Why would Google want to put the United States at such a disadvatage?
Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good. --Blum
1) Wal-Mart offers huge benefits to consumers, who can make ends meet (or work less hours) because of the substantial savings. Wal Mart employees are among the happiest and most satisfied in their economic stratum.
2) How is a trading partner an economic threat? China represents billions of consumers to buy American products and services.
3) If you think China is a military threat, you are paying too much attention to GOP propaganda. China's biggest problem is modernizing China without causing revolution. China has been a loyal and valuable trading partner for the US for decades, and the typical Chinese or American person has no desire for war whatsoever.
4) Capitalism is the accidental synchronization of peoples' needs and wants in a way that results in the most overall freedom and the most overall prosperity (of any system yet discovered by mankind). Are you seriously under the impression that "worst motives" don't exist in other economic systems? Sorry but I don't look at a postal or DMV clerk and admire their lofty motives.
I believe instead that many economic phenomena offer temporary advantages at the expense of far greater long-term disadvantages. A trivial example would be the recent housing bubble. We had a certain credit environment which led to people buying a lot of homes, which appeared to lead to great prosperity, and all was well until the bubble burst.
In the case of Wal-Mart, my personal and unfounded opinion is that it is a symptom of American (and by this I include Canada) economic decline. It's all very nice now, but as the factories close and the jobs dry up, they are not being replaced. China's billions of consumers might buy iPhones. Maybe. But if they do, how many software designers are needed in California?
That being said, I am not agitating for a change from Capitalism or that we close Wal-Mart. I was responding to a comment asking why Google might do something to disadvantage America. My point was that corporations do things to disadvantage nations all the time. Does this mean we should get rid of Capitalism? I'm not saying that. Does this mean that Capitalism overall is harmful? I'm not saying that either. I think Wal-Mart is an example of something harmful that corporations do, that's all.
The planners did not anticipate the self-reenforcing nature of the small price increases their machinations were causing, and before long boom, it burst and prices went down a lot.
Surely bubbles existed before central banking and affordable housing policies, but bad planning appears to make them bigger/worse than would otherwise be possible. It may also lead to greater average stability, who knows.
I think it's an interesting thought experiment to consider what would be a capitalist utopia. Literature is full of socialist style utopias, but it's harder to imagine one under capitalism.
If WalMart moves us further from such a utopia, what does the utopia look like? Is it mom 'n pop shops everywhere and extremely expensive search costs and high markup?
I find myself thinking that a capitalist utopia would have a high percentage of workers as freelancers and there would be lots of ongoing learning, and one might decide to change careers far later in life, etc.
To me Wal-Mart helps to usher in that era by freeing up lots of capital that was previously not all that productive (with a lot of fat added to the supply chain) which can now be used for other, higher, more utopian purposes.
You're assuming that having lots of little stores as opposed to one big chain means high markup. It doesn't have to. Walmart has extremely high markup in certain areas.
Personally I think a capitalist "utopia" would indeed consist of countless small companies all competing on equal footing with each other. The enabling factor would be instant communications and robotic production to keep costs down. Big companies damage the market because they move closer to monopolies. Imagine trying to get into the general retail space today!
Interesting thoughts on the capitalist utopia. I don't really have a strong intuition about it one way or another.
Wal-Mart shipped billions to America's greatest economic and military threat because - drumroll - people demanded it! The Wal-Mart-ification of America can squarely be blamed on Americans. Wal-Mart is giving the general public what it wants, and the general public wants more cheap crap made in other countries.
Throughout the '90s their big marketing point was "Buy American."
Looks like they have tried it both ways and have evidence for what the people want.
[1] Though to be fair, people not only wouldn't like but wouldn't accept paying what it would cost to make the goods in america.
You seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that in an economic exchange, one party is a winner, while the other is a loser.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In any voluntary transaction, both parties will improve their situation -- else they would not have entered into the transaction voluntarily.
Aggregate that from the micro scale to whole nations, and you'll see that it's perfectly possible -- in fact, if the market is free, a certainty -- that both nations will be better off. It's not a zero-sum game.
And if you're worried about the military, consider the words of Frederic Bastiat, who said, "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will."
Ah, the idealist argument. "Fred is doing it, so it must be good for Fred." I proses that instead: In any voluntary transaction, both parties BELIEVE they will improve their situation -- else they would not have entered into the transaction voluntarily.
In the case where the parties to a transaction are organizations of individuals, the circumstances are murkier still: In any voluntary transaction conducted by individuals on behalf of a group, both individuals believe they will improve their personal situation -- else they would not have entered their group into the transaction voluntarily.
This is why you have HP's CEO voluntarily defrauding HP. I doubt you'd argue that HP entered into a transaction with his mistress because both HP and the mistress improved their situation?
Your example is fatally flawed. The transactions I assume you're referring to -- the misrepresented dining expenses -- are transactions between HP and the restaurant, with Hurd acting as HP's agent. Since Hurd acted fraudulently, it was -- by definition -- not a voluntary transaction. Fraud is the commission of force, and thus cannot be voluntary.
both parties BELIEVE they will improve their situation
Of course. And that's the best that we can do. I'd urge you to read Human Action, by Mises, where this problem is addressed quite completely.
The thing is, only the participants themselves can truly know what their goals are, so there is no one in a position to gainsay. Indeed, sometimes the real motivation isn't even known to the individual himself. The best that we can do is to assume that each person is acting in his own self interest.
The only alternative is to have some sort of Big Brother vetting every transaction, but there's no reason to believe that BB would do any better, and there's every reason to believe that it would be far worse.
In that case, your entire argument is tautological. Two parties entering into a transaction both benefit. How do we know? Because they entered into it, so it must be good for them. How do we test this supposition? We can't, because there is no way to accumulate a list of voluntary transactions and see whether the parties benefitted or not.
By the same token, we can argue that anyone taking a decision benefits. How do we know? because they took a decision. Junkies benefit from heroin. Consumers benefit from sub-prime debt. Lending institutions benefitted from investing in junk bonds. I benefit from spending time at work arguing this point with you.
I am going to go my way and leave you to go yours. If you believe that anything two nations do voluntarily is automatically good for both of them, who am I to undermine your faith?
That said, both nations are still better off working together.
It's not just 'shipping billions of dollars'. It's getting tangible things in return. In fact, we're hardly 'shipping' them anything. We mail them slips of paper -- or even more commonly and abstractly, we move some symbols around in a ledger -- and then they're really shipping us real stuff. Who's winning that trade?
Consider the case of a shareholder invested in a company behaving in anti-competitive behavior that negatively effects the market as a whole. Now suppose the same shareholder owns many stocks across the market. This is clearly a loss for the shareholder, and a win for the company only. That's what I was trying to express.
Erm, what? This seems contradictory on its face. The shareholder's only interest in a company is its stock performance, be it stock price or dividend payments. What sort of tendencies are you thinking of, here?
I think this is where you and he differ.
For instance, I'm a Microsoft shareholder. (2 shares, but still...) Many Microsoft decisions since the mid-90s (when I first started holding MSFT) have made life overall worse for me, even if they may have increased the value of the stock I held.
That has nothing to do with your being a shareholder.
If Google refuses to compromise or negotiate, and acts against the telcos, they are in effect acting against their own interest. If they co-operate with the telcos, everyone wins.
My interpretation of the "deal" with Verizon, is that Verizon can't discriminate against one companies traffic over another, of a similar type.
The only obligation a corporation has to its shareholders is to maximize the funds it is given.