Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
So what to do when a certain company gains a monopoly in a market and thud increases prices because there'd be no one to compete with them?
Instead of asking me. How about you find out what those who believe in such an idea think? Why not go investigate for yourself?
That's the whole point behind this question, to find out what the people who answer think.
Well here is something I would call an introduction.https://youtu.be/zaKg2I_2-9EIt's highly unlikely you will agree with anything he says.But, I hope, that even if you dont agree, even if you believe what he says is wrong, that you can see and understand his perspective, and cease, if you have been already, to believe, that people who believe in free markets are some how amoral, immoral, evil, people who lick the boots of the rich, and so on and so on other silly straw men that are always propped up by those who refuse to even give such ideas an honest look.
As for your question, it's a false narrative.In a free market, such a scenario is much less likely to happen.In a free market, you can't simply corner the market on anything.there's too much to explain, in the way they define property, commons, and so on. It's a very complex topic that I can't explain fully.Every topic is extremely complex and nuanced. Every new situation a person may think of, requires an analysis.So any idea you can come up with. That you think a free market has no answer for, you can find a variety of free market answers and solutions.
um, I never assumed that free-marktet people are evil. I'm for a free market myself.
That's an utopian dream, not an actual system though.Also, how would a system with no parties work?
I am aware about 'Utopia'. As the question is: ''what would you replace it with'' - I just suggest to work out something 'new'.When there's only shit on the buffet, then I go eating somewhere else :)...No parties: The first political party is relatively 'young': Whigs Party, 1678, UK (I looked up the specific data for accuracy)Before that, 'politicians' in a democracy acted based on honour and conscience... more or less, that is. The Romans and Greek had no parties. Nor the others that I mentioned earlier on.It will work just fine; only: the 'election processes' (organizing them) need to be adapted.The trouble will be: none of the existing 'power-keepers' will like it (history has shown it): because their filthy doings will not longer be possible. That calls for a revolution - and means: blood will flow.Is that a bad thing? ... Well: Is France a bad country? I'd say 'no, it isn't'.
"that knows and cares about the industry"that wouldn't last long because some positions would eventually be filled by people who are in it just for the money."etter your own industry setting the rules"What would be stopping the oil industry from easing the laws about pollution?
Sure thats when government will create registrations. At the same time people are creating distance from fossil fual. So that's a good reason for oil companies to redirect into renewable energy.
That's not really an answer
If you cannot see it, then it's not there for you.
Tied to their workers how?also I didn't downvote you
The problem with either representative or direct democracies is that, for one, people vote for giveouts not for policy and people are stupid.
that is true. but what's the solution to people being stupid? aristocraty? certainly not. and while i certaily agree that people are too dumb to rule us, i think that politicians aren't any better.so you can definitely argue that democracy does not produce optimal results if you let "the people" actually decide the policy that shall apply to them but at least they can then not blame anyone butthemself. which in the beginning may be chaotic but i think the hivemind will learn and adapt. right now we can't adapt, cause we do not have a democracy and our decisions can't change anything. if our decisions had an impact, we could learn from our mistakes. as is, we're at the whim of a few in power.
That's a command-economy and it never worked out because a committee of people (usualy politicians) have no real clue how to fully manage all the resources at their disposal.
I never said that politics would have control over the resources, the engineers and craftmen should. Ie the actual users, driven by demand.
they'd have to spend all of their time managing the resources, instead of doing their actual jobs (being engineers and craftsmen)
Like the engineering managers doesn't already do this? It's just one layer more up for the really experienced managers that know what is important and should have the limited resources they have. Before a project start you need to acquire the resources instead of the money.
It's the other way around though, you can't get resources without funding.
Not in a resource based economy. Funding would be getting enough resources to run the project.
This system would be too easy to abuse. All the power would go to the people who decide who'd get the funding. I hope you don't think that just because someone is a specialist in a certain field that they can not be greedy or support nepotism.
It would be in more people hands so less chance that the whole system get corrupt. I don't want a central storage that controls it all. Sure there must exist storage facilities but they will be specialized. Since every product has more then one provider, there isn't a single individual that runs the whole show.
problem is that on here most users are American and they think socialism is the same as communism and all they know about communism is the anti china rhetoric their capitalist media feeds them
The Soviet Union was socialist and the free housing sucked and the gays were discriminated against, as were non-Russians in general. And the 1% (the politburo) ruled the entire state.
Oh yeah americans are very stupid and very anti communistThat’s the thing too, the Soviet union was communist and many countries have claimed equality under communism but there will always be people on the top
I'm not American I'm from an ex-soviet country
Yeah I know, I was talking about the first guySorry I was replying to both
😆😆😆😆😆sounds like a pipedream
soviet socialist were dirt poor. 99% of the population ate bread and soup. we bring up china the most because joe is in bed with them.
@Oppressed_Leecher quote from an old romanian... the only difference today is while we are standing in line to get a loaf of bread we can complain about it. quote from an old siberian man. once a month i used to get a pineapple, now i can't afford one.lots of people i speak to in bulgaria say it was a better way of life before the young were forced to leave the family home in search of work.yes soviet communism had its faults but late stage western capitalism is certainly no better
What of the monopolies that form?
Not all monopolies are necessarily undesirable, but every undesirable monopoly that has ever formed has been a consequence of government intervention in one way or another. I've yet to see a single example otherwise.
"No reason to hoard wealth"What about ensuring that your offspring are better off than you?
Offspring being better off than others is fine saying that hoarding wealth is bad doesn't = kill everyone with more than 10 million in their bank
but how to then deal with not being able to compete due to products costing more?
Simple, put tariffs on incoming goods to equalize the playing field with USA made goods. Unless the plan is to impoverish Americans and make them live like Chinese citizens or Indian citizens, allowing cheap foreign goods to drive down wages is malicious negligence at best.
I was referring to competitiveness abroad - a third party, say Europe, would be buying the cheaper Chinese goods as opposed to the American ones because the Chinese worker costs less than the American one, the product, as a result, costs less too.
Are you suggesting that American factories should crater their employee wages and make them live a Chinese factory worker standard of living to try to sell more goods to other developed countries?
I'm not saying that, no. Truth be told, I don't know what an optimal solution is. But I am stating a fact - a cheaper worker means a cheaper product and that is what sells in the markets usually.
To a degree, definitely. And unless you want to race to the bottom, it's a fruitless battle. The solution is strong tariffs to protect your own nation's manufacturing sector.
Or at least radically simplified taxes of a sort that put most accountants out of a job.
You mean state-owned enterprises? That's socialism, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
No, I mean a nationalist government with low corporate taxes, but a focus on regulation that can help competition.Strong emphasis on the individual in terms of jobs and life choices, and collective pride and sacrifice.
That would still make it National Socialism though. Hitler's Germany kinda was that.
Yes. I'd like that, thanks
And, no it wouldn't make it socialist. My country is literally more capitalist friendly than the US...
Norway, if I'm not mistaken is a social democracy. Free markets but very high taxes to support welfare programms.
Low corporate taxes, and welfare programs (which the US also has, to a more minor degree). Norway is just more effective
that's for a multitude of reasons but two of them are your off-shore oil rigs and the fact that you don't have to spend as much on defence because the US/NATO covers for you
We don't even need a strong military. No true enemy anywhere near us.The oil rigs are 4% of the GDPThe welfare system could be pulled back a little in my opinion. Especially since we waste massive amounts on migrants who don't do anything of value here
The USSR kind or the Venezuelan kind?