Slaves of the market?

[finferflu]

Well, I've recently started working in a supermarket, in order to support my studies.

Being in continuous contact with merchandise, adverts, customers, and money, makes me feel I'm somewhat in the middle of the market. Well, this supermarket, is more a grocer than anything else, so food is pretty much the center of the market, I think.

Well, I was thinking about the concept of capitalism (I'm just talking in general lines, I'm not an economist, and economy is not the subject of my studies). In Western societies they make us believe that with capitalism we have opted for freedom, where actually I feel like we have opted for the illusion of freedom. I was thinking about the case of supermarkets: yea, we are the customers, those who are always right, but in the end, we depend on supermarkets. If they all decide not to sell, we are more in trouble than them. So in the end we are virtually forced to buy stuff at the shops for the price they decide to impose, and we are on the disadvantaged side. It looks like we have given up the ability of self-reliance, and exchanged it with the concept of money.

Well everything has got its good and bad side, but being always faced with the good side, I would like to think about the bad side as well... also I think that such an idea can be expanded to pretty much the whole market, not just supermarket and food.

What do you think about it?

[kettal]

That's where competition helps.

If the supermarket down the street notices they can draw in a lot of customers by charging less for bananas, they will do it, and in all likeliness, the first supermarket will match the price. It's win-win.

[Tomosaur]

I think you'd pretty much just reiterated the core problem with capitalism :P

Capitalism was never pushed as 'freedom', it's pushed as a 'free market', meaning you are free to make money from whichever way you see fit. In theory, this is supposed to engender innovation, and push civilisation forwards. In practice however, this rarely happens, which is why we end up with monopolies. Patents and suchlike actually inhibit the 'real' capitalism. Much like Communism, it is routinely hijacked and warped into something which resembles the philosophy, but doesn't actually hold up when analysed objectively. Things like laws prohibiting certain things also inhibit true capitalism.

Many people see capitalism as inherently evil - but it is the only thing which actually seems to have worked. It has many problems, as do most theories, and since most people are likely to just accept what they are used to, it is unlikely that it will improve in the forseeable future, unless people begin to take an active interest in it and to combat it's many flaws. So, to summarise:

Capitalism:
- Is designed to create wealth, first and foremost. It doesn't have much to say about what to do with this wealth, but human nature means it normally accumulates for whoever represents the 'head'.
- Is designed to promote entrepeneurialism and innovation. This allows society to progress, and for new technologies to emerge.
- Is not inherently evil.
- Is intended to grant everybody an equal oppurtunity to create wealth and new products. This is the main falling point - since people are inclined to protect their 'intellectual property' using the law. This stops true innovation and severely handicaps the progress of society and business.

[finferflu]

Yes, but it's still them who decide the price. If they want, they can decide not to go lower in price. We are still on the loser's side, it's an apparent freedom, that's what I meant.

[Tomosaur]

Yes, but it's still them who decide the price. If they want, they can decide not to go lower in price. We are still on the loser's side, it's an apparent freedom, that's what I meant.

Consumers have more power than they realise. All economies work on a supply/demand basis. If people refuse to buy bananas - then this creates a surplus of supply. Prices lower due to this surplus, and thus demand increases - because people like low prices and bananas.

However - a company can artificially inflate prices. There are measures in place to prevent this - but one of the key methods they use is to artificially cripple their supply. When you hear of 'product shortages', be very weary. It is often only because the manufacturer has deliberately not made enough. The limited supply means prices will rise, and the end result is people see the product as lucrative and desirable, thus demand increases. Eventually the supply/demand curves will balance out, and prices will lower to a more steady level.

If you want prices to lower - the most effective way to do it is to boycott whichever product.

[rai4shu2]

Freedom and independence are not necessarily the same thing.

[taurus]

Yes, but it's still them who decide the price. If they want, they can decide not to go lower in price. We are still on the loser's side, it's an apparent freedom, that's what I meant.

That's why there are watch groups and regulations!!! If the sellers decide to jack up the price for no apparent reason, then they will get some heavy fines for gouging the comsumers...

[kettal]

That's why there are watch groups and regulations!!! If the sellers decide to jack up the price for no apparent reason, then they will get some heavy fines for gouging the comsumers...

Or I will just open up a shop selling the item cheaper, and reap all the rewards.

[finferflu]

Consumers have more power than they realise. All economies work on a supply/demand basis. If people refuse to buy bananas - then this creates a surplus of supply. Prices lower due to this surplus, and thus demand increases - because people like low prices and bananas.

