How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies? Isn't it obvious that the bigger player in a market can wreck any challenger even by selling at a loss?
>>73601496
>How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies?
Why do statists allow government to have full-blown monopolies if they're so worried about monopolies in the first place?
>>73601496
Picture made me chuckle. And to answer your bait, no the cheaper product will still sell. It also allows smaller companies to sell the same product to the larger ones at a profit.
>>73601574
the govement should act in the interest of the people, in theory, with corporations no such oath exists
I'd imagine they don't see it as an issue. They'd expect the monopoly to eventually lose out to more dynamic competitors over time, even if it managed to crush competition initially.
>>73601727
I didn't ask that.
I asked why statists are okay with government having monopolies while complaining about corporate monopolies.
How can you legitimately complain about monopoly while supporting state monopoly on force/law/military?
>>73601496
Legal and judicial system must be overhauled if competition among businesses is to be held most dear. This would help prevent, or slow down, the rise of monopolies.
>>73601949
>state monopoly on force/law/military
I really hope you aren't one of those types who would advocate for private military and police. The potential for abuse is astounding.
>>73602059
>The potential for abuse is astounding.
No more so than "public" police/military.
Don't know why you fools think that state-run cops are less prone to corruption than private police.
>>73601496
Do you have any evidence for monopolies?
And how are you defining monopoly?
If I'm the largest producer of horse porn at 8% of the horse porn market, am I a monopoly?
What if I'm the largest of producer of horse porn with blond girls at 60% of the blond hair girl horse porn market?
What about the substitutes for horse porn? Surely if I monopolize the horse porn market and start charging outrageous prices, some people who would view my horse porn would switch to donkey or even dog porn.
I'm really curious as to how you define monopoly.
>>73602382
They're less prone to abuse because when you make things "for profit", you give them numerous more reasons to be abusive. If something doesn't make money, you disregard it. The government doesn't have any concern with making money, so it can set out to achieve it's goals without that being a concern.
>>73601496
>libertarians
>roads
Pick one
>>73602610
>The government doesn't have any concern with making money
>>73602610
>The government doesn't have any concern with making money
Nice. It's good to see complete morons on /pol/.
I know it's the britshit and all, but have a look-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
"Government doesn't care about making money" lol.
>>73602854
Other than taxing people, of course. It isn't their concern to turn a profit.
Not a libertarian, but most people really overestimate the likelihood of monopolies without government intervention.
The efficient financial market of the US make it all but impossible.
The idea in economics is that a market with a high fixed cost to enter will become a natural monopoly (or as you describe, Capital=fixed cost).
Most people forget that in the long run these costs ultimately are very variable because of efficient financial markets. If there is a monopoly in some industry, then there will be profit incentive and with the vast size of financial markets with investors looking for profit, they will be able to fund a competitor if there is profit in the industry. Wall street is basically a democracy, where small investors aggregate to look for profit and ultimately expand competition where there might not be any.
>>73602710
>contractors
retard
>>73602977
>He says as politicians comprise one of the richest classes in the U.S.
>>73601496
Libertarianism isn't anarcho-capitalism. The state should sometimes step in, such as to break up a monopoly, but that doesn't mean the state should actively prop up dying industries and inflict devastating taxes and tariffs on other bussinesses.
>>73602059
and the actual abuse of the monopoly is even worse
(ruby ridge and shiet)
>>73603048
it's easy to be inefficient with funds, but very difficult to extract money from people other than through taxes
>>73603048
Because they more or less get paid by interested parties to legislate in their favor. Which is a shame, really. Not to mention that many politicians were already born into upper class families.
>>73603048
>>73602977
Or in a way that uses less meme arrows; the people that comprise the government are not necessarily of greater character than their private-sector counterparts. Profit is always on an individual basis, and doesn't change if that individual belongs to a corporation or the government.
The key difference is that corporations must derive their income more or less voluntarily whereas the government can take it through force; and just as the market attracts people best capable of satisfying customers, government tends to attract people best capable of theft (liars and criminals).
>>73603411
the corporation as an institution has the prime goal to turn a profit and enrich shareholders / owners, this is not true for the government
>>73603306
>Because they more or less get paid by interested parties to legislate in their favor.
Which is exactly why "The government doesn't have any concern with making money" is a ridiculous statement. The government "wants" nothing; the people comprising it very much want profit.
>>73603149
Nope, in lolbertarian utopia, govierment just take care of justice, army and police
>>73603251
I love how statists talk about corporations and monopolies and abuse and all that jazz.
I think to myself...
>WWI
>WWII
>Vietnam
>Waco
>US Civil War
Yeah OKAY. Tell me more about evil corporations.
>>73603562
See
>>73603618
People do not become moral angels the moment they get elected. In fact, the qualities necessary in order to get elected -- manipulation, backroom dealing, and the promises of goodies at the public's expense -- reward those with no morals.
>>73601496
Monopolies do happen, and they aren't healthy, but we have to look at causes here. The biggest cause of monopoly formation is and has always been government interference in the markets. Barriers to entry are almost always artificial, with a few exceptions, and the government is the one that produces these barriers.
Aside from some extremists most Libertarians are not opposed to some regulation of the markets by government, but each of these must be justified explicitly. When you just handwave it and say "well it's the government's role to regulate everything" you're basically handing the keys to the biggest corporation of all--one that can bail itself out using your money indefinitely, and doesn't have to actually produce anything to be paid.
In perfectly competitive markets we see time and time again that prices rush downwards to the benefit of the consumer. Our aim should be to make as many markets as possible as competitive as possible so that the natural instincts of Capital benefit society, not to make markets LESS competitive and then penalize corporations for following the money.
It's easy to point out potential problems with more market freedom, but it's disingenuous to do so while ignoring the colossal problems that come with restricting that freedom. On the whole we have benefited greatly from our system of markets, and more benefit could be achieved with more freedom.
>>73603562
The "prime goal" of something is always its own survival. Corporations only survive by enriching their shareholders and owners. Governments survive by allocating themselves more power. The stated moral goal of government does not align with its empirical motivations.
>>73601574
what do you think 2nd amendment is for?
>>73601496
I am a libertarian but I am all for trust busting.(breaking up monopolies essentially) not all of us are retarded extremists.
>>73603618
>the people comprising it very much want profit
But not as an institution. When you broadly prioritize generating a profit over diplomatic missions and enforcing law, you risk letting those essential goals of government fall to the wayside. I personally don't want our military fighting as mercenaries for the highest bidder.
NO OFFICER I AM NOT DONE TELLING YOU ABOUT RON PAUL YET
>>73602610
>government doesn't care about making money
http://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture
>>73603925
I don't know, because US citizens haven't used it at all for its original purpose.
>>73603762
that's true, and there's also people in corporations that will let themselves be bribed at the expense of the company they work for, the difference is that if you said "this corporation did nothing but increase its profits" people would say "good, that's what it's about", while in the case of government it violates its stated purpose so it should be easier to work against
>>73603950
>When you broadly prioritize generating a profit over diplomatic missions and enforcing law, you risk letting those essential goals of government fall to the wayside.
