Explain why the free market is the best way to run our economy

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_subsidization
newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/fuel-cross-subsidies-supermarkets-are-wrong
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No

it isnt and promotes bullying and monopolies

the best is a government controlled market, like in the united states, which is very successful

it never has been

all of the countries that benefitted from free markets was because the government initially invested fuckloads and ran a huge budget deficit

see US during the new deal, Early industrial Japan (the government built factories), the UK after World War II, Scandinavian countries etc

That's the first time I heard someone promoting government regulations on Sup Forums lmao. Im just curious though, in what sectors has the U.S. been successful where government was involved

Science and research? (military, communications, space exploration whathaveyou)

free market gives you stuff free?

Because the easier it is to get voluntary exchange in the society the better it is for everyone.

> Want free market
> Complain about degeneracy

Monopolies are impossible in a free market unless they have unanimous or near unanimous approval.

its not.

we need controlled capitalism at this point.

How did the whole oil Rockefeller thing appear? I believe back then regulations were much lower in the States.

It's not.

It would eventually lead to corporation controlled tyranny.

Think of it like this. A large company owns the only business that runs a private power grid. Let's say someone decides to set up a smaller company to compete.

In theory this is a good thing, but if the smaller company ever did a public offering on the stock market, you'd have a hostile takeover.

Even without an IPO, the larger company could find ways to control the smaller one. They could buy out the firms that run the smaller companies mortgages or otherwise lines of credit, effectively squeezing the smaller company into submission.

Define successful.

>global corporations and wanton corruption and cronyism are good for a country
That's a spicy meatball.

NO THERE WAS STILL A GOVERNMENT!!!!!

IDIOT

No market is truly free as long as the greed of men is allowed to roam without check and balance.

The free market is the best thing to run a capitalist society, a communist society or a socialist society... doesn't really matter.

The worst thing that a state could do is meddle in how prices are set for products and services - only demand and supply should set the price. A state CAN increase the supply of a good, but should never set prices or increase people's demands. This is why I am so opposed to taxpayer subsidies for green stuff for Tesla and shit or other demand stimulating shit - and I am even more opposed to rent control and power prices legislation which is essentially setting prices. However, it is fine to lower prices by increasing supply, e.g. by the government building more housing.

>free market
>run our economy
A free market is the opposite of running an economy.

As for the answer, it is because an unrestricted market allocates resources most efficiently. But those benefits come at a price; you better have a strong culture and intelligent participants if you don't want that shit to get destroyed by communists and shitskins.

>monopolies
Name a single monopoly that has ever existed without government assistance.

The free market stifles real innovation. Just look at the internet and computers, which were done by state-sponsored research. Ultimately decentralized planning will beat a free market economy every time.

You forgot the 'i' in "ruin" and put "run" instead

You mean Standard Oil, which had loads of competitors worldwide and never engaged in the leftist predatory pricing bogeyman? Real scary monopoly that was...

Standard Oil Company never was a monopoly and had plenty of competition

Youre a cuck and a slave and ignore the socialist domestic resource things America does in exchange for muh globalism. Righties are zionist. Righties are antichristian. Righties are stupid weak bitch assholes. Trudeau grandpappy was a standard oil type guy. John A.'s party was called "liberal conservative". Havent lost one federal election since nor ever split up. They are zionist commie at their federal reserve. And how they ban export of raw crude. Unlike us for refining. Thanks for the dutch disease, recessions and C-51

It isn't the best way.

But it's the best way that we know works for sure, and every alternative attempted over the course of the twentieth century ended in purges.

I'm talking about United States only. I'm aware there are other oil companies back then, but in the States Standard Oil had a monopoly, and this was when there were lower government regulations all around.

Shut up rothschild liar this is easily proven wrong. Why not go get a pizza transplant. Durr they had to split it up because it was too small

That's only the case when the barrier to entry is low enough. Else you're still stuck with a monopoly for a substantial amount of time.
Standard Oil was dismantled after a Supreme Court verdict, because it violated anti-trust laws.

So in the end it took government regulation to break a monopoly. Thanks for proving my point.

And those anti-trust laws existed because?..

LEL
E
L

> this fucking swede i swear

I guess the question is less why is a free market good but why are the alternatives worse?

If you don't have a free market then I guess it's central planning?

Fuck what's her name again.

