>Communism:
>the state becomes all-powerful
>Free market:
>companies become all-powerful (see pic for instance)
So is the answer really a free market + government intervention to curb monopolization?
Nothing?
How does libertarianism for instance combat monopolization?
Wrong place I guess lol.
>>76398416
Monopolization shouldn't occur in a completely free market. IF it happens, it simply means they are too good and deserve the monopoly
sorry you need to post a black guy nailing a white girl to gather any attention.
on a more serious matter, it depends on the branch. I doubt if walmart suddenly started to be evil it would maintain its position. its superior because it providers a superior experience.
>>76399732
That's how economy of scale works though; the bigger you get the more powerful you get and the more you can drive down the prices.
>>76399732
No.
>>76399732
>Monopolization shouldn't occur in a completely free market.
Because price gouging doesn't exist right?
>>76399833
Driving down prices means you will lose money. You're trying to paint monopolization as black and white when in reality there's a lot more too it, such as what it is you are selling, what time of the year you are currently selling in, what the competition looks like, your realtionships with other companies. Just because you are big doesn't mean you can drive down prices as if it's nothing.
I'd say an ideologic market is bullshit. You need a technocratic market, Keynesianism or other shit for example
>>76399973
>Driving down prices means you will lose money.
Not if it means you're killing the competition.
>>76399833
So? The consumer benifets at the end and supply and demand adusts the markets. If walmart can sell the cheapest groceries, I really don't care that the mom and pop shop has to close down because it can't compete. Are you also on the side of taxis because Uber is stealing their bussiness?
>>76400045
Yeah but first of all that's a huge risk, if you're willing to take it, go ahead and take your chances. If not, you will still be fine selling at normal prices. There is no moral wrong in selling cheaper than the opponent, that's the exact definition of capitalism.
>>76400241
>go ahead and take your chances
It's exactly how companies like Walmart are booming.
They CAN drive down prices simply because they CAN deliver the products cheaper simply because they're so large.
>>76400082
>I don't mind monopolies
Pretty sure you do, you just don't know it yet.
>>76400082
So much this.
Added to that, rising population numbers increases potential for competition. And that's perfectly natural. Yes it sucks for the small business owners, since they are offering a service some people want, but sometimes not enough people use or need what they offer.
Such is life.
>>76400348
This doomsday message you're trying to spread has been spread for a very long time, probably 20 years in the case of Walmart, but the prices are still extremly low
How do you explain this? In my opinion we should stick to reality and stop with this hypothetical bullshit. There will never be a totalitarian company in a free market world. The only reason they exist today is because they take advantage of the huge government we have today.
Solution: smaller government, less oppurtunities to do some sleezy things as a company,
>>76398416
Name 1 (one) way that monopolization is a problem?
As soon as you find one, an entrepreneur will solve it.
See if a company is providing the market with goods and services with the best economy possible, it doesn't really matter if its the only provider.
As soon as the company exploits its customers there will be room to compete with it.
>>76400608
>but the prices are still extremly low
>How do you explain this?
I just told you; they CAN drive down prices simply because they CAN deliver the products cheaper simply because they're so large.
Companies like Walmart exist at the expense of smaller, local businesses DESPITE monopolies being illegal.
If monopolies were legal, Walmart would grow even larger.
>>76400829
Wait you are contradicting yourself
Read >>76400776
So is it good or bad? Because the way you just put it suggest that it's good becaues of low prices.
>>76400776
- kills small businesses
- drives down prices AND wages, thus lowering overall wealth
- quality goes down since competition disappears
- ...
>>76399833
You keep using this world "powerful"
You used it in the OP too
Corporations don't have any power. They just have the ability to create a good or service and hope that you buy it.
It's government that has the power, that is why it has to be chained with a constitution and power decentralized among the people.
Then the ebil capitalist has to bribe you.
Aaaaaaaaand /thread OP is now a libertarian
>>76400965
It's nice to have lower prices, but monopolies are shit.
Actual competition also drives down prices.
>>76400969
Driving down prices INCREASES wealth
You think the Wal-Mart wealth distribution machine has made Americans poorer?
>>76400969
>kills small businesses
And? Whatever gives the consumer the best option should stay and will stay because they are rewarded with customers. This is simple capitalism.
>drives down prices AND wages, thus lowering overall wealth
False. Just because the prices are low doesn't mean the wages should be higher or that the wealth should be higher. It simply says the the prices were too high prior the the price decrease.
>quality goes down since competition disappears
No, quality will have to remain because otherwise competition will take over. Learn 2 capitalism.