And since government attracts people willing to use violence for personal gain and the private sector attracts people who want to satisfy customers for personal gain, you are agreeing with me that the government should not be run by politicians -- a situation only possible when the government doesn't exist.
>I personally don't want our military fighting as mercenaries for the highest bidder.
This statement is incredibly ironic considering it's described U.S. foreign policy for the last several decades. Even if your visions of how a free market in military defense would work are accurate (who, after all, would voluntarily pay the several trillion dollars the Iraq war cost?), the fact that it would no longer be funded through tax dollars is a substantial improvement.
>>73602610
Dumbass, if a private officer is caught abusing someone, he goes to jail. If a public officer gets caught, he gets paid vacation.
>>73603676
If the laws are correctly made and applied as they should be, you force the megacorps to play fair concurrency and they simply have to keep prices and quality decent if they want to stay in the business.
But no libertarian ever told me how we get that done, they just insist on what we should do after.
>>73603950
You would think that, but the rabbit hole actually goes terribly deep when it comes to government. The Department of Education for example has basically become a massive investment scheme using taxpayer dollars because the people running it have their own motives, and access to the public purse.
>>73604178
It should be easier to work against--but it isn't, precisely because of that attitude: The belief that the government is naturally more beneficent than corporations, when in fact they are both large, soulless organizations driven by the material interests of their constituents.
If your plan is to be more skeptical of government corruption, yes, I applaud you, that's the first step to our ideology, but don't stop there, be skeptical about everything the government does, just as you would be skeptical of a corporation.
>>73604178
>while in the case of government it violates its stated purpose so it should be easier to work against
Hardly. The corporation does not own the largest army on earth and it doesn't run the court system.
An artificial monopoly is a large firm, formed for the purpose of controlling the market, raising prices, and thus reaping monopoly profits in an area where the conditions for natural monopoly do not exist. When the same effect is produced by an agreement among several firms, the group of firms is called a cartel. Since a cartel has most of the
problems of a monopoly in addition to problems of its own, I shall discuss monopolies first. Suppose a monopoly is formed, as was U.S. Steel, by financiers who succeed in buying up many of the existing firms. Assume further that there is no question of a natural monopoly; a firm much smaller than the new monster can produce as efficiently, perhaps even more efficiently. It is commonly argued that the large firm will nonetheless be able to achieve and maintain complete control of the industry. This argument, like many others, depends on the false analogy of market competition to a battle in which the strongest must win. Suppose the monopoly starts with 99 percent of the market and that the remaining 1 percent is held by a single competitor. To make things more dramatic, let me play the role of the competitor.
>>73603149
>Libertarianism isn't anarcho-capitalism. The state should sometimes step in, such as to break up a monopoly, but that doesn't mean the state should actively prop up dying industries and inflict devastating taxes and tariffs on other bussinesses.
>The state should sometimes step in
Well this is the actual problem, as all this "stepping in" business should be voter-requested and\or monitored, which rarely ever happens in practice. Further atomization of society would do little to stop abuse of average Joe.
>>73603745
>WWI
German invested so much in the war because they wanted their share of colonial land to get some tasty ressource for their growing industry.
The brits did it because they were the biggest industrial country and dominated the world this way and Germany was going to have a bigger industrial output.
France was politically unstable as ever but French wanted to slap some German ass.
Russians even went full ape to get industry out of politic.
All the wars are done for business. I could do the same with any other war you cited.
>>73604797
It is argued that the monopoly, being bigger and more powerful, can easily drive me out. In order to do so, the monopoly must cut its price to a level at which I am losing money. But since the monopoly is no more efficient than I am, it is losing just as much money per unit sold. Its resources may be 99 times as great as mine, but it is also losing money ninety-nine times as fast as I am. It is doing worse than that. In order to force me to keep my prices down, the monopoly must be willing to sell to everyone who wants to buy; otherwise unsupplied customers will buy from me at the old price. Since at the new low price customers will want to buy more than before, the monopolist must expand production, thus losing even more money. If the good we produce can be easily stored, the anticipation of future price rises, once our battle is over, will increase present demand still further. Meanwhile, I have more attractive options. I can, if I wish, continue to produce at full capacity and sell at a loss, losing one dollar for every hundred or more lost by the monopoly. Or I may save money by laying off some of my workers, closing down part of my plant, and decreasing production until the monopoly gets tired of wasting its money. What about the situation where the monopoly engages in regional price cutting, taking a loss in the area where I am operating and making it up in other parts of the country? If I am seriously worried about that prospect, I can take the precaution of opening outlets in all his major markets. Even if I do not, the high prices he charges in other areas in order to make up for his losses against me will make those areas very attractive to other new firms. Once they are established, he no longer has a market in which to make up his losses.
>>73604882
Thus the artificial monopoly which tries to use its size to maintain its monopoly is in a sad position, as U.S. Steel, which was formed with 60 percent of total steel production but which now has about 25 percent, found out to its sorrow. It has often been claimed that Rockefeller used such tactics to build Standard Oil, but there seems to be little or no evidence for the charge. Standard Oil officials occasionally tried to use the threat of cutting prices and starting price wars in an attempt to persuade competitors to keep their production down and their prices up. But the competitors understood the logic of the situation better than later historians, as shown by the response, quoted by McGee, of the manager of the Cornplanter Refining Company to such a threat: "Well, I says, 'Mr. Moffett, I am very glad you put it that way, because if it is up to you the only way you can get it [the business] is to cut the market [reduce prices], and if you cut the market I will cut you for 200 miles around, and I will make you sell the stuff,' and I says, 'I don't want a bigger picnic than that; sell it if you want to,' and I bid him good day and left."
>>73604828
Proving his and my point that the government is not a benevolent organization but rather a monopoly of violence and taxation used to generate profit.
>>73604968
The threat never materialized. Indeed it appears, from McGee's evidence, that price cutting more often was started by the small independent firms in an attempt to cut into Standard's market and that many of them were quite successful. Cornplanter's capital grew, in twenty years, from $10,000 to $450,000. As McGee says, commenting on the evidence presented against Standard in the 1911 antitrust case: "It is interesting that most of the ex-Standard employees who testified about Standard's deadly predatory tactics entered the oil business when they left the Standard. They also prospered."
Another strategy, which Rockefeller probably did employ, is to buy out competitors. This is usually cheaper than spending a fortune trying to drive them out—at least, it is cheaper in the short run. The trouble is that people soon realize they can build a new refinery, threaten to drive down prices, and sell out to Rockefeller at a whopping profit. David P. Reighard apparently made a sizable fortune by selling three consecutive refineries to Rockefeller. There was a limit to how many refineries Rockefeller could use. Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitators in his later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.
>>73602059
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/texas-town-sees-61-drop-crime-firing-cops-hiring-private-firm/
>>73604828
>>73604976
And what I forgot to add: Even if those wars were conducted on behalf of the business class, they were ultimately funded through taxation. Maybe the business class would commit some acts of violence if left to their own devices, but not nearly to the "global war" scale that can occur through taxation.
