: 2;the final cause of any economic crisis is the tendancy of industrial production to extend production to the absolute consumptive power of society, in contradiction with the restricted consumption of the masses.This is a self levelling mechanism, and in a free market something which would serve to mediate the 'power' of companies. Its doesnt in state made monopolies.
: 3:Wages are forced downwards, to make more profits. this does cause econpomic crises. We can see this in America, where wages have been forced back down to 70's levels.
yet 90s US family can buy more material, better technology and more leisure time than thei 70s counterparts. (UN)
: 1:In 19th C. Britain workers bought bread mixed with Chalk, ALum, white lead I seem to recall, because it was all they could afford.
I assume this was better than nothing -alhough you would find me in agreement with a negative view of how the 'landed gentry' got their land - but not with turfing their great grandson off it under the banner 'redress'
: 2:the dangers may come in work practices, many workers in the unregulated market of the 19th C. were maimed and mutilated by unsafe work practise, the goods were safe though.
Likewise injury and disease in pre-industrial Britain was even more rife, there never was a garden of pre technological eden.
: 3;Some unscrupulous types would try and make a quick buck throughdeception and substandard goods.
They always will. Buyer beware, or would you heap all in the same hole for the sake of a few?
: Not companies, capitalists, the very wealthy- for example at the last election over half the Labour party's finances for the campiagn (Some 11 million £'s) came from about 50 millionaires.
Ah, I am misunderstanding. Individual power brokers, I can believe that. Are the public so easily duped though?
: Erm, immigration laws that make it illegal for foriegners to work, some countries sign deals to get firms to make sure some or all of the jobs in a firm are recruited locally, and investment fgoes into the local community, as a way of getting a right of access. in a stateless society capitalists would open and close factories wherever they wanted, without having to pay taxation to help train the workforce, or invest in the social infrastraucture...
They would find it in there interest to invest in people if they intend tmaking anything other than simple products. If they dont another company will. The main reason many companies dont do this is the statist premise that 'that sort of thing' has to be done by govt because the 'silly little people' could never arrange something *that* big and difficult themselves. Ofcourse they could, and would.
: Otherwise the poor come and wreck their factories for them, and have a wee revolution.
And leave the entire country in ruins...hmm, Im not sure thats a good exmaple of 'sekf interest'
: Yes, they do those things, but in pursuant of point one above- managing labour relations,and also ensuring that one company cannot out compete another by lowering standards to a socially disruptive degree...
well, I have thought of it as a protection racket. Rob peter to pay paul so that paul doesnt get angry. peter is the producer though, and the robber is the legislative ruling class. No one some peters are trying to influence the ruling 'class'.
I would suggest that companies have to compete for lbor as much as the other way round. Who would work for bademploy plc when goodemploy plc offers better conditions. There were marked examples during the industrial revolution - better employers made better products made better wealth.
: Then those private banks would have a hell of a lot of power. Plus, who's to stop forgery without a state- legal tender goes out the window...
The same as stops forgery now, except criminal law is civil (private) law as per link.
: No, capitalists are the very wealthy who own teh means of production, and when the basic war between them economically escalates into real war, they deploy the state- I suppose in an anacrgho capitalist world they'd use mercenaries...
The idea that they must destroy eachother is a fallacy. It isnt win or die - thats the zero sum game.
: No- if its found to be dangerous to use unsafe machinary (dangerous from the capitalists position vis a vis revolution) then they need to stop using said machinary. However, they cannot stop using it, so long as their competitors may have an edge from using it while they don't- hence the state is needed to ensure equality of safety regulation and the like...
As I have described, employers need to compete for employees as much as any other.