>>76401159
A lot of people work at places like Walmart (or McDonald's, etc.), and they don't make a lot of money.
>>76401233
>And?
Fewer people own businesses, more people work at places like Walmart, McD, ... instead.
>>76401335
So? They don't deserve what they think they deserve, they deserve what their job requires of them to do. If their job is very low-quality and doesn't produce a lot of wealth, they will have lower wages.
Small businesses is such a buzzword nowadays that people instantly assume is a good thing.
>>76398416
Yes
>>76398416
Walmart is all powerful in the same way that a communist government is? I better be careful they don't send me to the gulag for shoping at target
Putting aside how retarded it is to call Walmart 'all powerful', we HAVE government intervention and regulation to supposedly prevent monopolys, but most of the time the government encourages corporatism like you see with Walmart. Get rid of government if you don't want monopolies or corporate welfare etc.
>>76399833
OH NO! That damn free market is driving down prices and making things incredibly cheap, raising out standard of living and providing cheap goods for all! Somebody stop them!
>>76401507
>Small businesses is such a buzzword nowadays that people instantly assume is a good thing.
It really is.
Without giant companies like Walmart or McD, the same people who would be stacking shelves at minimum wage without any responsibility or satisfaction would be stacking their own shelves for their own business.
There's a world of difference.
>>76401624
>driving down prices and making things incredibly cheap
These same companies also drive down wages and thus wealth though.
>>76401335
You are glorifying small businesses. Many of them from the past were rip-off artists.
If they are adding value to society, they will always be viable and thrive.
>A lot of people work at places like Walmart (or McDonald's, etc.), and they don't make a lot of money.
Read Sam Walton's auto-biography. He made thousands of millionaires on his way up. Working at Wal-Mart had tons of advancement opportunities and management positions.
Look into regulation to find out why low-skilled labor has a poor quality of life now.
An employer has to pay unemployment insurance, SS taxes, obamacare, in addition to the wage they pay you.
Also, employees can sue their employers in our very litigious society.
It makes hiring people undesirable - in my small business I have no intention to hire anybody.
This process does overall drive down the price of unskilled labor.
Its unfortunate but we need to relax regulations to get small businesses to hire people and drive up wages.
>>76401806
So we should be fixing our economy to make people feel good about themselves? Not what they actualy deserve?
Because that's essentially your argument. These people are miserable working for McD or Walmart and would feel much better about themselves working for their own businesses.
While it's true, it doesn't provide the best and cheapest products for the rest of us, and it's also morally unfair.
>>76399732
>Monopolization doesn't occur in a completely free market because there's no power structure/government to establish a monopoly on
There are no monopolies that don't first need government permission and protection.
Government is not, is never the answer.
>>76398416
>So is the answer really a free market + government intervention to curb monopolization?
Walmart is benefiting from a completely fucked labor market, and have had help from policy makers.
Ideally, we fix the labor market and hope for a workers union to form. Prevent any future mergers.
If they're determined to be a monopoly, introduce revenue-cap/price-cap/rate-of-return regulation. There are different standards.
>>76398416
and there you have National Socialism!
>>76398416
>>76398416
http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/
Wow this is such a free market.
I'm so glad the free market has force the government to give Walmart over a billion dollars in free money every single year just to keep them for going out of business.
>>76398416
Yes its called Fascism.
>>76401806
>wages and thus wealth though.
wages =/= wealth
See: AUD vs USD
>>76399732
>deserve the monopoly
The problem with this is that past a certain threshold it becomes impossible for competitors to enter the game. The case with Walmart is a good example. If I decided I was going to operate a retail chain like that, I would fail because I could never compete with Walmart's prices. In fact they could probably afford to sell products at a loss for a while just to squeeze me out.
Is this not a real scenario?
>>76398416
yes
that is the exact economic model of nsdap
hitler did nothing wrong
>>76401950
Walmart shirks a lot of regulations; they don't allow unions for instance (which I really like).
I think that ideally, the world would have as many small business owners as possible, and as few paid workers as possible.
>>76402085
You don't think monopolies would arise naturally without govt interference?
>>76401965
I'm not sure we should be "fixing" anything, which is why my OP is a question.
I just think that ideally, the world would have as many small business owners as possible, and as few paid workers as possible.
Not saying I'm willing to use govt power to achieve this.
>>76402242
Is Walmart really on life support? Or is that just a grant they're entitled to as such a large employer?