>>73604882
Or you know, since you are 1% of the market, they force the provider to charge you more, the distribution to give you restrictive condition, if you are low on money they send you a lawsuit for bullshit.
There is many way to break competition, even legally.
>>73601496
Because logically there is no such thing as a monopoly in a perfect free market as there should be no barriers to entry or exit.
>BUT CHEAPER GOODS AND LOWERED COST OF PRODUCTION WITH FIXED INPUTS!
People will also have odd reasons to buy goods besides price, and goods will become increasingly niche. It's like saying how does the IKEA compete with WEEB LOVE PILLOWS, GET YOUR WAIFU in the market of pillows? Waifu pillows are not exactly equal to bed pillows, even though they could logically be considered competitors.
So... in an absolute free market, there would be fierce competition for every fucktarded possible outlet of sales with a large amount of small sellers as IKEA would not benefit by regearing to sell love pillows.
Any examples of monopolies not supported by the government?
>>73603925
>Shoot a cop
>They burn down your house with you in it
OH WOW
>>73603272
How about the control and issuing of of public contracts to the private sector? How about the lobbying of public policy and industry regulations by private enterprises?
Those things aren't even necessarily bad, but yes, politicians get paid and have ready access to 'economic opportunities' using public organizations.
>>73605110
What you forgot to add:
>Proving his and my point that the government is not a benevolent organization but rather a monopoly of violence and taxation used to generate profit for the corporations.
Getting us rid of the tool won't get us rid of the work. It's human nature you need to change to live in libertarian paradise, and you can't do that. Whatever happen some people will get power over others.
>>73601496
How do statists refute that the State is what enables monopolies?
>you can get rid of the government! Evil globalists and monopolies will rule the world!
and how exactly is this different from our current situation? Governments not only systematically fail to curb monopolies/cronism, but actual make them easier.
>>73605330
>Getting us rid of the tool won't get us rid of the work.
Which is what private security is for, mate. Generally people bring a toolkit, they don't bring one massive wrench that everyone in the country is forced to pay for.
>Whatever happen some people will get power over others.
Therefore we just give up, roll over, and grant all power to a ruling cabal.
> It's human nature you need to change to live in libertarian paradise
The entire crux of my argument this entire time is that human nature is the exact reason why large government is infeasible. If government only works when it's acting benevolently, then the people who comprise it must themselves be benevolent (and infinitely intelligent, but the economic calculation problem is a separate subject). Theory and history shows this is never going to be the case.
>>73602610
Town close to my hometown had a private fire dept. Someone's house was on fire and they didn't come. Chief said that it wouldn't have been cost-effective. Someone died.
:(
>>73605883
Generally if you don't pay for something you don't get service, yes.
>>73605883
Fooking wrekt, m8.
>>73606077
"Gonna need you to swipe your card here before the hoses get turned on"
YA OK BUD
>>73606240
The free market has come up with the ingenious solution of paying ahead of time in case of emergencies. They called it insurance.
>>73605843
Private security don't make you immune to shit, especially if the price asked by shit to not fall on you is lower than the price asked by private security to make it change its course.
Anyway, private security won't lend you one million when you have lawyers to pay to deal with a bullshit lawsuit or some trick of the same kind.
The thing that statists don't seem to grasp is, you don't answer a problem with a catastrophe.
You don't look at the man with a cold and offer to cure him with ebola.
Corporations have problems, no doubt. Cannot at all be refuted or argued against. Corporations, private business, causes problems.
Okay. This is settled. So what's the answer?
>Government!
Whoooooooooooooa whoa whoa mule. WHOA MULE! Hold up. Stop. Cease. Halt. Whoa camel.
That is NOT an answer. That, my dear friends, is a catastrophe. Because, and simply put, every problem caused by corporations is an order of magnitude worse under the state.
Corporations do not have the death toll, torture, famine, war, and economic ruin associated with them that government has. Not even approaching it.
You don't get to answer the problems of corporate failings with the disasters of government control. It doesn't work like that.
If you're going to attack the private sector, answer the problems therein with improvements. Otherwise, fuck off.
>>73606400
Insurance give you back the money you have lost in the fire. To stop the fire, you have to throw water at it. It would be more effective if it was made by professionals who know chemistry, first help, how to cut metal and concrete and are trained to use all the individual protection equipment. In fact, we should have small compagnies of this kind all over the country. Of course we would have to pay them in advance.
>>73601496
Because with few artificial barriers to market entry there is more competition.
>>73606556
So, you prefer to deal with untouchable corporations rather than a government that need to deal with PR?
Apparently, more people prefer the opposite. As a libertarian, do you want to force them to accept your personal preference?
They prefer government because if enough people yell at it, politic will change their action to keep being elected. Good luck making megacorp change what they do without storming them with militias.
Nexon screwed you and you had to deal with it. Less government won't help.
>>73604117
Battle of Athens
What's the difference between libertarian and capitalism?
Trick question. Capitalism is an economic policy while libertarian is a political and economic policy. Many libertarians, myself included, want a strong economy. We also want more freedom. Max freedom, max business, smaller government, less laws. It has a core piece of capitalism in it- the less regulation of business.
>>73606867
If a few number of person control a market, they will create barriers to enter the market.
Try to create and sell OS and see what happen. Bill Gates annihilated the market and now it is locked. Only one outsider managed to get in and it had to be free for that.
>>73606556
An example-
>Walmart is soooo evil! They pay their employees chump change and destroy small businesses!
Okay. Valid criticisms. And they're true. BUUUUUUUUUUT.....
>so lets get the federal government to.....
NO. BZZZZZZZZZT. UH UH. STOP. Right there. You don't get the fucking feds, who have killed orders of magnitude(that's plural) more small businesses than walmart ever has, to tell walmart what to do. That's bullshit. Find another way.
>So, you prefer to deal with untouchable corporations rather than a government that need to deal with PR?
It is far easier to sue a corporation than it is to prosecute a cop when he dicks you in the ass. I guarantee it.
When the government fucks you over, IF they let you sue them, your winnings will be exceedingly hard-fought and minuscule.
People prefer government because they're fucking brainwhipped by the media and 12+ years of education.
If you actually look at the numbers....
It's corporations vs. government...
Low-wages vs. WWII...
Exxon Valdez vs. Agent Orange(the latter causing untold damage to the human genome)...
Give a better fucking answer.
Because right now, it's 250,000,000 dead vs. $7.50 an hour.
>>73607775
replying to you >>73607158
>>73601496
Monopolies can only exist if there is a government propping it up and defending it by force.
A company in a free market with massive control of a certain specific market isn't a monopoly because competition is still possible, even though it could be unlikely or risky.
A monopoly prevents competition, which can only be done through force.
>>73601496
>libertarian cock.jpg
nice one thanks
>How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies? Isn't it obvious that the bigger player in a market can wreck any challenger even by selling at a loss?
No, I can see how it looks that way to you, but no. The tendency of Capital to create monopolies is an artifact not of capital but of a certain sort of political system. Given that there is a government with authority to intervene in the market, given that said government is bribable, given that the rate of return on bribes is favorable to other investments, THEN and only then does your conclusion hold.