However - a company can artificially inflate prices. There are measures in place to prevent this - but one of the key methods they use is to artificially cripple their supply. When you hear of 'product shortages', be very weary. It is often only because the manufacturer has deliberately not made enough. The limited supply means prices will rise, and the end result is people see the product as lucrative and desirable, thus demand increases. Eventually the supply/demand curves will balance out, and prices will lower to a more steady level.

If you want prices to lower - the most effective way to do it is to boycott whichever product.

Yes, but my point is. Could we live through a boycott? For example, if we decided to boycott the food market, how long could we live without food? Who's got, in the end, the upper hand?


Freedom and independence are not necessarily the same thing.
Well, we're getting into the philosophical world. But I do believe that freedom and independence are the same thing.



That's why there are watch groups and regulations!!! If the sellers decide to jack up the price for no apparent reason, then they will get some heavy fines for gouging the comsumers...

Yes, but I meant that they've always got the upper hand, anyways...

[taurus]

If there is only one shop in the whole town, then you are at their mercy! That's why you want to bring in more stores selling the same goods and have them battle for customers...

[kettal]

finferflu, you seem to imagine that all the bosses in the grocery industry get together every week to decide "how can we conspire against customers today?" That just doesn't happen. They all compete with each other, and they would do anything to steal customers from the competition. And the best way to do that is to keep prices low, selection and quality high.

[Praxicoide]

While I agree with many points stated by Tomosaur, I would go further.

First though, we cannot define capitalism as "evil" or not "evil" because it that does not apply, an economic system has to intent. What we can say is that if its efficient or inefficient with watever purpose we try to achieve through it.

That said, I would state that capitalism is inefficient when it comes to procuring freedom and development, in its current stage.

Capitalism mainly creates capital, not wealth. While this is usually done through production, but not necessarily. Speculative bubbles are often the result of the reproduction of capital without any new wealth generated.

Also, capitalism is concerned not with necessities, but with commodities. Necessities are the subjective component of values, and are therefore only indirectly related to the actual price and production of commodities. Necessities are produced as a side effect, but the main production of capitalism are luxuries.

As for freedom, real freedom, not nominal freedom, both positive and negative, are the ability to exteriorize our will, transform our surroundings to our purposes. In order to have this, a degree of power is necessary, and in the spacial, material world, power begins (human power, beyond the simple animal power) with economic freedom.

Perhaps it is necessary to clarify that we should not be taking positions on this issue based on our loyalties or affinities, but only towards truth. Even if "captialism is all we have", or "it's the best possible system" that shouldn't stop us from analyzing it critically and fully.

[Praxicoide]

finferflu, you seem to imagine that all the bosses in the grocery industry get together every week to decide "how can we conspire against customers today?" That just doesn't happen. They all compete with each other, and they would do anything to steal customers from the competition. And the best way to do that is to keep prices low, selection and quality high.

There is no need for it. The same way there is no "guiding hand", or customers conspiring to get the best prices, etc. The accumulation of capital and the jacking of prices occur naturally.

[finferflu]

finferflu, you seem to imagine that all the bosses in the grocery industry get together every week to decide "how can we conspire against customers today?" That just doesn't happen. They all compete with each other, and they would do anything to steal customers from the competition. And the best way to do that is to keep prices low, selection and quality high.

I don't imagine that. I only know that competition is regulated, and if somebody lowers the price more that the regulation permits, it's called unfair competition. As it has been said before, free market is not really free, so it's not free to regulate itself as it should. But I was talking about who in the end has got the power. I think that goods are more valuable than money, and the sellers have got them.


While I agree with many points stated by Tomosaur, I would go further.

First though, we cannot define capitalism as "evil" or not "evil" because it that does not apply, an economic system has to intent. What we can say is that if its efficient or inefficient with watever purpose we try to achieve through it.

That said, I would state that capitalism is inefficient when it comes to procuring freedom and development, in its current stage.

Capitalism mainly creates capital, not wealth. While this is usually done through production, but not necessarily. Speculative bubbles are often the result of the reproduction of capital without any new wealth generated.

Also, capitalism is concerned not with necessities, but with commodities. Necessities are the subjective component of values, and are therefore only indirectly related to the actual price and production of commodities. Necessities are produced as a side effect, but the main production of capitalism are luxuries.

As for freedom, real freedom, not nominal freedom, both positive and negative, are the ability to exteriorize our will, transform our surroundings to our purposes. In order to have this, a degree of power is necessary, and in the spacial, material world, power begins (human power, beyond the simple animal power) with economic freedom.

Perhaps it is necessary to clarify that we should not be taking positions on this issue based on our loyalties or affinities, but only towards truth. Even if "captialism is all we have", or "it's the best possible system" that shouldn't stop us from analyzing it critically and fully.