>>76401806
>the same people who would be stacking shelves at minimum wage without any responsibility or satisfaction would be stacking their own shelves for their own business.
Look, before capitalism and industrialization many people were peasants and maybe they had the option to join a navy or a merchant ship with a life expectancy of 30 years old once they did.
The idea that the people that are 45 years old without ANY skills would somehow own successful businesses if Wal-Mart and other companies didn't exist is just a real stretch.
>>76398416
Hint: Wal-Mart doesn't dominate because of the free market, they dominate because they get preferential treatment from regulators and the IRS. Google and Facebook are far worse offenders than Wal-Mart though, they have literal monopolies, or in Google's case like 90% market share. Again, only because of patronage from the state.
>>76399732
They literally CAN'T. Unless the market is so "free" that there is no law and order and a powerful enough company can kill their competition. Instead, they just lobby the people with a monopoly on legal force, the government.
>>76402375
>Look at those filthy capitalists! Lowering prices for their customers which in turn makes the quality of life because of cheaper prices.
>>76402412
How do you suggest we fix this "problem" without regulating the economy? This is what fixing means, you regulate the economy and take away freedom.
Also, while your ideal world is very pretty and cute. My ideal world is actually one where we have very cheap prices and good products
>See Walmart
>>76402375
This is why we have anti-trust law. Again though, every single monopoly or hegemony can be traced back to patronage from the State.
>>76402242
I sincerely hope you're using the term free market facetiously.
>>76402412
>Is Walmart really on life support?
Walmarts business model is completely unsustainable without government aid.
Like the banks in 2008 walmart is so large and employs so many people that it's "Too big to fail" So the government will continue to prop them up by funneling tax dollars into their failing business to keep millions of Americans from losing their jobs.
>>76402412
>I think that ideally, the world would have as many small business owners as possible, and as few paid workers as possible.
Well believe or not Belgium, I myself want to organize many small businesses and provide a service to them instead of hiring people to work for me outright.
So I am working on your vision.
But nor from a "feels" perspective, just from the point of view that its the best way to deliver value in my industry.
The hard part is that people don't understand the sacrifice that it takes to own a business.
>>76402356
Well, the more people make less money, the lower wealth will be and the more people will rely on the cheapest products and food.
Looks like a vicious circle.
>>76402418
You don't need much skill to operate a store.
>>76402460
Looks to me like large companies dominate DESPITE government interference like anti-monopoly laws.
In a truly free market, you don't think companies would grow and acquire until only one or two major players ended up with the monopoly?
>Monopolies in a Free Market
The only reason Walmart and other huge corporations do so well is that they get special treatment from the Government regulators
>>76402412
>You don't think monopolies would arise naturally without govt interference?
Without legal protection and the government's promise to back said protection with force, what are they gonna do?
>>76399140
It doesn't because monopolization doesn't happen without government contract. The barons of the late 19th Century uniformly had government subsidy which exceeded their payroll requirements.
>>76402669
>How do you suggest we fix this "problem" without regulating the economy?
I'm not suggesting we fix anything.
I'm asking whether monopolization is evil enough to warrant govt intervention.
>>76402827
In a truly free market, you don't think companies would grow and acquire until only one or two major players ended up with the monopoly?
>>76402748
I'm a small business owner myself.
The sense of satisfaction and responsibility you gain is tremendous.
I die a little inside only thinking of working in a factory or large store.
>>76402722
I don't think Wal-Mart employs millions of people lol. How does that even make sense, use tax dollars for a bailout to save jobs, when those tax dollars would have been used by other small businesses that aren't using failing models to expand and hire. That same amount of money is ALWAYS going to create more jobs in the private sector. The government "creating" jobs is the biggest fucking meme there is.
>>76402784
>You don't need much skill to operate a store.
wew
Isnt the fact that companies manage to jew the tax system the real problems with big corporations? They outsource their production to places where its cheaper to produce (aka abuse workers in china) and fly most of their money outside the country they sell without paying thier share?
Arent all the problems created by greed basicly?
(>mfw i had a turckis flag in the chapca verification thing)
>>76402894
>Without legal protection and the government's promise to back said protection with force, what are they gonna do?
Grow and acquire slightly smaller companies until they're gargantuan.
>>76402922
>monopolization doesn't happen without government contract
You don't think monopolies would arise naturally without govt interference?
>>76398416
If we had a free market demand for justice would rise like crazy and the price to gain judgement for property damage etc would be cheaper.
>>76402784
. >In a truly free market, you don't think companies would grow and acquire until only one or two major players ended up with the monopoly?
