Unregulated capitalism will lead to monopolies, but when capitalism was first developing, it was not a conscious choice to try to turn everything into monopolies, because people didn’t have that level of foresight.
Later, when people really started thinking about economics, capitalist thinkers realised this danger and that it had to be avoided for capitalism to be useful.
His claim was universal though - it wasn’t about unrestricted, unregulated capitalism, it was about all forms.
I don’t necessarily agree with you that the original capitalist thinkers just didn’t think far enough ahead to understand how their system would result in monopolies. That seems extremely generous of you and I don’t buy it. However it’s utterly moot. If they didn’t see it doesn’t change the fact that it does inevitably happen. So that’s not even an argument worth having.
As for your other argument, no still true. Even in systems that have tried to patch the gaping holes and prop up the collapsing frame of capitalism monopolies still inevitably form. Look around. Most of the biggest monopolistic companies of today come from nations that tried to regulate monopolies and failed utterly. They didn’t fail because they were so incredibly corrupt themselves, they failed because capitalism is a corrupting influence. It naturally leads toward corruption that destroys all regulation. That’s why any form of regulated capitalism is doomed to fail.
Hell the mere fact that regulated capitalism even exists in any form is itself proof that capitalism results in monopoly isn’t it? Otherwise why the need for the regulations?
This only makes sense if you think that regulated capitalism doesn’t qualify as capitalism, but in that case who cares?
What are the awful monopolistic companies in Sweden and Germany and Spain? Are they “not capitalist”, even though they have free enterprise, stick markets, lending and investment banks and floating currencies? Then your and OP’s statements about capitalism are weird and irrelevant.
Unregulated capitalism will lead to monopolies, but when capitalism was first developing, it was not a conscious choice to try to turn everything into monopolies, because people didn’t have that level of foresight.
Later, when people really started thinking about economics, capitalist thinkers realised this danger and that it had to be avoided for capitalism to be useful.
His claim was universal though - it wasn’t about unrestricted, unregulated capitalism, it was about all forms.
I don’t necessarily agree with you that the original capitalist thinkers just didn’t think far enough ahead to understand how their system would result in monopolies. That seems extremely generous of you and I don’t buy it. However it’s utterly moot. If they didn’t see it doesn’t change the fact that it does inevitably happen. So that’s not even an argument worth having.
As for your other argument, no still true. Even in systems that have tried to patch the gaping holes and prop up the collapsing frame of capitalism monopolies still inevitably form. Look around. Most of the biggest monopolistic companies of today come from nations that tried to regulate monopolies and failed utterly. They didn’t fail because they were so incredibly corrupt themselves, they failed because capitalism is a corrupting influence. It naturally leads toward corruption that destroys all regulation. That’s why any form of regulated capitalism is doomed to fail.
Hell the mere fact that regulated capitalism even exists in any form is itself proof that capitalism results in monopoly isn’t it? Otherwise why the need for the regulations?
This only makes sense if you think that regulated capitalism doesn’t qualify as capitalism, but in that case who cares?
What are the awful monopolistic companies in Sweden and Germany and Spain? Are they “not capitalist”, even though they have free enterprise, stick markets, lending and investment banks and floating currencies? Then your and OP’s statements about capitalism are weird and irrelevant.