This is a true story but forgive me for my absence of links.
Way back when our contries were still young and the early banks were forming, an incident took place.
One of the banks said in a news paper that one of their competitor banks was going bankrupt.
This was however a lie.
The next day everyone took all their money out of that bank for fear of losing it and the bank actually went bankrupt.
This is an example of a major flaw in a free market system. Misinformation and slander allows the level of competition between banks go from “providing the best service” to “attacking and hurting the competition directly”
This also brings to light the fact that companies invest money with the point in mind to make their competitors make less money. (for making more money themselves).
Of coarse slander like this is now highly illegal, especially amongst banks, but it still happens in many other areas. (coke and pepsi for example).
How is a free market suppose to maintain perfect efficiency if it destroys itself from within. The system cannot function as a group because they weaken eachother.
I see a comical paralell in the U.S presidential race (the slander race).
The presidential race is this “who has the best mass appeal, but more importantly who can spend the most money on television adds”
I don’t think that this criticism is one that can only apply to capitalism. I think this sort of thing could happen anywhere there’s corruption. Ans as we all know, corruption is just as prevalent, or more so in communist and socialist societies as it is in capitalist ones. Let’s all just argue against corruption per se.
Yet again, you’re showing your complete lack of understanding of what the word ‘capitalism’ means. Cry more. Anyway, this shows a lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the newspaper and lack of integrity on the part of the bank. In a free market these two businesses would surely lose a lot of credibility and reputation for pulling a stunt like this.
now that you’re done insulting me how about saying something intelligent.
yet it remains an occurance. and no amount of lost credibility would have changed that. There is no way to prevent this from happening in a free markert.
Yet again, you’re showing a complete lack of respect which causes you to make half assed objections like “well they would lose credibility”
big deal. that doesn’t fix the problem.
Get out of my damn threads if you don’t want to be rational while being insulting
But they’re controlled by someone. That someone is likely to be corrupt. Business moves are made the same regardless of who’s name is on the title. Whoever it is surely has his own idea of efficiency. I’m sure that others have other ideas about it. No matter what someone gets screwed. I really don’t think it’s just in capitalism.
why do peopl;e become corrupt? especially in the case i pointed out…
They want money.
Because someone owns the bank, if that bank were to make money, so would the person.
In communism the “banks” would not be working for themselves, but for the government. there would be no owner. there would be no opportunity for corrupt practices to ruin business because there would be no competition and no one would be directly benifiting by means of the corruption.
The peope own the government and the government works for the people. if the government owns all the banks and operats them for the people, the people are the owners and the people are the benificiaries.
Think of the communist government as the bigger, more corrupt bank. It hides behind the scenes and takes money from the people’s bank. It wont even admit that it’s a bank it’s so corrupt!
I’m being extremely rational. I’m pointing out that you’re attributing things to capitalism that cannot rationally be blamed on capitalism. There is no way to prevent bad people from doing bad things in any political or economic system. What i’m saying is that in a free market there would be more businesses competing with each other and more resources would be devoted to watchdog groups of all sorts so a free market is the best sort of system to point out these kinds of problems so that people know who to avoid.
“Everything owns everything” is the same thing as “nobody owns anything”.