight for it or live in the marginal lands.  Since the farmers arn't warriors and don't have the equipment or training, they arn't able to defeat the warriors of other settled peoples.   If the warriors all leave, then they don't know how to farm and feed themselves, or make their weapons and armor.   This lead to greater social stratification, as well as decreased social mobility:  you didn't go from being a poor farmer on the temple lands, to a warrior, to the God King.   You just messed around in the dirt until you died.   

Religion gets a big blackmark in most circles, as something dumb and unsophisticated.   But religious/spiritual thoughts are the oldest, powerful and pervasive memetic devices ever created.   And they served a very real purpose in early human culture:  organization.   The Temple was the hub around which you farmed, performed large irrigation products, built granaries and mills and kept track of everything.  Just developing a calendar to track the seasons is important for knowing when you can plant and harvest crops, and especially for predicting seasonal floods, which many large rivers are prone to doing.   Just tracking the moon and solar cycles would teach math, and math leads to accounting.   

But even those Agrarian societies owned property in common, and had centralized control of their economies.   Hell, the egyptians had credit cards:  they stored their grain in state granaries and were issued chits that recorded the amounts stored, with economic transfactions being deducted or added to their accounts, and a fee assessed for spoilage/loss.   

The idea of the Individual being worth more than society is extremely modern, and also coincides with much of capitalism's roots.   Capitalism might have a claim on 2000 years of human history, but communalism has tens of thousands, and possibly a million years of human history.  Even today, many people in the world are selfless and helpful, it's just that "Hungry man who didn't have enough money got his fare paid by another passenger" doesn't have the same ring as "City Manager embezzles millions".   Police don't work for the high wages(they top around 58k/year for the best salaries, and it's not a safe career), Volunteer firefighters are largely unpaid, and, teachers often pay for their own supplies out of their own pay, which is rarely more than 40K/year.    Yet these are all professions that are essential for modern society and a staffed by people who are not interested in the money.   

Greed is not why we have succeeded.  Being able to work together for mutual survival, however...

[Verjigorm]

In a Free or Market Economy, cost is determined solely by supply and demand.   The more of something there is, and the less supply, the more valuable that something is.   And it's tricky, because while cheap and plentiful goods may have a large demand, and a large supply, quality goods might have medium demand, but small supply.  Distance plays a part, because the further you have to move something, the more it costs.  Which is also why, historically, cities have grown along rivers, roads and coastlines:  the easier it is to get to somewhere, the cheaper it is to get there. 

Now, here's an interesting thing about the US "Free Market":  Corn and Sugar.   Almost all sweet products in America are based off High Fructose Corn Syrup, rather than sugar.   Much of our gas is mixed with ethanol made from corn.  And yet we demand almost 4x the international price for sugar, despite being a major supplier of sugar(it grows liberally in the gulf coast), to the point that we have like, two decades of sugar stored up.   But still, corn is the top reciever of subsidies, so we use it for everything(Again, Fuel, Food, Alcohol, Plastics).  It's kind of like our plump helmet. 

But that also means corn's price isn't freely dictated by supply and demand.  Free market, indeed.

[wierd]

Free markets:

There's another factor that one must consider with current "Free markets", and that is one of currency availability.

Currency is really just a good, like any other-- Excepting that it does not (currently) have an intrinsic value unto itself. Its "Value" is derived from what it represents, which, in a highly specialized society with strong stratification, happens to be the promise of any other good or service attainable within that society. Since goods are obtained through the service of another, this can be further simplified (for the most part; Real estate is purchasable, but not able to be created) as being simply, "Services".  Currency represents service, either for the service itself, or for the product produced through that service.

But again, Money is just a good; a commodity-- something to be traded. Like all commodities in a free market, it has supply and demand at work. This is why currency values fluctuate throughout the day when measured against other currencies.

What are the other implications of this?

Well, you have things like:

Inflation-- As the supply of currency increases, the value of that currency goes down.
Deflation-- As the supply of currency goes down, the value of that currency goes up (as long as the currency is tradable)

And of course, the many myriad ways in which these two come to be and interact.

The most poignant, IMHO, have to do with "Market growth".

As a market grows, more consumers and more producers are engaging in market activity. This basically means that more people are exchanging currency for services.  As a consequence of increased market availability, the usual consequence is that more humans get made, because resources are plentiful. This causes the value of currency to go up, as demand for currency increases, and supply remains static. (New bills dont get printed the exact moment babies get born; bills being printed are a separate process entirely-- OR, if some tangible medium with natural scarcity is used, such as gold, more gold has to be mined, in order to avoid the resulting deflation.) This means that the supply of currency has to go up as well, or there wont be enough supply, and market activity will drop due to increased costs of transaction.

Traditionally, "More people" was a good thing(tm), because it meant more suppliers of specific or specialized goods, giving wider variety of craftsmanship, wider variety in artistic license, and overall wider selection of crafted goods (and services)-- That is, as long as human supply did not outstrip carry capacity for food production, and other essential infrastructural services. This is why a free market is actually synonymous with many small and independent suppliers of goods and services, vying for the exchange of currency. As the number of people goes up, the number of goods suppliers is supposed to go up as well.

But that doesn't sound like what we have right now, does it?

Take for instance-- Cellphone makers. How many are there? Oh-- Many hundreds of thousands, if you count individual employees-- But those are not the actual "Makers" in our market. Those are people who are trading service in making components of cellphones for currency, not agents that engage in the manufacture and sale of whole cellphones as a craftsman's trade. No- For that, we have "Non-real people" who are the craftsmen, and they are easily counted. Major players: Apple, Samsung, HTC, Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola/google, LG, Sony, and Microsoft.  For a global market with some 7+ BILLION actors engaging in commerce, with very high demand, why are there so few cellphone "craftsmen?"  Moreover, why does this number seem to be SHRINKING, while total market size is GROWING, with a growing population?

