QUOTE(Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Jun 16 2009, 12:20 PM) [snapback]1508112[/snapback]
That's not entirely true. Anyone who owns a toaster from the 1980s will testify that the best way for companies to make money is not by making the best products.
Were the best toasters in the 1980s the least popular? Otherwise, I don't see your point. All technology sucks when it's new, by our standards.
My parents gave me an ugly old white toaster and kettle when I moved out for the first time. I still use them, but ever summer without fail, my parents have a shiny new aluminium one...the last one broke, you see. But this one was only half the price of my one!
Sounds like a good argument for the effectiveness of the invisible hand. Cheap goods break quickly; that's why their crummy breaking toasters aren't twice the price of your reliable toaster.
companies don't strive to give the best to people, even on the mundane end of the scale.
If they want to succeed, they do. Indeed, there are some companies that scam you and try to get away with highway robbery price wise, but those are never the notably successful firms. Consider, for instance, McDonalds. Why did they bother putting in McCafe if consumer demand is irrelevant to them? They were being condemed as unhealthy, and tried to change what they offer.
De Beers, Executive Outcomes, international tobacco, Fannie and Freddie, even WAL-MART abuse their positions at the head of markets.
Purchasing conflict diamonds is harldy something either hand can stop, if your referring to Executive Outcomes supposed securing of resources in the third world, you might as well just referrence the Mafia, given that such actions are hardly the epitome of the free market, I don't know what your beef with International Tobacco is, Fannie and Freddie abused governemnt subsidies, so that's more of an argument against economic interventionism, and I don't know what your beef with Wal-mart is, either.
To say nothing of the Association Internationale Africaine, a company so evil, unregulated and bent on profit that it earned a mention in a Billy Joel song...
Weren't they owned by the Belgian Government?
even down to rogue tradesmen and building contractors
Excessive deregulation leads to a world of social darwinism and eventually imposition of an unbreakable status quo wherein might makes right, nepotism is a powerful influence and there is little to stop a completely unfair distribution of wealth, whether based on socialist or theoretical supercapitalist definitions.
There is no economic pie. Other people being richer doesn't make everyone else poorer. Perhaps you'd like to give me a crash course on how, should Wal-Mart or WeHuffKittens Inc. start making more money or be deregulated, everyones salary would decrease or prices would raise?