Serious question. Do they suffer from a brain-problem? Do they genuinely believe that less government regulation is a good thing if it means corporations can charge consumers extreme prices just for profit?
Why do free-marketeers speak about corporations as though they are people when they are not?
Most free-marketeers I meet care more about money than their fellow citizens. Is this a mental illness?
An anarchist is just as cringey as an atheist who insists that there are no differences between religions.
It's not mental illness per se, but the ones who worship at the alter of Ayn Rand so to speak are genuinely shitty people. Maybe some of them are sociopaths like Rand herself, in which case we could talk about mental illness. I always wonder what happened to these people in their lives to turn them into caricatures of Shylock...
>Do they genuinely believe that less government regulation is a good thing if it means corporations can charge consumers extreme prices just for profit?
>Company charges more
>Company that doesn't charge more now takes a higher percentage of the sales
It's basic logic.
>Corporation charges extreme prices for "profit"
>People stop buying and turn to competitors
>Corporation either lowers prices or folds
*sips tea*
A free market under a truly moral society is an unattainable ideal simply because humans are not moral. We can, however strive toward the ideal.
Holly shit you're stupid.
Except when there is only 1 company... or 2 companies that collude together to keep prices high.
Then you are just fucked.
"MUH FREE MARKET!"
Typical conservicuck logic.
Eh... do you have an example of this ever happening. I can only think of De Beer diamonds and you dont need to buy that shit. There is always competition unless a government intervenes in the markets
Price fixing among automobile companies in the 90s
>"are free marketers mentally ill?"
>see flag
yep, found the projecting man child. too incapable of anything to do anything himself so he needs to project his cosmic and parental abandonment issues on others.
Cars were cheap as shit is the 90s. Next
????? Competition?
>Except when there is only 1 company... or 2 companies that collude together to keep prices high.
During the middle ages Ottomans had monopoly over the spice trade.
So multiple nations and trade companies went around the world for Spices at a better price.
Give it enough time and all monopolies die.
Happens all the time.
>Since 1997, US Courts have divided price fixing into two categories: vertical and horizontal maximum price fixing.[8] Vertical price fixing includes a manufacturer's attempt to control the price of its product at retail.[9] In State Oil Co. v. Khan,[10] the US Supreme Court held that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act, but horizontal price fixing is still considered a breach of the Sherman Act. Also in 2008, the defendants of United States v LG Display Co., United States v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and United States v. Sharp Corporation heard in the Northern District of California, agreed to pay a total sum of $585 million to settle their prosecutions for conspiring to fix prices of liquid crystal display panels, which was the second largest amount awarded under the Sherman Act in history
en.wikipedia.org
>In October 2005, the Korean company Samsung pleaded guilty to conspiring with other companies, including Infineon and Hynix Semiconductor, to fix the price of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips. Samsung was the third company to be charged in connection with the international cartel and was fined $300 million, the second largest antitrust penalty in US history.
>In 2008 in the US, LG Display Co., Chunghwa Picture Tubes and Sharp Corp., agreed to plead guilty and pay $585 million in criminal fines[20][21] for conspiring to fix prices of liquid crystal display panels.
Comcast is a current example, but due to government-granted monopoly isn't considered to technically be a monopoly.
(And this isn't an example of "free market is better! - we'd need local loop unbundling for that to happen. This is more an example of how the "free market" fails in some cases.)
haha 1 point scored, i just watched a milton friedman video on youtube guys
I'd agree with you if humans didn't have short lifespans. Can't wait 200 years for monopolies to die out when you are dead by 85.
What your original post said is stupid
They are the best goyim, no wonder it's full of jews behind their theories.
You spent all this time finding cases of conspiring but still haven't found a monopoly without government interference.
The Ottoman spice trade monopoly lasted less than 100 years.
And the only reason it lasted so long was because humans had to develop two new fields of naval technology from scratch and do serious evolving in the other ones.
Monopolies don't really last long, people will work around. And in fact most monopolies are caused by the Governament.