I lost my collection of her ;-;

Government control is fascism like you have in Italy.. No middle class.. Your comment is misinformed. Monopolies exist under government control, because the big money buys the government and forces them to write regulation to not give the little guy a chance. Not so easy to have a monopoly in a 100% free market. We don't have free markets here in the US, and that's why it's sucking here lately. We used to have free market a long time ago and that is why we were successful.

Monopolies only can be formed by the State, there was no edict saying that Standard Oil was a monopoly, in fact there was plenty of competitors not only outside USA

>Monopolies only can be formed by the State

Facebook has a de facto monopoly. So has Google etc.

De facto monopolies form all the time - they form faster with no government regulation, as dominant player use unfair competition to squeeze out upcoming players.

>Monopolies only can be formed by the State, there was no edict saying that Standard Oil was a monopoly, in fact there was plenty of competitors not only outside USA

Is your definition of monopoly that their is zero other competition?
What about Alcoa they dominated the world market for aluminum production, how were they not a monopoly?

What about cartels?

Are you drunk?

>I'm talking about United States only.
So if you're going to ignore competition outside an arbitrary area and declare anything within a monopoly, then any given McDonalds is a hamburger monopoly if you're only talking about one or two city blocks. You render the term meaningless.

>still stuck with a monopoly for a substantial amount of time.
If the monopoly (or more accurately, very large firm because a literal monopoly is virtually impossible) starts misbehaving enough to anger a significant portion of its customer base, the barriers to entry become largely irrelevant because there is now huge money available for anyone who enters the market and starts competing. If the monopoly is not misbehaving, there is no problem.

>it took government regulation to break a monopoly
It took government regulation and heavy lobbying by less competitive firms to break up their much more successful and lower-priced competitor. Something they achieved by branding Standard Oil an evil monopoly that must be dismantled in the name of the people. It was cronyism, pure and simple.

Standard Oil is a long time ago. Yes the system is broken either way I agree. Money means lobbying means getting what corporations want. There needs to be balancing. Not too much regulations, not to few to allow monopolies.

I have never heard a single good argument for why a completely free market would not generate monopolies. Because there is no real way to prove it. You can say what you want and quote whatever from Wealth of Nations but in reality it doesn't work.

>unfair competition
What is this?

>companies owning >90% of the market =/= monopoly

You can still compete with facebook or google if you think you will do better than them.

EH!
IT'S A SPICY MEAT-A BALL-A

lol, your country is a fucking joke

>Facebook has a de facto monopoly. So has Google etc.

you should feel bad

>they form faster with no government regulation, as dominant player use unfair competition to squeeze out upcoming player

Fucking this.

I am so sick of having to explain this to every free market tard I come across.

If this is your explanation, it's no wonder nobody listens.

The economy is like a mouse running in a wheel. The mouse runs at its own speed and is enjoying the ride. If you stop the wheel or speed it up however, the mouse will likely flip over and will have its day ruined.

>So if you're going to ignore competition outside an arbitrary area and declare anything within a monopoly, then any given McDonalds is a hamburger monopoly if you're only talking about one or two city blocks. You render the term meaningless.

I'm not trying to twist truth to make a point. I'm trying to keep it simple. The moment you introduce other countries with other governments and markets it becomes impossibly complex to discuss.

>If the monopoly (or more accurately, very large firm because a literal monopoly is virtually impossible) starts misbehaving enough to anger a significant portion of its customer base, the barriers to entry become largely irrelevant because there is now huge money available for anyone who enters the market and starts competing. If the monopoly is not misbehaving, there is no problem.

The main argument is stifling innovation. Just look at Intel (which is NOT a monopoly).

>>unfair competition
>What is this?

Lowering prices for a certain peroid of time to kill your competition, or contracting with suppliers so they cannot supply competitors, or just buying competitors, or contracting with employees so they cannot be poached etc.

>You can still compete with facebook or google if you think you will do better than them.
You cannot. The market is such that a better product will not succeed as transition costs are way to high for users.

Let me explain using a modern day example from my own country.

We have a massive supermarket chain in Oz called "woolworths", or "woolies" for short. This company has been using dodgy business practices for years to undermine any competition trying to break into the market.

By being he dominant figure of it's industry, it has expanded into many areas.

