Chinese Factory Workers Riot.

[K. A. Pital]

Depends on conditions, though obviously the freer the investment and the less special interests politics that might undermine its effectiveness, the quicker a country will be able to adapt. More to the point: there's little reason to suppose a priori that the developed country will be inherently slower to make adjustments and to revise the direction of its investments than the developing country.

What if revisions are simply not helping? What if it is outcompeted on an absolute level, much like a private company which gets outcompeted and then bankrupts itself?

The agricultural corporations are certainly growing more powerful, though farmers were well-organized long before then.

You're saying the EU-US agriculture subsidies were lobbied before the agricultural sector was centralized by agricorps? I'll have to check that.

I don't think that oligopoly necessarily leads to oligarchy - just because you have a few corporations in a position of dominance of a given sector of the economy does not mean that you have a handful of people who do so; moreover even if such a scenario is in place doesn't mean that this will translate to political power as well.

Oligarchy can include lots of people in auxiliary positions. It is not necessarily a rule by a cabal of less than ten people. Even hundreds or thousands would still constitute an oligarchy, because their power flows from wealth and position of the corporations. They are an uncontrollable minority with enormous power on hand.

Personally, I'd rather have a model for a replacement system before replacing the current order and then working on the fly - the alternative is to risk losing what semblance of rule of law is in place. And that's assuming that a fundamentally different model can even be made to work at all (given current knowledge and technology, at least). After all, economies of scale are a bitch to get around.

Making grand economic experiments is no easy task. Mustering enough strength to overcome the current system's inherent self-preservation mechanisms and instincts wouldn't be easy either. I am one of those people who does not support the status quo by default, because the status quo offends my moral senses, I find it intolerable. Any change is acceptable, big or small, gradual or radical, so as long as the goal is anything BUT the current status-quo. I'm not a conservative at heart. The very idea of conservatism, conserving something, is repulsive.

[Lord Zentei]

Depends on conditions, though obviously the freer the investment and the less special interests politics that might undermine its effectiveness, the quicker a country will be able to adapt. More to the point: there's little reason to suppose a priori that the developed country will be inherently slower to make adjustments and to revise the direction of its investments than the developing country.

What if revisions are simply not helping? What if it is outcompeted on an absolute level, much like a private company which gets outcompeted and then bankrupts itself?

Absolute advantages don't matter for the purposes of benefits from trade. As for the revisions not helping, obviously any economic reform which doesn't do its job will be bad, but that's always the case, trade or no trade.

I don't think that oligopoly necessarily leads to oligarchy - just because you have a few corporations in a position of dominance of a given sector of the economy does not mean that you have a handful of people who do so; moreover even if such a scenario is in place doesn't mean that this will translate to political power as well.

Oligarchy can include lots of people in auxiliary positions. It is not necessarily a rule by a cabal of less than ten people. Even hundreds or thousands would still constitute an oligarchy, because their power flows from wealth and position of the corporations. They are an uncontrollable minority with enormous power on hand.

Their power does not automatically exceed all control simply because they're members of an oligopoly. There are degrees of power any group can have, given competition. Moreso if you have multiple industries.

Besides, as I pointed out earlier, economies of scale would in many cases prevent those industries from working at all if you were to prohibit industries to become oligopolistic. The result would be a reduction in the living standards of the people.

Personally, I'd rather have a model for a replacement system before replacing the current order and then working on the fly - the alternative is to risk losing what semblance of rule of law is in place. And that's assuming that a fundamentally different model can even be made to work at all (given current knowledge and technology, at least). After all, economies of scale are a bitch to get around.

Making grand economic experiments is no easy task. Mustering enough strength to overcome the current system's inherent self-preservation mechanisms and instincts wouldn't be easy either. I am one of those people who does not support the status quo by default, because the status quo offends my moral senses, I find it intolerable. Any change is acceptable, big or small, gradual or radical, so as long as the goal is anything BUT the current status-quo. I'm not a conservative at heart. The very idea of conservatism, conserving something, is repulsive.

Well, in that case, I'm afraid that we have to disagree. In my view, conservatism is only as bad as that which it seeks to conserve, and change is only as good as that which it seeks to make things into. In each case, one should choose the less bad option (I say "less bad", because no option is perfect).

[K. A. Pital]

Conservatism is inherently flawed because it seeks to combat change on principle. Moral norms may change - indeed, "conserving" slavery was thought to be rather acceptable by many people at the time. Conserving apartheid? Discrimination against women? Racial and sexual minorities?

The dominant point of view may very well be "that is okay".

Conservatism's problem is that it relies on the past, and determines what is good and what is not by past values. This is... problematic.

[Lord Zentei]

OK, that makes more sense. Conserving things simply on principle doesn't make sense because it relies on the appeal to tradition fallacy. But my point was that change for the sake of change, i.e. change on principle doesn't make sense either; it's the flip side of the same fallacy.

Unless you're talking about conserving nature or historic buildings or something of that sort - there I can see a point.