: It also is the means by which workers lose their jobs, their homes, and their communities...which wouldnt exist without the initial expansion. if companies were magically kept at the non-expansion level (so as to avoid cycles) then those jobs would not be gained in the first place, and thus would not be lost
: Through advances in tech, as noted in my cited website...
Which is part of wealth creation, not an aside to it.
: 1:It was all they could afford, what is to stop teh poor in anarcho-capitalism having to eat substandard food if it is all they can afford.
Nothing, except themselves becoming less poor. Who owes it to whom?
: Erm, non-sequiter, what is to stop unscrupulous employers lowering working conditions, if there is no state to prevent this? the fact that it once happened, and required the state to stop it, is suffice evidence to suggest that it could happen again...
What stopped it in most employers was competition for employees. Controls are the political equivalent of 'goal hanging' in football.
: Except in teh pharmaceuticals field, the buyer can obnly beware if they have a chemistry lab and an MSc.
Or go to a private doctor, body for advice. You do when you have a car fixed - likewise a Dr. The Drs interest is in best advice, bad advide = bad repuation - quick exit.
: Its standard political practise in most western countries, the media, owned by said power broklers, just doesn't focus on it...neither do the mainstream parties...
The media, if so controlled, is freakishly anti-business though. I dont recall the last time I saw a tabloid without reference to 'fat cats', 'greedy businessman...' etc.
: : 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'.
: Partly thats what it is, they need this state to maintain society- and certainly thats how Shaw framed it.
So indeed, the state created the monsters deliberatley by refusing to seperate economics from state, as supposedly was done with religiona nd state.
: And plenty of examples, then as now, of scab employers making good profits from dangerous practise. As I noted to Joel:
: 1:Geographical, cultural difficulties constrict teh jobs market for most workers.
: 2:Employers have the advantage of extreme poverty as an inducement to work.
: 3:The shared interest of employers to force wages down where they can.
In each case I can think of several legislations designed to prevent such - none appear to work very well. because of incompetent enforcement? Or perhaps because its wrong in principle.
: So basically, the rich will be able to take anyone to court whom they accuse, but the very rich could forge their own money, and hold off the courts for years with procedings, etc. you'd never have an agreed currency...
Competition between currencies....interesting.
: No, but eventually, as the rate of profit falls, they must expand their consumer base, and open new markets, hence where war comes in. Production is limitless, consumption is limited.
Self levelling in a free market.