No, no one does.
>>76402784
>Well, the more people make less money, the lower wealth will be
I know what you're trying to say, but it's not that simple. Wealth and dollar amounts are not the same thing.
>You don't need much skill to operate a store.
It's not the operation that does most businesses in, it's the long term financial actions. Most of the time, expanding too much too quickly. A majority of all businesses do actually go bankrupt.
>>76403141
What would stop companies from growing slightly larger, buying slightly smaller companies, growing even larger, gaining scale advantages and increasingly owning more and more parts of the production cycle until they can drive down prices so much any competition becomes nigh-impossible and they end up being the only player left standing?
>>76402949
>How does that even make sense
Walmart spends millions of dollars on lobbyists, it doesn't have to make sense senpai.
Also
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+many+people+does+walmart+employ
Walmart employs well over 2 million americans, and employ more americans than any other corporation in the world senpai.
>>76403030
>Isnt the fact that companies manage to jew the tax system the real problems with big corporations? They outsource their production to places where its cheaper to produce (aka abuse workers in china) and fly most of their money outside the country they sell without paying thier share?
>Arent all the problems created by greed basicly?
So is everything good that's ever been created. The point is, if the power is there, people WILL abuse it to enrich and empower themselves. Which is why the government should stay small.
>>76402947
>I'm asking whether monopolization is evil enough to warrant govt intervention.
Are you serious right now? You keep admitting that monopoly means lower prices for the customer, yet you keep insisting that it's evil for some reason?
What if I told you the rate at which a business has a monopoly in a certain area (such as Walmart in retail) fluctuates a lot? Just like inflation. We will have highs and lows, there's nothing you can do about it, it's the nature of economy and competition. Corporations fall of and new corporations take over. If you are good enough you will stay. If not, you will lose your investments.
Also, you said that operating a store doesn't require skills, which quite honestly is laughable, because running a store isn't the hard part, it's competing with other stores. This is what you fail to realise and what you need to learn to truly understand capitalism.
>>76402947
Monopolies cannot exist without the enforcement of the government
Some company might hold a monopoly for a very short period of time but there will always be competition
>>76399140
Would getting rid of the minimum wage help smaller companies compete?
>>76403274
>What would stop companies from growing slightly larger, buying slightly smaller companies,
Competition. Why the fuck do you assume everyone is gonna sell? Even in a market where Wal-mart is protected by the state, it still has competitors, in a free market it would have even more.
>>76403058
>Grow and acquire slightly smaller companies until they're gargantuan.
So they're the only ones acting in said market? Said purchases of smaller companies would always go through without a hitch?
>You don't think monopolies would arise naturally without govt interference?
Do you understand how monopolies actually form and are maintained? It's been spelled out a few times in this thread, but there's a necessity of legislation factor you keep overlooking.
>>76403193
>Most of the time, expanding too much too quickly. A majority of all businesses do actually go bankrupt.
Which is part of the reason why the smart ones keep expanding and buying smaller/failing competitors.
>>76403283
>You keep admitting that monopoly means lower prices for the customer, yet you keep insisting that it's evil for some reason?
The more such monopolies, the fewer smaller competitors, the more mindless wage slaves stacking shelves, the lower the wages, the lower the wealth, the lower the quality of life.
>>76403374
Yes, massively. So would a simplified tax code like Trump wants. Huge companies can afford to hire an army of tax lawyers, a small business can't. Even WITH all the patronage of large firms by the State, small businesses still provide 60% of the jobs in this country.
>>76403279
Yeah but now we cant really just say fuck it freemarket. Casue walmart is already a gargatuan dick that ships shit tier productgs made by slaves in china.
Basicly this is me saying that this is just a hipotetical talk that has little to no aplicability in the existing conditions.
Not saying that these talks araent nice (a mouth of fresh air among all the shit on the board). Well shit is fucked anyway.
>>76403422
>So they're the only ones acting in said market?
No.
>Said purchases of smaller companies would always go through without a hitch?
No.
We're talking thousands and thousands of companies, with just ONE ending up on top.
Nothing is easy on the way there.
>>76403290
What would stop companies from growing slightly larger, buying slightly smaller companies, growing even larger, gaining scale advantages and increasingly owning more and more parts of the production cycle until they can drive down prices so much any competition becomes nigh-impossible and they end up being the only player left standing?
>>76403400
>Competition. Why the fuck do you assume everyone is gonna sell?
Because it happens all the time.
