If there is no exchange or trade, every country has to reinvent the wheel on its own. Every country has to come up with its own inventions and completely relive all that has been lived by other countries like The United Kingdom. Imagine every country inventing a new computer on its own. This is what happens if there is no exchange.Exchange and trade makes development faster, brings in technology, and leverages the economies of scale. Exchange doesn’t have geographical boundaries, but if not regulated could bring severe disadvantage to certain sections of the society.
So, all exchange and trade should be regulated to protect the domestic companies. It should only be done to protect them from unfair competition where companies get cheaply manufactured goods inside, but not to protect them from competition. Because with competition you will pursue for the best, and people will have more choices. Choice itself is a big advantage for people. A car manufacturer gets each of his parts from different countries and manufactures the best possible car at the cheapest possible price. Imagine trying to do this in one country, it is never possible because different countries have different strengths and one has to leverage it. But to what extent?
Exchange simply makes the whole world a market which has its own advantages and disadvantages. Now imagine on the contrary your markets are protected completely. Probably, your domestic businesses will be well protected, but will that result in prosperity of the country. What is it that allows the domestic businesses to prosper when protected, but doesn’t allow them when the markets are open. The only thing is unfair competition. But, remember businesses need capital to grow. It is not that businesses will not grow if you’re protected, but probably you will not gain capital quickly which means you may not grow quickly.
It is like gambling, people like to share but to their advantage. How much you regulate them from sharing or exploiting and at the same time you play for your development and advantage is what the game is all about.
A fair capitalism never harms anybody. I definitely agree with some of the views that Capitalism is completely consumeristic, and always tries to increase your consumeristic potential. People say Capitalism brings in inequality, and we’re not doing good with accumulation of wealth and inheriting wealth.
I say, we’re born with inequality. Two people born in the same family and riches still have differences in beauty, intelligence, and a lot others. But, I believe we’re born unequal because we’re not supposed to use them but we’re supposed to get detached from them. This is philosophical, and you can’t make the whole country follow it.
Capitalism succeeds because it is inherent in every animal on this earth. Capitalism is nothing but selfishness and selfishness is deep inside every person unless you’re a high end thinker. Socialism is a midway emotional solution. Think about it!!
Forgive my typos as I wrote this in a hurry… I will surely correct it.
One thought on “Protect from unfair competition, but not from healthy competition”
Capitalism is a monster that must be constantly kept in check by the government through regulation and progressive taxation. Unfortunately, in the US it has actually bought the government and is running amuck and eroding the lives of 95% of the population.
There is no such thing as fair capitalism. If you are the son of a blue collar worker, no amount of hard work and individual merit will ever bring you to the level of someone who is the son of a CEO (maybe in 0.001% of the cases, but that is not enough to even mention).
Competition in modern society is very different from competition by animals in nature. In nature, one animal defeats another because it is stronger, healthier, smarter, or whatever. It’s truly merit based.
In human society, merit is one of the least important factors. It matters more what family you were born in, what education you were able to afford, what connections have, were you at the right time at the right place. And then, the lucky ones are rewarded disproportionately higher. For example, Justin Bieber has 100 million dollars at age 17, which is 1000 times the amount the average american will save in a lifetime. Is he really 1000 times more talented?
I don’t see how anyone can support a system which rewards certain individuals obscenely highly, so they can go squander it while the rest can’t afford basic necessities.
Some inequality is natural and unavoidable. But uncontrolled capitalism results in mind-blowing inequality which only gets worse with time. The masses must realize that it is their right and their best interest to limit inequality through heavy taxation, regulation, whatever. Personal wealth should be limited to a few million dollars – why on earth would anyone need more?
It makes me want to throw up when someone says that it’s the capitalist’s money, the government doesn’t have the right to take it. Are you telling that Bill Gates would have made his money without the intellectual property laws enforced by the government, the computer science research and know-how paid for by the government, financial regulations by the government, and police protection by the government? Every great success is actually the fruit of an entire community and not one individual. Bill Gates is a great guy who realizes that and he is giving back to the community huge amounts in charity. But that doesn’t apply to the vast majority of capitalist goons, many of which have even used illegal practices to get rich (think of the wall street bunch) and claim the moral high ground by saying they worked hard for it.
I used to believe in capitalism when I was young and didn’t yet know how it really works.
Comments are closed.