Now, when people try to start up new chains, the woolworths in the local area drop its prices BELOW cost. Meaning, they run entirely at a loss. However, because this is localised, the company as a whole still makes a profit. The result is woolies getting bigger, while the smaller company goes bankrupt (you cannot compete against below cost retailing).

Now that woolies has sole control, it jacks the prices up again, and does the same thing in a new area, driving competitor after competitor out of business.

>nobody listens.

When did I say no one listens?

I said this basic concept is unexamined by every free market tard, not that they ignore me when I point it out.

It isn't. The government is need to prevent and break up monopolies. The mixed economy of the US is the the best economic system created to date.

>The moment you introduce other countries with other governments and markets it becomes impossibly complex to discuss.
So the solution is to ignore them in order to prove your ideology correct?

>look at Intel
How are they stifling innovation?

None of those things are "unfair" (what does this even mean?). They are engaging in voluntary business with voluntary suppliers and consumers.

>The market is such that a better product will not succeed as transition costs are way to high for users
You mean that a marginally better product will not succeed. A significantly better one will; look at what happend to Myspace when Facebook shows up. Just because your shitty social media startup or search engine doesn't appeal to consumers enough for them to make the switch, doesn't make your competitor a monopoly.

Provide an actual sauce for this predatory pricing strategy. Every fucking time someone mentions da ebil monopolies doing it, they can never come up with actual data or news articles.

Is a true free market something that has ever existed or is that just a meme?

Natural monopolies like Facebook are formed because the customers overwhelmingly choose its services or goods and are not actual monopolies there are alternatives and they aren't long lasting.

Look at Apple 10 years ago, they had a monopoly over mp3 players because people preferred its goods compared to other companies but he market shifted to today's smartphone in which apple is the major player anymore and even then you had alternatives under Apple's natural monopoly. If your issue is that too many will like a superior product therefore there won't be as much competition then that's a non-issue.

In my definition monopoly is a business that owns the right to not have competitors
Cartels are not a bad thing at all, they still have to compete in the free market
But State made cartels are sure a bad thing because you are obliged to buy its products and they prefer to buy laws than improving themselves.

10/10 best troll

Do you believe that healthcare, education, and/or environment should be handled through the government or through the free market though

Free markets provide better information signaling on actual demand and supply through decentralized decision-makers.

This has always been the main argument for it.

the government is terrible at everything it is tasked at doing, so keeping it small and limiting what it can do is preferable.

for the government to interfere in economics it must grow larger, gain more power and control. this opens up the possibilities of corruption and since they aren't good at anything just hurts the market.

>A significantly better one will;
No, a significantly better product cannot succeed in a scenario in which the transition costs are just too high.

Myspace is a bad example, as the market only included 2-3% of the people back then.

New settlements that were still outside the reach of the systems law.
Wild west type stuff, basically. There was little in the way to enforce any kind of market regulation so it was basically completely free

>Look at Apple 10 years ago, they had a monopoly over mp3 players
There were no barriers of entry. Facebook has a massive barrier of entry. Same holds true for Google.

Think about the F-35, why is noone producing a better, cheaper plane and offers it to the government?

Outside of some tribal societies, it hasn't. An absolutely free (or "true" free) market is one defined by an absence of violent coersion in the marketplace. All governments are by definition coersive, so no market under the control of a government can be absolutely free. There haven't been any major stateless societies, therefore there haven't been any major free markets.

What transition costs are there from switching social media websites or search engines? You literally type some keys, and click your mouse a bit. Then you tell your friends about how amazing this new, significantly better product is.

>So the solution is to ignore them in order to prove your ideology correct?

No. There's no reason to discuss them because they are irrelevant. Standard Oil had enough of the market --in the US-- under its control to destroy any real competition. Sure it didn't have 100% of the market, like you said it's extremely unlikely for anything to have 100% of the market.

I'm just saying why discuss other nations and market systems to derail the point?

>How are they stifling innovation?

Intel has recently broken Moore's law which has been in effect for decades. And what a coincidence that AMD is has been non-competitive. Sure it can be coincidence, but I'm sure if AMD or IBM or Apple put some pressure on their researchers this might not have happened.

>H-he was just trolling all along!!!!!!!

No you just don't have an argument.

Both. There should be a publicly funded options and a private sector options. The government options would almost certainly be inferior but it provides a safety net.

>actual sauce for this predatory pricing strategy.