Only thing stopping it from going to far are anti-monopoly laws.
>>76403436
>Which is part of the reason why the smart ones keep expanding and buying smaller/failing competitors.
>the lower the wages, the lower the wealth
It's becoming very clear your understanding of economics and capitalism could fit in a kid's 10 page pop-up book.
>>76403570
>Yeah but now we cant really just say fuck it freemarket.
I know, I'm saying just the opposite. Embrace the free market, greed is good, it drives innovation and the entire economy. Wal-mart would fail if it stopped getting subsidized, LET IT. Those jobs will be lost for a while but they'll quickly be replaced. Losing wal-mart wouldn't destroy the economy like losing all of the banks at the same time.
Wal-Mart is definitely not a "too big to fail" situation.
>>76403274
Then the consumer enjoys low prices for goods that used to cost them much more, thus making everyone more wealthy?
>>76403436
>The more such monopolies, the fewer smaller competitors, the more mindless wage slaves stacking shelves, the lower the wages, the lower the wealth, the lower the quality of life.
What makes you think it means lower wealth? The reason we have low wealth in that scenario would be because people are doing unproductive things such as stacking shelves and not actually educating themselves and becoming something useful for humanity.
You keep arguing from a feels standpoint. I'm gonna assume you are very young and still in your socialist stage of life. You will grow out of it, I did, everyone did.
>>76399140
By x-inefficiency.
>>76403605
>Because it happens all the time.
Point to one time in history a private company achieved and maintained a monopoly without help from the State, or the ability for the firm to use force to kill its competitors (Like drug gangs).
>>76403688
>>76403744
>>76403770
The more people make less money, the fewer people can afford anything but the cheap stuff, the more cheap stuff is in demand, the more Walmart-type companies make money, the more smaller businesses go out of business, the more people work for Walmart-type companies, the more people make less money, etc.
>>76398416
Read this
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-forgotten-wisdom-of-louis-d-brandeis/485477/
>>76403833
But most states forbid monopolies.
>>76403843
So adapt and start making more money? Clearly your skills aren't very highly wanted in the market. Is that really Walmarts fault, or your own fault for not actually being educated?
>>76398416
>corporatism
>companies become all-powerful
FTFY
>>76398416
Neither communism nor Capitalism work because the flaw is much deeper than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE
1) Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for improved ecological sustainability in the world today?
2) In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs (“cost efficiency”) in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?
3) In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral, emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an effect?
>>76403605
>Only thing stopping it from going to far are anti-monopoly laws.
Why are you asking questions when you're not actually reading any of the answers?
This concept has been explained to you several different ways by several different people, you keep coming back and bleating the same fucking "but what if? but what if?"s over and over with absolutely zero regard to anything that has been explained in the meantime.
Are you leading? Or do you need a speak and spell?
If all you're really digging for is someone who confirm your belief in the pre-established conclusion that some nondescript "free market + government" is the true answer, save everyone the trouble of attempting to explain to you basic economic shit and say so.
>>76403939
>Clearly your skills aren't very highly wanted in the market.
Mine kind of are though.
>>76402669
>>Look at those filthy capitalists! Lowering prices for their customers which in turn makes the quality of life because of cheaper prices.
How come none of this text is in the post you referenced?
>>76402714
>anti-trust law
But then is it still a "free market"?
>>76403843
That's not how economics works. If someone figures out how to make things more efficiently, cheaper, etc, it does not make me poor. It makes everyone richer because less human labor has to be dedicated in order to make more wealth.
>>76404026
>Why are you asking questions when you're not actually reading any of the answers?
Trying to see if anyone can counter my argument.
So far the only counter seems to be "free market doesn't create monopolies, state intervention does".
And I don't think that makes much sense in many ways, like in the case of Walmart.
Although I do concede it applies to many cases, especially for government-operated companies as used to be the case for the Belgian state telecom company.
>>76398416
Ha Haaah!
Fuck this obvious nigger!
>>76403743
I think there is a point were greed stops being good.
And desu i think we have already passed that point. Walmart is making greedy bucks of the back of poor people who had the bad luck to be born in the shitty parts of china.
And also greed Kinda goes hand in hand with corruption. And not only at state level (aka lobbying). Also pay another big guy to shill for you both proffit while smaller guys dont have the power to do that. Its hard to portray this without going into politics desu.
Moderation is key" applies here as in anything.
>>76404030
Alright so you are young friendo. I was clearly referincing to the people you were referencing to in your Walmart story.
>>76404064
And you are very new.