That is why our goal is and has always been to change those conditions, and thus to change that outcome.
Totally organic, free market monopolies tend to not be too horrible, and only become monopolies because they offer a vastly superior product. It's mostly seen in the minimally regulated tech industry these days, with things like Facebook or Google. Competitors exist, but the value of their products just aren't on the same level as the big guys.
For contrast look at an example of terrible monopolies: cable providers. They have artificial monopolies created by the state, and the market suffers greatly for it.
>libertarian societies having roads
>>73607775
The involvement of Western and Central Europe and of the USA in WWII was because of the banks.
You can't just blame the tool and forgive the hand. Do you want to ban guns because some murders have been made with a gun?
Do you even know who made Agent Orange?
Government force food compagnie to not make poisonous food even if it cut costs, and I can say the same about electrical parts or cars or whatever. Just for that I will die rather than see the fall of all business regulations. The reason capitalism work in the West and not in africa is government regulation.
If you want to compare, add this to the balance. Governments save millions of life every year.
>>73608039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
And if there is no government they will just create one. Why do you think we have governments in the first place?
>>73609397
>The involvement of Western and Central Europe and of the USA in WWII was because of the banks.
But who waged the wars in the end? Were Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt CEOs? They were executives, sure. But corporate CEOs?
And, while Dow and Monsanto DID make the rainbow agents that poisoned SE Asia and the human genome, who authorized the program, and for what reason? Has any corporation EVER had the brilliant idea of defoliating tens of millions of acres of jungle?
Government does not get a pass. It is not an answer. Stop it. You cannot with a straight face, knowing the numbers, think government is an answer to corporate bullshit. Not unless you're a psychopath or you completely forget/omit the atrocities committed under the flags of nations.
That's my gripe with statists. You got a problem with corporations. Alright, cool. So do I. Fuckers throttle my bandwidth and raise my subscription cost.
But your answer, government? Oh no no no. Uh uh. Because my cable company has never taxed me, fined me, or otherwise put me in jail.
As bad as it might be with my internet, it's NOTHING compared to the shit government has done.
>>73610146
I just take into account the good think governments did too, like you not dying at 5 from heavy metals in your milk.
Hitler rose in power because banks from London and New York screwed Germany. Then the governments of the UK and USA conveniently tried their best to shut down Germany. You know why France felt so easily? Military strategy is a thing, sure, but we got the same at the beginning of WWI. The real reason is that we were not really opposed at becoming more like Germany and less like the UK. Petain was popular while he was in power.
Simple question: do you know why your government was so opposed to the progression of communism? I give you a tip: corporations are not that clean about wars.
>>73601496
>That image
What road?
>>73610146
>my cable company has never taxed me, fined me, or otherwise put me in jail.
So, you mean, they did not hired a private militia to tax you, fine you or place you in a cage? Why? They would make more money if they do. Is morals stopping them or is it something else?
>>73610927
>like you not dying at 5 from heavy metals in your milk.
I didn't die from heavy metals in my milk at 5 because killing your customers is very bad for business.
Milk producers are willingly producing milk from cows not fed rBST due to the market.
In fact, they're required by the FDA to tell people that the hormones have never been proven dangerous.
Despite the FDA allowing these hormones, the dairy companies are cutting rBST out voluntarily.
Because it's good for business.
>do you know why your government was so opposed to the progression of communism?
An excuse. Plus the cabal of men in government who knew how vile communism is. Doesn't excuse the atrocities committed by the state.
That's not an answer. The numbers tell the story.
>>73611140
>They would make more money if they do.
No they wouldn't. I'd switch to their competitor. That's what you do. Government has no competition like this, so it's a monopoly. Why can't the government fund itself like everyone else is forced to do, through selling a good or service?
They get to legally steal to fund their operations. Why not sell a good or service? They have plenty of goods and services to sell. Why not compete fairly?
>>73611515
>killing your customers is very bad for business.
Yeas, I am sure all the inspections and the laboratories made to test the food are made because governments like to feel powerful.
Megacorps like Monsanto are so respectful of human life even have to infiltrate the governments to we can get their products on our food and they like us so much they don't want us to know if it is the case or not.
>>73611761
>Government has no competition like this
Sometime, they do. It is called a civil war. I like the monopoly better.
>>73601496
>How do libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies
are you fucking retarded? the best way to prevent monopolies is free trade between all countries
>>73609717
>And if there is no government they will just create one.
Precisely why we are minarchists rather than anarchists.
Anarchy is great in theory, but until we advance enough to prevent another archy from rising nearly immediately, it's a bad idea in practice.
Better to follow the founders plan and attempt to keep a minarchy bound with the chains of the Constitution.
Think there still may be time to save it?
>>73605491
Because they're still gobbling up good ol' "socialism was invented for the people" meme
>>73612473
Governments don't keep you safe, son.
Liability lawsuits keep you safe.
You wanna see the private sector keeping the public safe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_%28safety_organization%29
I can go on. Only thing government does is throw red tape everywhere and cause the whole testing process to slow down and become convoluted.
>>73601496
The government is simply the largest private military contractor in your part of the world and they have set up a defined geographic area under which they will operate and protect their client's interests/enforce client requests.
What now faggot.
>>73605491
Because the states made anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies?
>>73613568
>In 2012, UL transformed from a non-profit company into a for-profit corporation
This is going to end well.
How do they force your milk producer to not have heavy metals on the milk exactly? Do they have guns?
>>73613678
And yet the state is the biggest monopoly. So big in fact that it can fund itself through theft rather than honest business.
>>73613957
>How do they force your milk producer to not have heavy metals on the milk exactly?
Well, not killing your customers and getting a business-killing reputation is one sure-fire way.
>>73601496
What road?
>>73603676
>I understand your ideology better than you do.
>>73614073
Just milk the cow and start another company. Why should you care? You make more money this way.
>>73613970
This is a particularity of the business of the pointed gun, and seeing how bad things are when there is a concurrency in that market I prefer the monopoly.
Get that company down if you want, the market of the pointed gun will still exist. Someone will eventually get a local or national monopoly again anyway.
>>73613957
And again, dairy companies here in the US are WILLINGLY producing milk from cattle not treated with growth hormones.
Despite the fact that the FDA requires them to tell customers that no evidence has been found linking rBST with health problems.
They still willingly made the switch to non-rBST cattle. Why? Because hormone-free milk sells better.
It's good for business.
Companies are selling foods free of high-fructose corn syrup. Not because the government tells them to, but because it's good for business.
It sells. No one forces them.
Corporations aren't perfect by any means. They're often complete dicks about shit. That's a fact that almost everyone has dealt with.
But compared to government? They're angelic. That's also a fact, proven by numbers.
Corporations need to be watched, and the fire held to their feet. The best way to do this is watchdog groups and safety orgs.
Consumer Reports has done infinitely more to protect US Consumers than the fucking CPSC.
Private watchdog group. They get on top of everything.
>>73601496
I agree. Forcing upstarts to be creative can't be good. We need to bring down the successful to undereducated poverty level conditions to promote growth and pay for welfare.