I think you and Tomosaur have pretty much understood my point. I actually wasn't trying to state that capitalism is evil, I was just saying that we are fed with lies when they tell us that capitalism brings freedom, because I can't see such a freedom.
And you are right saying that we should lean towards truth, and be as much objective as possible. I think that good critique brings about positive change.

[neowolf]

Yes, but my point is. Could we live through a boycott? For example, if we decided to boycott the food market, how long could we live without food? Who's got, in the end, the upper hand?


If the supermarkets were holding back food in such a way that people could not maintain a healthy level of consumption they would not last very long. They don't actually have any real power, in a situation where people need affordable food and the supermarket will not provide what it is capable of, then there is very little to prevent the people from invading the supermarket and taking what they need. The supermarket survives as long as the people feel it gives them a reasonable deal; if not, it either dies out by market competition, or by force.

[finferflu]

If the supermarkets were holding back food in such a way that people could not maintain a healthy level of consumption they would not last very long. They don't actually have any real power, in a situation where people need affordable food and the supermarket will not provide what it is capable of, then there is very little to prevent the people from invading the supermarket and taking what they need. The supermarket survives as long as the people feel it gives them a reasonable deal; if not, it either dies out by market competition, or by force.

In that way market would exist no longer. I mean in this way people would not be "playing by the rules". Obviously invading a supermarket is not a customer's strenght, in the sense that customers are not called customers anymore. I am not sure I've been clear enough, if not, tell me and I'll try to explain better.

[scrooge_74]

That's where competition helps.

If the supermarket down the street notices they can draw in a lot of customers by charging less for bananas, they will do it, and in all likeliness, the first supermarket will match the price. It's win-win.

But also the supermarket down the street can agree with the first one on what prices to set, and happens

[weasel fierce]

is this where I break out the "wage slavery" rhetoric ? :)

[DarkOx]

But also the supermarket down the street can agree with the first one on what prices to set, and happens

Actually, they can't, at least where I live in Canada. That's conspiracy in restraint of trade, and thus illegal. If companies are getting away with this, it says more about your justice rather than your economic system.

[Praxicoide]

I'm all lost in the supermarket, I can no longer shop happily

[scrooge_74]

Actually, they can't, at least where I live in Canada. That's conspiracy in restraint of trade, and thus illegal. If companies are getting away with this, it says more about your justice rather than your economic system.

Also here is illegal, but usually they have friends in good places

[Hex_Mandos]

Supermarkets aren't too bad. Think of natural monopolies. Think about trains, or electricity and natural gas providers. Sure, you CAN build two parallel rail lines, and let passengers decide which to use... but it'd be a terribly inefficient system, and both rail companies would likely lose money until one of them folded. There's no free market there, the first one to build a rail line wins. And, of course, having a monopoly is pretty bad news: they can and will scam users as much as possible.

So, in some cases (like naturally occuring monopolies), state ownership makes sense.

[finferflu]

Supermarkets aren't too bad. Think of natural monopolies. Think about trains, or electricity and natural gas providers. Sure, you CAN build two parallel rail lines, and let passengers decide which to use... but it'd be a terribly inefficient system, and both rail companies would likely lose money until one of them folded. There's no free market there, the first one to build a rail line wins. And, of course, having a monopoly is pretty bad news: they can and will scam users as much as possible.

So, in some cases (like naturally occuring monopolies), state ownership makes sense.

I don't want to get off topic, but the State is meant to protect people, and not to exploit them, so I don't consider the State as part of the market. At least not ideally, and if it turns out to be so, I just assume that something is wrong.

[maniac_X]

Consumers have more power than they realise. All economies work on a supply/demand basis. If people refuse to buy bananas - then this creates a surplus of supply. Prices lower due to this surplus, and thus demand increases - because people like low prices and bananas.

This is true to a point. While people can "refuse" to buy to bring prices down, this only works until the production end adjusts and can reasonbly force prices back up. Also, getting enough people to "refuse" is difficult because human nature comes into play and people are generally weak and cave in before such refusals can be effective as a whole. People like convenience and that might be a result of lazyness or maybe the I-have-to-have-it-now mentality.

[Hex_Mandos]

I don't want to get off topic, but the State is meant to protect people, and not to exploit them, so I don't consider the State as part of the market. At least not ideally, and if it turns out to be so, I just assume that something is wrong.

Oh, but the state IS a part of the market. The state provides services (like security and education), and demands goods, services, workforce and natural resources. The state is necessarily a player in any market.