Yes that seems fair to me
>>76398416
How is Walmart all powerful?
I have bought anything there in years
National Socialism is the only answer, it worked amazingly for Germany until they thought they could take on 20 countries at a time in war with retarded allies.
>>76404167
I guess I could see this >>76403843
being an advantage in that more technology may become more readily available, opening up new avenues for work and prosperity for instance designing software or producing music instead of only having the option to pick beets from the field.
>>76404184
>Trying to see if anyone can counter my argument.
Please, you clearly aren't reading enough or understanding what many in this thread have been explaining to you if that's the only thing you understood from what we told you.
>>76404262
Oh, where do you get your stuff? Amazon? Target? Amazon gets most of my shekels, personally. Can't beat not having to get off of my ass and go anywhere to get the lowest price.
Dumb-fuck libertarians will never understand how Singapore has a big government which it uses to promote better market competition and real capitalism. Government isn't all evil you autistic fucks. Get over your Ayn Rand novels
>>76404225
>And you are very new.
What leads you to think this?
>>76404225
>Alright so you are young friendo.
I'm a 34-y-o conference interpreter.
I can listen, translate, and speak all at once. It's pretty neat.
>>76404362
Cant remember but a guy here on poll claimed that the marshall plan saved germany not Nazi doctrines themselves (they just rode the waves of the plan and made them look good). Dunno as i have literaly no idea what the nazi s did economicaly wise.
>>76404459
He's been very confrontational since the beginning, probably bored.
>>76398416
>>76399833
Why does Walmart get all the hate?
Amazon is just as big if not bigger and has lower prices. Some even say they treat their employees worse.
Anyway, food's ready.
Thanks for the discussions guys.
>>76404561
yeah but amazon is great
they delivered my new gaming keyboard cross country in under 12 hours
>>76404561
Just an example.
Talking about all massive, gargantuan companies.
>>76404459
>What leads you to think this?
The fact that you don't understand how greentexts work and can be used
>>76404477
I'm a 34-y-o conference interpreter.
So if you are an interpreter, how come you don't understand any arguments we've been spoonfeeding you? You keep throwing out strawmans and pushing the question further and further away from what you originally asked.
You came here for the banter, and not to learn. I will stop responding to you now to give you a chance to take a breath, relax and start reading and understanding what I've been writing.
Good luck, hope you snap out of this socialist phase.
>>76404561
Think cause amazon is just a distributor for bigger guys like samsung and other shit. Walmart made branded some of the shit they sell and they sell really shit tier food. That is my take on it.
>>76404561
It has a physical presence, so you can actually post a picture of its entrance.
>>76398416
>"Gee is like, I don't know, we need something like a mix of socialism but with capitalistic foundations, omg we should really invent it! XD!2"
It's called mixed economy, or even fucking fascist corporatism would do the trick
>>76403951
>is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for improved ecological sustainability in the world today?
Capitalism is the best system at managing human needs in an environment of scarcity. Resource use & biodiversity loss have all been reducing as technology improves and becomes more efficient. The rise of green and alternative energies, especially on small scale applications, under capitalism, could not have come about anywhere else
>what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?
Zero. If you're looking for a "system" to protect your from automation, you're a luddite you can't adapt. Literally the candle makers from Anthem.
>In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral, emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an effect?
Remove the element that enforces the structural hierarchy from the economy, aka the government, and suddenly all of these SJW buzzwords melt away.
Seriously though, this kind of logic and the video you posted are for cowardly collectivists who run in circles justifying why capitalism has failed any why we need some form of state socialism without actually calling what they're advocating for state socialism because they're cowardly about their authoritarianism.
Zeitgeist is about a genuine as an anti-establishment movement as Elizabeth Warren is a genuine Native American.
>>76403877
He said in history, don't dodge the issue.
>>76404495
>marshall plan before/during WW2
>>76404495
Yeah, Germany was in free fall and suddenly the Nazis take power and they are a major global threat, but it wasn't because of them... always remember, history is written by the victorious.
>>76404418
How do you get food?
Amazon charges $5 for each pantry order and it's only in some cities. I don't see how it's cheaper
>>76404184
>And I don't think that makes much sense in many ways, like in the case of Walmart.
Walmart is not even close to a monopoly.
>>76404655
>The fact that you don't understand how greentexts work and can be used
They seem to be designed to quote people's posts.
If you need to make up things I didn't actually say, you probably have a weak argument that hinges on putting words in my mouth.