>>73601574
>not using force to enforce cultural norms
you are weak and your family likely didn't survive the winter.
Give me a single example of a monopoly existing without the government getting involved to create it. If you say something like Standard Oil, it's clear you have no idea what a monopoly is.
>>73615269
All I asked was how one can complain about a monopoly while enabling a monopoly.
You don't get the right to bitch about monopolies while supporting the existence of a monopoly to combat the monopolies you're bitching about.
It's pure hypocrisy and shows you don't actually care about monopolies, you just don't like capitalism. You're a communist, to some degree. Otherwise you wouldn't tolerate a government monopoly either.
>>73614978
>not treated with growth hormones.
Because customers care about that particular point.
Who take care of all the others? Do you measured the mercury rate in your milk recently? No. Someone else did it, and they don't work for free. To get a working society you need a social infrastructure.
We are going nowhere in this discussion. I could understand minarchism, but complete libertarianism ? Let the corporations handle the guns in your part of the world if you want, I am going to keep my big evil government. We will see which one of us is a slave at the end of the week.
>>73601574
Just don't steal and don't ruin your neighborhood and this will not happen.
If it does, praise the government, because you are in a jail instead of a wooden box 6 feet underground.
>>73615588
Because in the market of the pointed gun, concurrency is bad for us, but for the creation of goods and services it is good for us. Any other questions?
>>73615765
Yeah, customers care about growth hormones, but not about Hg.
Come the fuck on. Why the fuck would a dairy company put Hg in their milk?
Do you have any clue how expensive Hg is? That's a lot of cash wasted just to poison your customers because there's no government around to stop you from playing evil mad corporate scientist.
The fuck are you even on?
>Let the corporations handle the guns in your part of the world if you want
I do. It's fine. In fact, corporations are so much better at this than the state that Area 51 is guarded by Wackenhut, not by MPs like other military bases.
That's right, the most secure military facility in the world is guarded by a private security contractor, not military police/guards.
And no one has EVER gotten by the camo dudes. EVER. And they've never killed anyone to do their job, despite many attempts to penetrate the base.
>>73602710
I've very glad the government provides us roads. It's so nice having at least one lane closed in every street in the city, random traffic cones in the road, and seeing un-ending construction equipment, barriers and lane closures in the major highway near my house. They've been "fixing" the same section of that road for maybe a year now.
>>73601496
>refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies?
What's bad about monopolies?
8ch dot net/overman/res/74.html
Hello dankness my old friend
>>73616434
>>73616172
>>73616007
>>73615765
And think about that for a second. Wackenhut is fully authorized to use terminal force at their discretion to stop trespassers at Area 51. That means they can legally shoot and kill you.
They've NEVER done it. In the history of Area 51, no attempted base trespasser has ever been shot and/or killed.
Evil corporation has the power to blow you away at their choosing but they never have.
That's a better record than any US police force I'm aware of. 100% flawless execution of duty without any casualties.
>>73616434
Sometime, a crappy way to make food make it cheaper. If you want no poison into your food, you have to force the food manufacturers to not choose that option.
Yes, with a gun if needed.
Some lands are contaminated by the nearby plants. If your cows eat that grass, the chemicals will end in the milk. The land may be cheaper, but that guy with a gun said you are not going to sell milk if it is the land you choose for your cows. I like that guy.
>>73616450
So, American infrastructure is not a meme?
>>73617101
>Sometime, a crappy way to make food make it cheaper.
You don't make food cheaper by adding Hg. That shit's expensive man. Very expensive. $50 for 100g at technical grade. And 100g of Hg is very small since the metal is very heavy.
There's no profit in poisoning or killing your customers. It's normally corporate suicide, unless the government steps in and defers responsibility, like they did for Monsanto with Agent Orange.
Oh, and BTW. For kicks, read up about the Love Canal disaster.
That's a hot one. Wonderful example of government fucking everything up then deferring blame.
>>73617003
>Wackenhut is fully authorized to use terminal force at their discretion to stop trespassers at Area 51. That means they can legally shoot and kill you.
Only if I am trespassing on a military base, refuse to be captured and fight back with a weapon. I think it is fair and have no intention of doing it anyway.
Apparently, none of the ancient alien guys tried to go there with guns, is that your point?
>Evil corporation has the power to blow you away at their choosing but they never have.
No they don't. I am not trespassing into a nuclear test base so they don't. We have fucking laws here, you don't kill people just like that. in Africa they do have that right, and they do kill people. Firestone is know for that but they are far from being the only one.
Areva made an entire village so radioactive people can't live here anymore. You think they would not because they are nice people? I am glad there is not a lot of people like you. I think you are as dangerous as the communists and I will support all kind of action made to prevent you from taking the power in my country.
>>73617588
Read my post.
Also: cigarettes.
>>73601496
>How do Libertarians refute the tendence of Capital to create monopolies?
>not understanding a necessary function of capitalism is to protect individuals from monopolies
>not understanding capitalism
Wew
>>73617894
>Also: cigarettes.
Freedom of choice.
>>73617846
>No they don't.
Yes they do. If you step foot on Area 51 land, they can legally fire on you without any provocation. The signs on the base border clearly explain this to would-be trespassers.
Also, I love you bringing up "my government".
Your government is willingly letting muslims invade and conquer you. Outright invasion of your country by hostile foreigners. And not only does your precious government allow it, they steal money from you and give it to them as welfare.
Hot damn! What a wonderful thing!
>>73616838
Monopolies destroy capitalism by preventing competition.
The only way the free market can destroy monopolies is by new technology being introduced
>>73618411
Monopolies have a tendency to crumble over time, without anyone bulling the trigger.
>>73618108
Like for food.
Ho, nice study you have here that prove tobacco is perfectly safe. I am glad nothing steal my money to make another study.
>>73618236
The only answer is tribalism.
>>73601496
ITT
Socalists from lereddit/gaia think they know what libertarianism is and not confusing it with anarchism/facism.
>>73618543
>Ho, nice study you have here that prove tobacco is perfectly safe.
>perfectly safe
Nothing in this world exists that is perfectly safe because everything that exists can injure or kill you in some way.
Jesus H Christ. Cigs are bad. No one needs the government to tell them this. No one ever did. You can't protect people from their own stupidity. Free will comes with potential risks.
>>73618236
And I don't step foot in Area 51.
And they are paid to do as little waves as they can. They wont shoot crazy people.
I never said I agree with everything my government do, and if it was a lot worse I would probably even shoot at it to give the monopoly to another company.
Do you know industrials tycoons are the wants who make government want massive uncontrolled immigration? Lot of low skilled worker, clearly too much for the number of jobs, divided population, low syndicalist culture...
Even socialists were against before they got the right of vote.
We do not have an invasion problem. We have a private companies not being kept in line problem. The invasion is only the consequence.
>>73618873
This is not what big tobacco told me.
>No one needs the government to tell them this.
In fact, government funded laboratories had a lot of difficulties to fight the lies and the money from the big tobaccos.
Open an history book, the corps even bought journalists.