It's called cross subsidization; this is intro to economics stuff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_subsidization

Right now, woolies and coles have a massive petrol racket going on:

newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/fuel-cross-subsidies-supermarkets-are-wrong

Wow, someone here with a better than nig level understanding.

What barriers do social networking sites have?

As for the F-35 I would guess because military aeronautics is a small field hard to start and why aren't others selling it cheaper to government, because government doesn't mind paying for expensive stuff it's the tax-payers money and they can even get a bribe/donation out of giving an expensive contract.

>You literally type some keys, and click your mouse a bit. Then you tell your friends about how amazing this new, significantly better product is.

>this is not a transition cost

You are astoundingly out of touch with he average person.

>Free market
Economy based in sucking Jew dick, you mean?

>What transition costs are there from switching social media websites or search engines?
There are massive transition costs. As your "friends" are not on an alternative platform, there is zero gain from switching.

As to search engines, Google has a massive technological edge that can only be reached through billions of upfront investments - even Microsoft lost with Bing despite heavy investments.

My point was just that monopolies can develop naturally. They do. And it is extremely hard to change that.

It would be if a free market maintained itself. Instead a free market leads to monopolies, moguls with insane political influence, and the vast majority of people getting shit on worse than we are now.
I wish it weren't that way and that all business people and politicians would self regulate and all consumers could and would be the balancing force but it simply doesn't work out that way. I don't know what the best solution is to help it maintain that sort of balance, but we haven't seen it yet. It is obvious that an overbearing State is worse than an overbearing set of moguls, however.

NO! Remember it's 100% impossible for monopoly to form in a truly free market!

*Argument for this claim does not actually exist*

It isn't.
The best way to run an economy is different for different races.
The best way to run an economy for white people is either Hitler's national socialism or the Roman Empire before they started letting non Romans be citizens.
Both of them take the bits from capitalism and socialism that most benefit a white society.

> it jacks the prices up again

False. The market will pay what the market wants.
Woolies doesn't lower the price on all products to compete. They run at a loss with larger stores offering more variety and can run wages with overtime.
There is no price gauging. Please stop watch ACA and Today tonight.

Costco and Aldi have joined the market against the big 2 and are expanding.

What are you qualifications for being the "best." Because my best and your best are likely much different.

Another problem with Facebook is that it's so broad that there isn't anyway to compete with it besides not competing at all.
There's solo features that startups can do better at, but at providing a single monolithic do-it-all product nobody can beat Facebook.
And if you come up with a new niche or spin on Facebook they could implement the same feature
and render the competition null within days, or more likely just buy you up.

I don't know if this is a bad thing or not, but to claim that you can compete with Facebook is to be severely detached from reality.

>big 2 and are expanding.

Precisely, they are only able to compete because they are part of a parent company that can subsidise them through such barriers to entry.

If the ACCC had absolutely no control over business practices, I can guarantee you this would not be happening.

Don't point at the regulated market preventing a monopoly having a stranglehold over the consumer base and try to use it as justification for no regulations. That's just silly.

Facebook is for chumps.

>no one can manage such a good service to compete with Facebook

How is it bad? Before you start with freedom of speech and Facebook, once they start going hard on "fake news" and alternative opinions then the worth of their service won't be the same as before and others will be able to compete.

It isn't ideal, but it's the only economic approach that acknowledges the selfish imperative in humans. The only thing individual humans have in common with one another is their self interest. Other models seem based on altruism and arbitrary limitations, and are doomed to fail due because they treat human beings as anything but the wretched selfish creatures they are.

I can guarantee that Zuckerberg feels the same deep down, but he watches those numbers man. It's still business.

>because they are irrelevant.
That's the thing though, they are no more irrelevant than the McDonalds two blocks away from the one by your house. Barring tarriffs or other economic controls, foreign competition is very much relevant when discussing a purported monopoly. In the time of Standard Oil, it had roughly 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf Oil. By any sane definition it was not a monopoly.

>Moore's law
Is just an observed trend, not some cosmic law. Neither is it sustainable; there is an upper limit on how many transistors will fit in a square inch. The rest is conjecture on your part.

>massive petrol racket
You mean they're offering discounts for customers who use their petrol stations? What a scummy move, offering lower prices for consumers!

The average person switches cell phone providers all the time. Pressing some buttons is far easier than that.