>>76404665
Walmart does sell mostly name brand stuff though
>>76404939
>Make up things
No, I only cleaned up what you said and removed all the gibberish, and then you basically have what I wrote.
>>76404362
The problem wasn't even Hitler, it was these two spazmoids, who pushed his edicts and laws to their limit. Hitler originally only wanted the Jew to fuck off from his lands and didn't care where they infested after that, but these two racebaiters pushed for about 6 friggan YEARS to get their camps and special detainment powers.
History is writen by the most retarded of the winners.
>#noyoureagay
>>76404878
Giant Eagle is the go-to supermarket chain in this neck of the woods.
Not every Walmart sells groceries though as far as I know.
>>76405040
The camps didn't have anything to do with Germany's downfall, they extent of the Juden extermination was only discovered after Germany was virtually defeated.
>>76405028
>what I wrote
Right, yes, you wrote it, not me. i.e.: you made it up. Thanks again.
>>76398416
100,000s of companies
or 1 government
reminder that government is the largest monopoly by far
>>76404804
Then wtf did hitler do to make germany great again (beside confiscating jew buisnises). I seriously dont know what did he do to make germany great again. Before going to war and such.
>>76404788
>The rise of green and alternative energies, especially on small scale applications, under capitalism, could not have come about anywhere else
the government funded all of this. including the internet ur on right now
>Zeitgeist is about a genuine as an anti-establishment movement as Elizabeth Warren is a genuine Native American.
in america we have the one drop rule. so she is a native american
>>76405235
You seem awfully butthurt that I refuted and destroyed your argument while simultaneously exposing you as a newfag
>>76398416
Walmart is soley because of government moving all the manufacturing to china and giving them inside deals. There's nothing free market about walmart.
>>76402085
In a free market you have the freedom to restrict the freedom of others via competition.
Hence a monopolies occur in free market.
The United States is a free market, the corporations are simply buying restrictions, benefits and special rights off the government. Without government such things would be done through copyright and patent lawsuits or through something like mafia.
>>76398416
There's nothing wrong with a monopoly in a free society.
>>76398416
>see pic related for a free-market example
are you fucking retarded? is it that bad in yurop that america looks like a free market?
>>76405444
>government moving all the manufacturing to china
fuck off
>>76405189
Point being, it worked/s until feckless morons with their own agenda get involved.
Rinse and repeat.
Which is why the best choice of VP running mate is so important right now for America.
>>76398416
I don't think there's any system that truly works. Over time corruption sets in until you end up with what we have now which is the rich (ie. corporations) essentially own the U.S.
We have laws against monopolies but they're only for show, monopolies still exist. Corporations just make other companies under a different name and the monopoly continues and the government doesn't care because the government is owned by the rich.
>>76405300
He just went full autistic against banking and started printing currency saying "fuck you, debt". Also he mobilized the country for total occupation. The autobahn was a pure example of Keynessian economics, which are just great if done right, and they did it Right (pun intended).
Basically they just destroyed unemployment by building public infrastructure, rised some taxes, lowered others, promoted consumption and other things similar to Mussolini's Italy.
And then the war mobilization kept the heavy industry going.
It was everything, not just one action, which made Germany great again... for 12 years aprox.
With Marshall's plan, Europe started rebuilding itself from war, and that's where the European Community of Coal and Steel started, and then the Comission, and then the EU. Fuck the EU famalam
>>76405481
>In a free market you have the freedom to restrict the freedom of others via competition.
>Hence a monopolies occur in free market.
Competition and monopolies are antithetical. That's the whole point of a monopoly.
>The United States is a free market
Negative. Massive amounts state intervention and planning, hence the recession/depression since 08.
>the corporations are simply buying restrictions, benefits and special rights off the government.
>free market
>government granted/sold by government
>free market
>government granted/sold by government
>Without government such things would be done through copyright and patent lawsuits
>Without government
>copyright and patent lawsuits
>Without government
>copyright and patent lawsuits
Bruh. I know Germany made you all in Greece sell all of your schools for parts to Arabs to build mosques and what not, but there's plenty of e-resources available. You don't have to be this stupid.
>>76405802
But Germany downfall was in tactical warfare, not in political in-fighting, lets hope General Trump isn't just another puppet.
>>76403877
Way to move the goal posts.
Guise real free market hasn't been tried yet. You can't have free market without perfect competition and monopolies aren't that.
>>76405845
>the rich.
Repeat after me
"People who have more than me are not my enemy"
"People who have more than me are not my enemy"
"People who have more than me are not my enemy"
Now, drop the pop-political rhetoric and put that 60s/70s collectivist idealism in the garbage where it belongs.