![(untitled) [my comment state capitalism economy funnyjunk] ^.png](https://i.imgur.com/E3ifscF.png "(untitled) [my comment state capitalism economy funnyjunk] ^.png")
>>73601496
Best economic system is National Socialism (Nazi Germany's economic miracle). This system also recognizes the racial component to society's prosperity, unity and strength. Nazi became THE wealthiest country in Europe while the rest of Europe, even the West, was wallowing in the Great Depression.
Second best is State Capitalism: Russia since Putin (circa 2000), China since 1978 economic reforms. Massive economic growth since it was instituted in those countries.
Third best system is Well-Regulated Capitalism: USA from New Deal to just before Reagan.
Absolutely shit-tier economic system: libertarianism, aka NHB Capitalism (No Holds Barred Capitalism). It's real is neoliberalism. "Libertarianism" is just how it was spun and sold to the morons who believe in it.
Examples of application:
-1990's Russia. Utter destitution with no end in sight, until Putin comes along and institutes State Capitalism.
-Mid-80's bubble and bust in the US after deregulation of S&L.
-2008 Financial Crisis and the Great Recession after deregulation of Wall Street, housing loans and speculation.
-1997 Asian financial crisis. Same shit. Deregulation, lead to bubble in real estate. Then when the bust hit, there were no laws in place forcing the speculators and real estate holders to act ethically, and they acted only to save their own skin and not
Well-Regulated Capitalism bans behavior that is KNOWN to be harmful, such as fraud or speculation. WR Capitalism says "ok you can keep full ownership of your companies, private sector, but here's a list of behaviors you can't do".
State Capitalism owns controlling packages of shares in some companies in the banking sector and critical industries and uses competitive pressure to keep the balance in favor of the common citizen (as a taxpayer, consumer and employee).
National Socialism outright nationalizes some companies in the banking sector and critical industries, or nationalizes those whole sectors or industries.
[cont]
>>73619051
>Do you know industrials tycoons are the wants who make government want massive uncontrolled immigration?
Yes, I know this. I never said corporations were innocent. I never said they weren't dicks.
They are dicks.
But see here's the thing. Some corps might bring in immigrants. Okay. This is a fact, and we know it.
Now then, let's take a looksee over here at government annnnnd...
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Not only does the government import immigrants like the corporations, to rub salt in the fucking wound they TAX THE NATIVE WORKERS AND GIVE THE MONEY TO THE IMMIGRANTS.
So on top of importing sandniggers/etc into the country like Company X, they steal your money and give it to the sandniggers as wellfare. Oh, and they set up sex-ed classes teaching the foreign horde how to seduce and fuck the native women.
God damn government, you're not just content with a cheap workforce, you wanna get them breeding the native population out of existence to boot!
>>73619565
>Best economic system is National Socialism (Nazi Germany's economic miracle). This system also recognizes the racial component to society's prosperity, unity and strength. Nazi became THE wealthiest country in Europe while the rest of Europe, even the West, was wallowing in the Great Depression.
They just gave a purpose to the German people, and, surprise, then they got a reason to work together.
I won't support that company, but humans do need a reason to live. Why does the current company won't give us one?
>>73619565
War industry does miracles, not their economic system.
>>73601632
>monopolies will never buy out the competition and always play by the rules
Really? Do you even know what the word 'monopoly' means? It's not the board game.
>>73619565
And you can't just ignore that the good old bloody Stalinism/Maoism turned medieval countries into industrial powers in decades. The limitations of this kind of government stopped them here but it is a fucking achievement.
Gary johnson would make america great again. Sadly america can only focus on media, and who fucked whos wife.
>>73619565
Dumbass arab.
Hitler and Germany were in hock up to their asses by the 1940s. The fucks had borrowed so much money from their allies it was astounding. Once demand for their goods began to waver, the money started to slow and their war effort began to suffer. They eventually lost after their great experiment pissed off every major nation around them.
>>73620166
>And you can't just ignore that the good old bloody Stalinism/Maoism turned medieval countries into industrial powers in decades.
The US did it in about A decade. Maybe two. And not with the bloodshed and horrors of socialist bullshit.
>>73619566
I want a company that let only high-skilled hard-working strangers in steal my money, give it to my people and force the deadbeat to work. With a pointed gun if needed.
That company is not good, but at least I have a social protection and the immigration rate is still not 99%, a thing that would be very real without borders because our job market alone is enough to get all Africa here.
>>73601496
>>73619565
[cont]
Whereas State Capitalism owns a 51% or more share in some companies in the banking sector and critical industries, National Socialism owns 100% share in some companies or the whole sector/industry through nationalization.
Additionally, National Socialism recognizes the indispensable and incontrovertible component of race. The component of race is important for many reasons but here's just one:
To counter-balance free market capitalism's inherent tendency towards monopoly and concentration of wealth, a progressive tax must be instituted. Progressive taxation redistributes money from higher earner to lower earner. If a nation is not racially homogeneous and has, say, blacks and whites, then wealth and income will be redistributed from whites to blacks, since blacks are stupider and earn less. This means you have instituted leeching, parasitism and socialism.
But if a nation is racially homogeneous then that redistribution is within one race and indirectly benefits the higher earners by benefiting that nation-race's common good.
Needless to say, no permanent benefits should be given to unemployed people, even if the nation is racially homogeneous. So we're not talking about a system that incentivizes indolence.
@Well-Regulated Capitalism: I forgot to mention a couple of things in the example I gave of its application: in the US from the New Deal to Reagan, the US experienced ZERO bubbles and busts. Then Reagan comes along, with his idiotic libertarian "revolution", changes the laws, it immediately starts a bubble and then bust in the S&L market, along with rampant fraud there, and it immediately starts increasing income inequality. Income inequality had already started in the US back when second-wave feminism started and women started entering the workforce in greater rates, but that's another topic.
Additionally, if the US had control of its money supply during that period from the New Deal to Reagan,
[cont]
>>73620477
>but at least I have a social protection
Not for much longer bud. Ponzi schemes kinda have a way of failing.
>>73601496
>>73620674
[cont]
instead of having it in the hands of the usurious, private Jewish Federal Reserve, the US would have experienced exactly ZERO recessions as well, not just ZERO bubbles and busts.
>>73619942
Capitalist nations borrow money when it is war and have a better economy then because they get all that free money instead of paying it. Communists and Nazis don't do that. They tell people where they should work and what working conditions they should accept.
This is why the industry is booming then, but at what cost?
>>73601496
If your competitor begins to do predatory pricing then you should just buy their stuff and sell it at higher price.
That's how an american scientist won over the German bromine cartels.
>>73620456
Industrialization of the US and Western Europe took more than a century.
You didn't went from a country full of farmers living in wooden hut to a moderately developed nation in just one year.
You even had manufactures before your independence.
>>73601496
libertarian societies only work when everyone is jewish, or no one is.
>>73620741
As long as there is approximately as much people entering than leaving the scheme, it keep going.
Maybe I will get a little less than what I was forced to pay for. Whatever. And you, are you retirement fund safe now that economic crisis are commons? What are you going to do if the money don't come back?
>>73621202
Argument status: not an
>>73621143
They didn't have to invent everything over in Soviet Union either. Mostly they could copy inventions from the developed nations.