Like in the 1800's the Colt arms company held the patent for drilled through revolver cylinder. Which did give them a large market edge for when it was active but other companies simply developed work around with various levels of success.
> Do they genuinely believe that less government regulation is a good thing if it means corporations can charge consumers extreme prices just for profit?
Simple misconception in Austrian economics.
1. Corporations are government fictions. They shield individuals by allowing them to have ownership without responsibility. The modern corporate law and tax structure is an example of regulatory capture, these regulations don't protect the consumer but artificially raise the barrier to entry (licensing, requirements, fees) to keep out disruptive competition and ease the cost of doing business at higher levels (tax strategies, litigation, IP).
2. A business which charges consumers extreme prices just for profit is a high time-preference (short term), economically unfavorable strategy. This is not to say that people always act rationally, but given that there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, artificially raising prices to attempt to create profit (1) bids the price above what the market can bear, REDUCING profits -- you may price hike 30% but now only 10% of your consumer base can still afford it; and (2) as other Anons have said, creates a niche for competitors to expand.
> Why do free-marketeers speak about corporations as though they are people when they are not?
A privately held corporation is made up of individuals who own the corporation in the same way you own your body. They can use the corporation to advocate it's own interests, to speak and behave freely in any way a person would.
What most people have a problem with is that corporations have lobbied to get it both ways: all of the liberties without assuming the risk. The individuals responsible for making corporate decisions are rarely held personally accountable for damages, debts, crimes -- attributing these things to the collective non-person. Well which is it? "Officer, while I was drunk, my car killed someone!"
>Founded by the richest man in history, Standard Oil was the product of John D. Rockefeller. In 1882, Standard Oil’s properties were incorporated into the Standard Oil Trust. Under this banner, Rockefeller formed a conglomeration that handled all oil production, transportation, refinement and marketing. By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States. At the turn of the century, the company controlled 91% of oil production and 85% of its final sales.
therichest.com
This one is almost back to how it was when we broke it up:
>Beginning its life as the Bell Patent Association, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) created the nation’s first commercially viable long-distance network. In 1907, AT&T president Theodore Vail created a new mantra to guide the company: One Policy, One System, Universal Service. Earning the nickname “Ma Bell,” AT&T built a monopoly within the telephone industry by purchasing its competitors.
>With over 7,000 retail locations worldwide, chances are if you’ve ever bought glasses, you’ve dealt with Luxottica. From the budget-minded frames sold at Sears Optical to the slightly more fashionably conscious offerings at Pearle Vision, Luxottica has its mitts in both pots. On top of this, Luxottica is directly involved in the production of over 80% of the world’s major eyewear brands.
>With a burgeoning monopoly on the seed market, nearly 80% of the corn grown in America is trademarked by Monsanto. The company has gone as far as prosecuting farmers who used patented Monsanto seeds gathered from neighboring farms. In fact, at one point the company went so far as to design “Terminator” seeds that would sterilize plants and render them incapable of producing fertile seeds.
You don't understand what competition does to businesses. You don't understand how productivity is affected by over regulation. You don't understand how consumers can choose who to buy from (if there's competition) based on the corporation's behavior. You don't understand how overregulation harms small business, which leads to megacorporations which leads to near monopolies on given goods which leads to the extreme price gouging you pretend to have so much knowledge about.
Get educated before you shill.
The was still competition. Rockefeller gained a large market share by charging less for gas than his competitors could charge and remain in business.
Next
This all goes away in the case of monopolies, which laws exist to prevent.
I do support smaller government. Excessive regulations are a burden when starting a business, and excessive "worker's protection" can make it very costly for companies (especially small companies) to hire employees. Usually the unemployment rate in such places are higher.
I'm not an ancap or anything, just in case.
Do you have an example of a monopoly? The other idiot failed to find one
Yeah, they're mostly dumbfuck Amerilard lolbertarians.
The Free Market and Capitalism is for cucks.
>but the ones who worship at the alter of Ayn Rand so to speak are genuinely shitty people
Do you actually know any such people? And not people like Paul Ryan who claim to like Rand in order to pander for Tea Party votes. The reason I ask is because I used to be a hardcore Objectivist, and I still have many friends who are hardcore Objectivist, and they are genuinely some of the nicest, most down to earth people I know. And they are very happy with their lives in general.