>>76405395
No, independent contractors (DARPA) funded their development and patents and copyrights, and the Govs of teh world rent their use.
>>76405068
I like Walmart as they give store credit back for items that are cheaper at other stores
Plus I get Walmart gift cards once in a while
>>76406245
>this is a free market
>no its not
>Yes it is, [leftist authority] said it was.
>Prove it
>Hurr, well then guess a "real free market's never been tried" durrrr
Meanwhile
>this is socialism
>no it's not
>it's solely allowed political party is called the Socialist blah blah party
>still not socialism
>it has a politburo that derives its laws from scientific socialism
>Still not socialism
>>76406277
I don't have a problem with people being rich, people have a right to acquire wealth and it's a great incentive for innovation, hard work, and perseverance.
That doesn't change the fact that our country is incredibly corrupt and owned by the mega rich. Corporations lobby to the government to make themselves even more powerful and more wealthy and the people suffer because of it.
>>76405395
>the government funded all of this. including the internet ur on right now
As >>76406321 pointed out, "naw son".
You know what the government did fund? Bogus green-energy start ups that funneled money into the pockets of our dear progressive leaders.
>in america we have the one drop rule. so she is a native American
In actual Native American territories, she'd be told to go fuck herself. In the 1800's, she woulda been scalped, and/or placed into sexual servitude by whatever warring tribe she tried to join.
>inb4 Native Americans weren't warring and didn't have sex slaves
>>76406754
>That doesn't change the fact that our country is incredibly corrupt and owned by the mega rich.
It's owned by corrupt politicians who are also rich. Their wealth is not the issue behind anything, it's the fact that they're politicians. If you can't figure out why you need to separate the money from the issue, you're forever going to sound like a bleating anti-capitalist trog.
It's like referring to slave-plantation owners merely as "wealthy land owners" and saying "we need to get land out of politics". Land ownership isn't the issue.
>>76406018
It wasn't just the supposed holocaust that Hitler's cabinet pushed him into, that was just an example of how his policies were warped and railroaded (hurrr) out of his governments control, which the history books have seen fit to use as some kind of proof that national socialism was a terrible system. Even though it pulled post WWI Germany right out of the financial toilet the jewish world banks plunged them down and created a stronger populace and infrastructure. But it's only a success if your ancestors are writing the history books, anyway.
>>76398416
>not realizing economic power =/= political power
idiot. Lasseiz-Faire capitalism with a small state (limited in powers, not size) is the only logical solution.
>>76406277
Can confirm we need rich people to make a livable society. Live in an area of poor whites and Mexicans and we can't afford things like a public pool.Golf course and and most resteraunts and shops closed. Schools don't offer advanced math and science because noone wants to take it.Rich people commute to the area to serve all the addicts and crazies and drive home to their nice community 45 miles away.
>>76407157
I never said their wealth was the issue, I was merely pointing out that our system is corrupt.
Personally I've never heard of a system where the poor end up controlling a country, that doesn't mean I want everyone to be poor I'm simply making a point. My original point being that all systems, no matter how good at their inception, eventually turn corrupt and fail to work as they were originally intended.
>>76398416
Distributism.
>>76399140
Free trade
Government creates more monopolies than it destroys. There is almost no instance in history of a monopoly surviving long term without government support of some kind.
>>76403877
American railroad and telegraph expansion.
In spite of a majority of state governments that couldn't be bought off with graft legally interfering with worker and land ownership rights. It's the first time the specter of "eminent domain" clouded the political horizon in America. A broke federal government, and the poorer state governments, all wanted their usage taxation cut. The tycoons of the day thumbed their collective nose at them, and built their continent-spanning railway and com lines "illegally and illegitimately" in most cases.
>>76399140
The monopoly itself is not bad, only if the monopoly abuses its power, namely by lowering salaries and increasing prices to maximize profits ("bad and greedy").
So: if someone else thinks the company with the monopoly offers salaries to low or has prices to high, that individual could open their business themselves and offer similar products at lower prices. Then people should go for the lower prices, right?
The problem right now is: Government enforces regulations, that make it particular hard for new businesses to open and get to their break even point. Walmart is lobbying FOR minimum wage to drive out competition, so they can increase the prices of products only they offer.
However, Walmart has only the power people give them by giving them money.
>>76401043
A monopoly too large just becomes a government.
>>76398416
NO.it's national socialism
that is why commie capitalist kikes demonize it so