Not saying that they didn't invent anything at all, Soviet Union had some clever people here and there.
Denmark is another example of how waiting to industrialize can be better. Denmark copied technology from Sweden and Germany 20 years after they had begun using it, and by then the tech had been more refined and could be implemented faster.
Africa is another example of how this works, look at how people go from not communication to paying with their cellphones at water stations.
>>73621345
My money's diversified and I'm set to retire before I turn 40. But I'll continue doing odd jobs for fun and extra spending cash.
>>73621485
It sure helped but there is things that capitalism can't do.
For instance:
Your country is still in 1800, the main religion is opposed to technological progress, and it is why you felt so easily to a local power much smaller than you and now you are facing even more powerful foes. Your country will probably not exist anymore in 10 years.
30 years after, industrialization is done and you just have to make some reforms to let capitalism turn you into the most powerful country in the world.
I do not ignore the human cost of the thing, but it deserve respect.
>>73621619
Unless something goes wrong, obviously.
A medical bill maybe?
>>73620456
>Once demand for their goods began to waver
The international Zionist jews organized an international boycott of German goods and sanctions not unlike those imposed on Iran.
>their war effort began to suffer
They were surrounded by hostile nations that were loudly banging their war drums and thus were forced to have massive military spending. Hitler time and again tried to offer peaceful solutions to Poland, France, England, etc. but was always rejected because those nations, especially France and England were threatened by Germany's economic prosperity and had themselves spent massively and unsustainably on their militaries to attack Germany and couldn't afford peace. After they had spent all that money on their military build-up, they had to use it to attack Germany or they would go broke if peace broke out and their military spending went unused. The leaders of France and Britain at that time had shares in arms manufacturers and they backed Poland and urged them to provoke Germany deliberately to cause war.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
>their great experiment pissed off every major nation around them.
Yeah, and it pissed them because it worked so well economically and this threatened them.
>Dumbass arab
Kiss my Maronite Christian ass. I'm no more an Arab than a native German is a Arab if the sandnigger mudslimes invaded Germany and instituted Arabic as the official language of Germany.
~Ethnic~ Arabs are only from the Arabian peninsula.
>>73622549
Change can strike like lightning. The key is planning for it.
Government cannot save you. Only you can save yourself. It's called personal responsibility and it's what separates men from children.
>>73622379
And in the end it wasn't really sustainable either. China for instance got developed much faster by adopting capitalism, they even made some free market zones, after having almost no economic or technological development under communism.
Although China is printing money like crazy which is causing a bubble in their economy.
But China still grew more in 1990-2000 alone than Soviet Union did from 1900-1990.
>>73622786
Yeah it had nothing to fucking do with Germany waging war on other countries and invading Poland.
Poor little Nazi Germany getting bullied.
They got bullied so hard they declared war on the US before the US did to them.
>Hey Fritz, there's this country all the way across the Atlantic, and they have this sizeable military force. Let's wage war on them while we're fighting the Soviets! Good idea huh?
>Hans, I like the cut of your jib. Let's rock n roll!
And then Hitler waged war on the US for no good reason. Stupid faggot Germans. Their business wasn't honest goods, but weapons and war supplies.
Nation lived and died in 13 fucking years. Live fast, die hard.
>>73622861
This is exactly why I am growing my own food and my house is made to last.
Happenings don't happen often, the idea of a commune retirement fund removed all kind of risk back then when immigration was low.
I agree there is a non lull chance that I will get nothing because we will turn into Greece, but projections make it happen around 2100.
>>73623388
>Constitution prevent you from entering war if you are not attacked
>Send military help to a country at war in ships that carry civilians
>Ship get sunk
Ho, vey, they attacked us.
>Decide to take action against a country at war and ruin their oil supply lines
>They bomb your port
Ho, vey, we are under attack!
>>73622868
That was because they had to wait Mao out of power to switch to capitalism. The 2 first decades were the fastest development in history, then nothing happened for a while.
>>73624262
I don't excuse the US government for goading Japan. But Germany declaring war on the US kinda proves them out to be an aggressor, not the victim like naziboo up there would like to believe.
In the end the whole thing proves my point. A bunch of governments wage war on each other and get 60,000,000+ people killed in the process.
You show me a corporation with that high of a kill count. Or the damage caused to infrastructure.
Yeah, companies are evil for paying employees with minimal training and no skillsets $7.50 an hour, but the governments with hundreds of millions of dead and tortured and starved citizens are the good guys protecting us from the evils of low minimum wage.
>>73623388
>Yeah it had nothing to fucking do with Germany waging war
I'm talking about the period BEFORE WW2 started. And Germany never declared war on anybody just for the fuck of it. The Treaty of Versailles deliberately split the German nation between multiple countries to weaken them. Some were in Czechoslovakia and some were in Poland.
Czechoslovakia, and later Poland, was persecuting ethnic Germans in an organized manner, incl. massacres and genocide.
And at least in the case of Poland, it was egged on by the British and French who were looking for war with Germany.
>for no good reason
The US had been supplying Britain with massive amounts of material aid and supplies. If it weren't for them Britain would have fallen easily. Said supplies were an act of war IIRC. Also, the US was provoking Japan, Germany's ally, and had committed multiple acts of war against it, such as the trade embargo, intervening in the war between China and Japan and helping one of the states at war (China), the US' massive military buildup in the Pacific and East Asia, etc.
>Expecting a burger to know jack shit about history
>>73601496
Ideologies aren't flawed. People are flawed, there will always be abuse and corruption. Man up.
>>73625194
>poor little nazi germany ;_;
Never fails with you fucktards. Any time someone points out the NSDAP's obvious flaws you make stupid fucking excuses.
>>73625001
The pets got a point. Dogs tend to die when they are alone outside and the life in an human house is much more comfortable.
There is no predators and no freezing water in the tank.
I don't even understand the last. Panther leather?
You entered the war when you gave unlimited war loans to all the opponents of Germany and started to give heavy weaponry for free. It's like you were trying to say France was neutral in your war of independence.
>>73625784
If an ideology doesn't take into account that humans are flawed, then it is flawed. Capitalism is great because it use the flawed nature of humans as a fuel to get things done.
>>73605140
>the crime was solved, the perp arrested
i see nothing wrong here
>>73626159
We are just trying to show you that things happens for a reason, not just like that.
>>73601496
Because monopolies have a natural tendency to collapse
>>73626159
You didn't point out any flaws, you moron. The only thing even remotely close to a flaw you named was Germany's military spending and military actions, which I already addressed.
If the US was subjected to a horribly unfair treaty for whatever reason and many of its northern states given to Canada and many of its southern states given to Mexico. Then Canada and Mexico started genociding Americans living in those territories would you say the US would be belligerent and aggressive if it took military action to stop or prevent said genocides against Americans from happening?
You block-headed Americans have all the empathy of a tadpole.
Go back to your Idiocracy dystopia, you brainwashed, mouth-breathing, Walmart-shopping mis-educated moron.
>>73626955
>You didn't point out any flaws, you moron.