I'm no longer a hardcore objectivist because I have a wife and kids now, and that has made me reject certain things here and there about objectivism, but it's not a bad philosophy, and my objectivist friends remain some of my closest and most loyal friends.
Hi Sargon
Enjoying that computer and Internet brought to you by the free market I see
>Monopolies don't really last long, people will work around. And in fact most monopolies are caused by the Governament.
Yup.
> , the company controlled 91% of oil production and 85% of its final sales.
Rockefeller was one of the pioneers of lobbying. In many states, the first person a new legislator was introduced to was the Standard Oil lobbyist. Rockefeller was a business genius who used the power of the government to get preferential treatment on the rails, to the virtual exclusion of any other business. Rockefeller carefully maintained his relationships with state and Federal agencies so that any refiner or producer of crude oil met incredible hostility and unaffordable rates when trying to ship or market. When the Interstate Commerce Commission would have a ruling about what constitutes fair practices, Standard Oil would often simply ignore it. ICC would put out rules to ensure "fair standards", and then not really get around to assessing damages or prosecuting Standard Oil, ostensibly the whole reason they needed to pass the ruling in the first place.
Government created the Standard Oil Trust and became it's ally, and later pretended like it had nothing to do with it. Don't buy it.
>all of the liberties without assuming the risk.
Libertarians would do a lot for winning people over to their side if they spent any time at all trying to get that risk part fixed instead of using all their energy trying to maximize liberty as if there wasn't a flaw in the system being exploited.
>"That's why I support free market capitalism, hate feminists, believe that the illuminati is real, and realize that the world is controlled by greedy jews"
Except for the illuminati part (which is merely a meme), what's really the problem with that statement?
>Most free-marketeers I meet care more about money than their fellow citizens. Is this a mental illness?
That's pretty easy when most of your citizens are mouth breathers. Why should I be held back by the pond scum that makes up 99% of the human population?
Prices are set by consumers, silly.
You cry because you can't even compete with your shitty strawman so you need to steal from someone else to live your pitiful existence.
I love how free market fanatics sounds like Salafists when they (((argue)))
>Oh no, you completely don't understand what the point is with [obscure conviction], please read this 1.000 pages book by some dead Austrian and see these 200 youtube videos of madman ramblings before you post again, thanks
Nah, the free market is for losers who don't care about their fellow countrymen.
How much more cucked can you get?
All based on technology from public sponsored projects
It's because they don't really know why they believe what they believe, other than "that there socialism is unamerican".
Don't blame the yanks, they've been indoctrinated since birth.
>I don't have to be knowledgable to call you dumb!
Well, you're not wrong.
>can charge consumers extreme prices just for profit?
You have no idea how these things work do you?
>When there are no arguments
>Sellers determine prices not supply and demand
You know how I know you're a moron?
Oh, no it's not that I don't want to discuss this, I just find many similarities between free market fanatics and islamist - that's all.
The (((Market))) is a perfect machine for the capitalist democracies most of us live in. But no machine runs by its own accord, so adjustments, maintenance, tweaks and improvements are necessary from time to time. The whole transcendent fantasy of some socials system raised above human critique seems like an excuse for pseudo religion.
You can only price fix if you can barr potential competitors from the market.
OP has things exactly backwards. Free marketeers are against monopolies, not for them. The state is the monopoly of monopolies and is the only body that grants monopolistic privileges
I don't think there are any more arguments for any of us to make. We all know our positions, we're not going to budge. Its time for
doomsday.
Yes. Kek wills it. Time for Doomsday and The Great Purge.
>But no machine runs by its own accord, so adjustments, maintenance, tweaks and improvements are necessary from time to time.
And many a times those happened without any governments being involved.
For Example China had a monopoly on porcelain up until the 18th century when European manufacturers developed means of producing it in Europe, those means also helped build the industrial revolution as they also made kilns better and more efficient.