> there is zero gain from switching
Which means the product is NOT significantly better. Transition costs are a fact of life, not some evil of the free market. If your new product is not so great as to attract people to it, it is obviously uncompetitive and no amount of wishing will make it so.

Again, Facebook is not a monoply. Neither is Google. They have competition. Just because they can do everything better than the rest, doesn't make them monopolies.

Roman empire = italians.

Italians = lazy, corrupt, degenerate faggots. As in actual gay people.

That alone, was the reason for their downfall.

Individuals are better at choosing what they want than the state in most cases.

This is the only reason.

>stranglehold over the consumer base
What stranglehold, exactly? The kind that gives people lower prices than everyone else?

>Which means the product is NOT significantly better.
How is that a rational conclusion?

Let's say I got 15 real life friends. Some of them might be shitty, but if "switched" to another clique, I would have to give them all up including getting a divorce from my wife. I would not be prepared for that.

Transition costs for Facebook are insurmountable regardless of how great and smooth a competitor is. Facebook is, technologically speaking, actually one of the worst major products out there.

what about the dutch east indian trade company that held 1/3 of the worlds wealth at one point? Whats that? It collapsed and eventually a bunch of smaller companies ate it up?

I don't know the answer, but accepting that means that one has to concede that certain monopolies are acceptable in a capitalistic society.

He feels that way openly. He has called his users idiots or dumb ect several times in interveiws. He knows is product is for the weak minded and foolish. They spend the most anyways.

There is no way to compete with facebook, just like there was no way to compete with myspace. And there is no way to compete with google, just like there was no way to compete with yahoo.

fucking millennials.

A monopoly USED to be a very clear thing. The government lays down hundreds of thousands of miles of copper wire and gives it to ATT, that is a monopoly.

note the important parts here.
1) the government does something with your money
2) the government gives it to a private company.

back in the 2000s Microsoft forgot to give money to the government in the form of lobby funds and monopoly got rewritten to this faggoty definiton we are seeing in this thread. bunch of faggots

It's not.
Why do you think shitskins are squatting everywhere in our country now

What is wrong with a monopoly? Make your own fucking facebook.

I still don't see the point in discussing these other oil companies that were at most a few percent of the market combined.

And as for Intel, maybe you missed my point. They have no reason to innovate. Why pay for more researchers when people keep upgrading despite only making marginal improvements? Do you have an argument for this or are you just going to derail again and argue semantics about Moore's law?

They are possible, natural monopolies like Facebook or even Microsoft have a huge market share because people prefer their product therefore the company has achieve near-monoply status via voluntary trade unlike government monopolies. But mainly natural monopolies still have competition like VK or whatever kids use, or Mac and Linux for Microsoft.

Because the people so self-important that they think they know best who should be allowed to own what start putting people in death camps pretty quickly

>You mean they're offering discounts for customers who use their petrol stations? What a scummy move, offering lower prices for consumers!

When it is cross subisidising and preventing competition, it is. A bigger business, by definition, has lower overheads, meaning it, by default, stifles competition by always being able to run at a lower margin.

By expanding these margins outwards, you get massive corporations with their hands in every basket, and who engage in dodgy practices to shut out competition.

>The average person switches cell phone providers all the time. Pressing some buttons is far easier than that.

You missed the point wildly. The appeal of FB is its userbase. If FB had no accounts and everyone had to choose, then they would be competing at an equal level, but they are not.

In order to develop and introduce something that would compete with FB, you would need to invest an incredible amount of money, and the scond FB sees you as a threat, they can simply copy whatever you were doing better than them.

People DO NOT want to swap social media accounts. It is far, far more intensive than a new phone plan; reuploading all photos, remaking all posts, rejoining all groups (who aren't even on the new paltform), readding all friends, losing your entire timeline. The list is near endless.

I cannot believe you think competing with FB is viable... it is often used as an example of how a product can because self-propagating and drive out competition. It's value is in its popularity...

>None of those things are "unfair" (what does this even mean?). They are engaging in voluntary business with voluntary suppliers and consumers.
So money=power.

>what if the NAP consents tho?

Facebook is not even close to being anything similar to MySpace, and Google is a fucking behemoth compared
to what Yahoo ever was, their predecessors are only superficially similar.

Things are not the same as they used to be.

>The kind that gives people lower prices than everyone else?

Only until they secure the market, and then the prices go up.

I have first hand experience going between woolies in the city and out west and seeing wildly different prices.