Nazi Germany being up to its eyes in debt and dying in less than 13 years is a HUGE flaw, like it or not.
For whatever reasons it is no longer here, the fact remains - it died. Fast.
Now, you go ahead and blame the jews. All that does is show how weak the Nazis were. Getting beaten by jews. No, they got beaten by the Russians whom they antagonized like idiots. Don't start shit you can't finish, boy.
>>73624690
So from this we can conclude that communism is actually good at preparing for industrialism and capitalism.
Good thing most countries doesn't need communism anymore then.
>>73627389
Yeah, they only had all the big powers of the world leagued against them and they lost. I blame this on their economic policies not on soviet jingoism and the role of industry and bank owners over the politic of England and the US.
>>73627711
If Mugabe or some other dictator applied the communist doctrine we would see spectacular results, but concretely, communism is only good at making people work when the economy is not strong enough to give them an insensitive to do so. Like you said, it only created things that existed before. There is a reason the USSR didn't had computers until the very end.
>>73628128
>Yeah, they only had all the big powers of the world leagued against them and they lost.
That's a flaw. If you've pissed off all the world powers, you're flawed. There's consequences to everything, and the Nazis should have taken all the consequences into account before settling on decisions.
>If we do X, will Y be angry? Can we fight and defeat Y if Y gets angry? Will Z join the fight if Y fights us and can we defeat Y and Z?
These are the kinda things intelligent men consider when making decisions.
Smart men look at the future and predict outcomes, and plan for those outcomes.
That's the foundation of economics and the foundation of responsible living itself.
Germany either did not look, did not plan, or did not care.
>>73627389
Yeah please tell me when you're a nation of 60 million what socio-economic-political system you would institute that would allow you to come out victorious when ALL the world's powers are arrayed against you: all the old, most well-stablished colonial powers, France and Britain, and the massive USSR and the US.
National Socialism proved its economic worth before it was defeated militarily from the outside, not outcompeted economically.
>the Russians whom they antagonized like idiots
Stalin had amply demonstrated he had ambitions to invade Western Europe as he had attacked or invaded multiple European countries previously. He also was conducting a massive military build-up on Germany's eastern border. What were they supposed to do? Let the Soviets finish their military build-up?
You know what? I'm done wasting my time on you, you dumb, ignorant, uneducated American retard.
>>73628614
>not outcompeted economically.
US GDP(per capita) surpassed Germany long before the war ended my friend. Socialism is a ponzi scheme doomed to fail every time. You CANNOT run a system like that, no matter what. The US is seeing the same collapse now, albeit slower. European countries are too.
>>73628599
Like letting their own kind being genocided under their own eyes? You are hardcore.
Hitler planed to make peace with GB and France, to deal with USSR the way he did in Finland just before and to call it a day.
For some reason you invested an unexpected quantity of money into this and the UK refused to let it slide. History books tell us it was due to the ideological difference but I hope you don't believe that. Everything do not always goes according to plans. How is your occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq going?
>>73628873
Socialism policies in a capitalist country, yes. When you have the authority to make people work for a bad pay, you are pretty much set for everything. Only African tier of corruption or invasion from countries more powerful than you can ruin it.
>>73628873
>Long before the war ended
You can't possibly be this disingenuous. Germany was losing that war and it's because they had all the world powers against them. Tell me about their GDPs, or better yet, their PPPs, before the war started.
>If you've pissed off all the world powers, you're flawed.
And who DOESN'T have that flaw, pray tell. The US, perhaps, who pissed off the biggest Empire in the world at that time and was only able to come out victorious due to ample help from France and Russia?
What's interesting is you can't point to a single example of pure capitalism working. Because it is as impossible to implement as pure marxism. When it is implemented it immediately turns into crony capitalism. It leads to bubble and busts, economic crises, recessions and depressions and the destitution of the people and the shrinking of the middle class.
And National Socialism != "socialism"
It uses the free market for 99% of markets and industries.
>>73629328
>Like letting their own kind being genocided under their own eyes?
Yeah. If you wanna save them, rally some support behind you. You go in there half-cocked and the enemy's going to have their way with you. The Nazis could have had US support. Far more people in the US and in US politics disliked communism and the USSR than Germany. The US was made up of German people more than any other ethnicity.
Wouldn't have been hard to ask the American people for aid against the commie threat killing their distant relatives in Europe.
But the Nazis were too proud for that because THE JEWS were thick with the US Government.
Pride is the ultimate sin. It leads to destruction every time when unchecked.
Pride -> Ego -> Arrogance -> Defeat
>>73629603
>And who DOESN'T have that flaw, pray tell. The US, perhaps, who pissed off the biggest Empire in the world at that time and was only able to come out victorious due to ample help from France and Russia?
Yeah. Our revolution was extremely flawed. Any US historian will tell you this.
>What's interesting is you can't point to a single example of pure capitalism working.
What is "pure capitalism"?
Do you even know what capitalism and capital are?
>>73601496
>Isn't it obvious that the bigger player in a market can wreck any challenger even by selling at a loss?
The thing is challengers don't come patiently one at a time, with breaks in between. You can only sell at a loss temporarily, and then you have to return the prices to normal or even jack them up to survive. But as soon as you put down one competitor, another will take his place, you won't get a window of time to recover.
If your competitor has a better solution with more potential to grow in the market than you, any investor has an interest in making that read, and shifting their support there. And if your product is mass-produced and not perishable, anyone has an interest in buying it up at the artificially low price, including your clients. Demand will snowball pretty fast, and recouping the losses in the future will be even more improbable.
>>73630037
Yeah, it's like someone made the US change his mind. But who? Maybe the banks who wanted their money back.
>>73630429
Said competitor invested a lot of money in his attempt. The next one know you can do the same so if he is rational he won't even try and you won't even loose money.
>>73630429
The bigger player has economies of scale and can sell at a lower price while still making a profit.
Also, the bigger, older player has much deeper pockets and accumulated capital and can outlast many, many new players even IF they have to sell at a loss.
Whatever loss they incur, is usually local, in the specific markets that smaller player was in, and is more than made up for by jacking up thir prices back to monopolistic levels after the small player is crushed.
Not to mention the incumbent can simply buy them out and this happens all the time.
In certain industries like the tech and software industries, the incumbent has massive network effects and can be near impossible to unseat. Microsoft has done a ton of anti-competitive and anti-consumer shit and yet they still have a monopoly of over 90% of desktop/laptop OS market share.
>>73617101
>So, American infrastructure is not a meme?
It's much worse in states with labor unions, here in Arizona, where unions are all but nonexistent, things are a lot faster than say, Connecticut, where a stretch of road is being worked on for years
>>73620045
>competition only happens once and then its bought out
you seem to be having trouble with the passage of time
>>73620674
>To counter-balance free market capitalism's inherent tendency towards monopoly and concentration of wealt
>National Socialism owns 100% share in some companies
are you two different people
>>73621345
>are you retirement fund safe now that economic crisis are commons?
>implying govt makes them less common
>>73602610
profit motive makes people do their jobs well fucktard. Your thinking is ass backward on this one.