In fact a lot of economical problems were caused by governments. Like the South Sea bubble which was engineered by greedy bureaucrats.
You didn't even make any to begin with. You just started memeing and now conceded.
Yeah the government can cause shit in the machinery but leaving it to itself can do the same. Deregulation of the banking sector is the boring, old but still most recent and significant example of why a 'hands off' approach to the Market Machine isn't ideal either. The Dutch Tulipomania is another more historical indcident that comes to mind.
He literally found 5 of them and you're just dismissing them because somehow words change their meaning when they enter your american fast-food fueled brain, dipshit
>Except when there is only 1 company... or 2 companies that collude together to keep prices high.
Except that this never happened for essentials except for some drug that treats an extremely snowflake disease that 1 in 1 million people get. And in that case they would never have gotten the drug if that company didn't develop it anyway.
Its not like they will monopolize wheat or water.
>Deregulation of the banking sector is the boring, old but still most recent and significant example of why a 'hands off' approach to the Market Machine isn't ideal either
You mean the retarded system in which nobody checked on banks, it required ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy and money to start a bank in the first place, and the state was dumb enough to become dependent on them so they propped them up.
If anything the banking sector would benefit from deregulation, of the kind that makes it hard to start a bank.
So more banks would have somehow solved the housing lones issue? I'm listening user
And yeah I agree that it was ridicoulus that nobody fucking checked on the banks, that's the whole point about a machine needing maintenance, m9
>So more banks would have somehow solved the housing lones issue? I'm listening user
The more options there, and the more competition the more likely some banks will not attempt stupid shit.
>And yeah I agree that it was ridicoulus that nobody fucking checked on the banks, that's the whole point about a machine needing maintenance, m9
The government didn't. So who but private citizens should check on those banks?
Do you really think that the economy and trade can't and have not functioned without government involvement?
Your "machine needing maintenance" can just be done by market actors, be it consumers or competitors.
I have my own positions, no point in discussing them. Debate gets no-one nowhere.
>Except when there is only 1 company... or 2 companies that collude together to keep prices high.
1. Form a competition company
2. Set lower prices than the collusioncucks
3. Overnight millionaire
So much as attempting collusion in a free market is literally inviting disaster from competition
You only need one company to break ranks and they can snatch total market share quickly and then it's a price race to the bottom to remain competitive
Even if you get every single company involved in the price fix, you only need again, literally one company to be formed creating a comparable product to get completely fucked
Why can't this market actor be the government?
Cause the government is shit at it. Besides overt examples of stupidity like in the USSR. It just doesn't make sense. Governments are too stagnant and change so often and so randomly that they hardly ever really be a competent market actors.
You will end up with one of two things, overpriced stuff bought by the government, low quality stuff made by the government. There are exceptions like war time production. But during war time the government doesn't change, and it's stagnancy might actually be good.
>Most free-marketeers I meet care more about money than their fellow citizens. Is this a mental illness?
Yes. Libertarians correlation the strongest on the autism spectrum of any political view.
They don't care about humans or culture or art or anything that isn't money. They're subhuman insectoids, basically.
Free markets are a great way of achieving a faster rate of development, the prices will be lower, some people say that wages will lower, yes but products will lower in price and better ones will come
You are free to decide what to do with your life, even the ones that start at the bottom can climb the ladder, there will be struggle but nothing will stop you but your willing to go further
For faggots like you, you can deny who you hire or who you serve, the government won't stop you, so you can be "racist" or "misogynistic", only the market and the people values will make you pay for your actions or reap the rewards
Anything you create will benefit everyone around the world, and anything someone creates somewhere else will benefit you
Is the best way to fight monopolies, companies will have to be on their toes with prices and quality, if they don't, they get fucked by someone else
The only people against free markets are retarded wage cucks who don't understand economics, who only think in paper money as if having more paper will improve your life
So if you were going to present an argument against Objectivism, what would it be?
there's also no problem with a monopoly per se. If a company has a monopoly or a de facto monopoly for its own qualities, and it's good for consumers, there's no problem with that. the problem comes when monopolies charge abusive prices, for example.