The answer is very simple.

Just like communism has its niggly little things that make it not workable as a system in the long term, Free Market capitalism also, is not workable in the long term, because of its own little niggly things.

One of which, is its reliance on endless growth to attempt to outpace consolidation of wealth, And the other is the lack of any intrinsic method to prevent market capture.

A commonly cited principle of modern inflationary currency, is that inflation works against the hoarder. This is true!
Say, I am a wealthy SOB, and I somehow manage to cabbage up 90% of the money in a given locality. Instead of investing that money, I hoard it. It does not go into a bank, because that is an investment (believe it or not)-- No, it goes into a safe, or a mattress. The money still in circulation becomes deflated, because of the lack of liquidity in the market. To overcome this, the government prints more bills, causing inflation. Now, instead of holding 90% of the currency, I hold maybe, 50%, because the government printed exactly the amount of money I have hoarded, to return liquidity to the community.  My hoard has been reduced in value nearly 50%! It takes twice as much money now for me to get the same hookers and blow I used to! Oh, the humanity!

Because free market capitalism is BASED on stratified economics, with a stratified social structure, there is built in incentive for people of high "Status" (have lots of currency) to aggressively accumulate more currency to outpace inflation. If they didnt, they would lose their status just from inflation alone! The faster they can accumulate wealth, the more influential they are, and the higher their status!

This is why there are so few "Craftsmen", and so many "bondsmen" in our current "free market".  The "Craftsmen" are compelled to overtake the market, or be crushed by it, the bondsman needs currency just to live, and inflation is driving both to either capture more and more of the market, or to reproduce and drive more market activity to stay afloat.

The inevitable conclusion here, is that many small craftsman will emerge, initially. These craftsmen will vie with each other for market share-- Who makes the best, who makes the most-- who can make it cheapset-- etc--- Initially, the markets they serve will be small-- maybe a few hundred people, tops. Small businesses. The barrier to entry into this early market is low. People can either become such a craftsman, and sell direct- or they can choose to work for another craftsman for a wage, and maybe learn their trade in the process.

The evolution of this early market then starts to change.  As craftsmen compete with each other, the quality and value of the products they make goes up. This makes a natural barrier to entry for new craftsmen, so the rate of new craftsmen entering the market slows down accordingly. (It is hard to make quality swiss watches, after all.) So, for a new craftsman to enter the market, he first must hone his skill somehow, without a reliable market in which to sell his product.  The solution? He works for an existing craftsman, as a bondsman-- for a time, until he can master the craft. Now you have a craftsman, with an army of subordinates, which he can direct to further increase his market share, by freeing up his own time. Eventually, this craftsman does not even need to know the craft-- he just needs to know how to direct his army of subordinates.  After this point, it is no longer feasible for an individual bondsman to become a new craftsman. The door is shut. An individual cannot compete with the industrial output of an army.

Now the market has begun it's vicious cannibalistic feeding frenzy. Craftsmen seek to steal away the labor and resources of other craftsmen, to steal away their market share, and in so doing, grow faster against the tide of inflation, working against them. Some may enter into "Gentlemen's deals" not to "poach" each other's labor, since the labor is now exclusively where the skill in the actual manufacture of the craft comes from-- The craftsman is now a totally virtual entity-- managed by managers. As these virtual entities consume more and more of the market share, the bondsman becomes more and more beholden to them, as the number of sources where they can obtain vital goods diminishes, and as their own need for currency increases with the rising inflation-- intended to counter the growth of these virtual actors.

The eventual conclusion to this, is for a single entity to capture 100% of the market, and become completely immune to inflation. We know such entities as "monopolies".

Free market capitalism, when coupled with inflation, produces monopolies. There is no invisible hand in any stage but stage 1-- The manouverings of the virtual entities and consortia actively suppresses any such action.

This is why mature markets REQUIRE regulation, and things like anti-trust, and why provisions like copyright and patents must NOT be used as weapons to bar the entry to market of new competitors.

The problem, is that before the monopoly stage-- When there is an oligopoly instead-- A simple consensus between the major actors can have profound power to compel a government to action. "Do this, or we will take our business elsewhere-- You can find somebody else to provide clothes to your 500 million citizens!" Since small clothiers cannot possibly meet such demand, (and since these large virtual actors have captured such unimaginably large shares of the market) government has to capitulate to them, or be crushed with logistical failure. This forces government to have to work with these large businesses in an unfair way, in every sense of the term unfair.

This means you have to catch free market capitalism in stage 2 of its evolution, in order to regulate it effectively, and keep it from becoming a monster. However, at that stage, the free market true believers have not yet been given proof in the pudding that their system will lead to disaster, and they view such regulation as onerous. After all, they NEED to continue this path to keep their precious status in the society, in the face of the growth of the society! If there are enough of them, and they are influential enough, in anything but a dictatorship with a free market, they can circumvent the enactment of these needed regulations, and grow to become unstoppable terrors.

If you dont, then these agencies grow massively disproportionate power over the people they employ, and the governments that host their actions.

At the oligopoly stage, you have only a small handful of options.

1) Enact the regulations to neuter them anyway, regardless of their threats-- and suffer the economic downturn as the system has to reboot at stage 1, now with a huge population.

2) Try to arrange some kind of truce with limited regulations to maintain stasis quo (What the US did)

3) Throw in the towel, and allow big business to own government, and dominate all other's lives.


Option 1 leads to civil collapse and possible revolution as people's needs stop being met.
Option 2 leads to fascism, as government and corporate powers unite with common purpose.
Option 3 leads to feudalism, and plutocracy.

Unrestrained capitalism? Pick from the list above.