If the free market was actually efficient, then it would be impossible for someone to start a business. There would be no room for profit, since every demand would have already been met.
If the free market was actually efficient, then it would be impossible for someone to start a business...
Other urls found in this thread:
mic.com
archive.is
twitter.com
You're assuming a utopia is possible.
Also what do you know what demand there is for stuff?
People don't even know what they want.
Apple CREATED a demand for stupid baubles when there was none.
thus driving innovation
Why are liberals incapable of understanding dynamic systems? Is it just the low IQ?
they're ideologically incentivized to think free markets are bad
But that's wrong.
A market cannot exist if there is no demand or potential of demand to create it.
...
It's actually the ease of market entrance by competitors that breeds the efficiencies. In time companies lose that edge, become bloated and beaurocratic, and newel ayers come in the market to reap benefits until someone does it even better. Sears catalog begat Walmart begat amazon and so forth and so on.
>mfw there are no grocery stores because the market is so efficient that there is no demand for food
it's amazing how stupid leftists like op are
conservatives are ideologically incentivized to think free markets are good. which theyre not
good b8 you got me
Would you care to supply an argument for that?
The demand for arguments has already been met.
Arguments for the free market have been supplied, which I support, but I still want to hear the arguments against the free market.
it's called a monopoly
see
>If the free market was actually efficient, then it would be impossible for someone to start a business. There would be no room for profit, since every demand would have already been met
It's called customer choice. If there's a monopoly, customers will choose a cheaper company and the big company will go bankrupt.
lol this is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read.
Thanks, user.
O look at all the proof provided for this claim!
this. op completely BTFO. how will he recover?
the monopoly already has it all dummy
that's why it's a monopoly
this is the absolute state of Sup Forums Sup Forums, all accusations, 0 explanation or thought provoking arguments.
That's some retarded stuff right there, OP!
people never invent things, have new ideas or change their preferences. you are right.
You can make a new company
They invent things, have new ideas or change their preferences ONLY when the market is not free.
ha.....good luck
actually they are not. it's the case in the us, but conservatives in other countries with less liberal (as in true liberal, not the commie shit you're representing) traditions may not emphasise free markets as much or even at all.
conservatism is a an idea mainly concerned with social values, not economics. also it's remarkably stupid, but so are so called progressives denying personal freedom.
A free market cannot
achieve peak efficiency and meet every consumer demand because consumer demands are always changing and
innovations are always occurring to both meet customer demands and create new ones.
I love how American Sup Forums users are such obvious republicans. You morons support the Jewish capitalist state whos sole purpose is to establish a zog communist state.
Capitalism is the most exploitable political and economic system imaginable, how do you people even rationalize standing behind an ideology like this?
>Allowing money to become the single driving force behind people's actions.
Despicable really.
say, do you sometimes forget to breath?
Wtf I'm a communist now
>start business
>it does well and starts to cut into the profits of a bigger, already well established enterprise with a similar service
>bigger competitor does not want competition and offers to buy your enterprise
Do you sell or keep your enterprise?
breath is a noun
you mean "breathe"
and to answer your question - no, but it seems like you do
depends. what's the market cap and what are my chances of further growth? also what amount of money are they offering compared to the previous factors? also that's a question for /biz/
this
Stop conflating the right with kikes, kike.
>every demand would have already been met
haha, what the fuck?
If you don't like it, you can choose not to participate.
It is not the same when you want to force others to part with half their income so that you can feel good about destroying the country by allowing the weak and sickly to survive and breed.
thank you for pointing out my typo. next time I'm making sure not to butt rape your beloved mother tongue with my auto correct.
>in a free market money becomes the single driving force behind people's actions
Why the fuck do you buy this meme? Yes, people would be able to accumulate wealth much more easily but wealth is a means to an end; given more wealth, people would be able to allocate more time to other pursuits. And it's not like the majority of people would be fat cat capitalists
Why not archive?
archive.is
If communism worked you wouldn't need to sell human meat to survive.
because a lot of archive links are secret virus downloads.
yours looks like it could be one, too, just for any lurkers in the thread
It's a trick question. Your only real option is to sell, as the bigger competitor will just emulate your service and then offer it at a lower cost otherwise. Eventually, you will run out of money and have to close up shop. This is what Target, Wal-Mart, EA, Nesquik, Samsung, Mars, and every single other major company does.
Not quite. Goods only get produced as long as the demand is sufficient enough to cover the costs of catering to that demand. If a demand increases enough to warrant a new business, than a new business would start. If a person manages to find a more resource efficient way of doing things, than again a new business can start. Markets are not static. Supply and demand are constantly changing. Those changes provide chances for competitors to enter the market. It also presumes that the businesses remain constant. It is possible for businesses to make mistakes and fail. Business failure often frees up parts of the market, which means an opportunity for new businesses.
I just clicked on the thread to see the qt nip girl. The rest of the thread can go to shit.
The Ukrainian famine of 1922 was induced on purpose by the Soviet regime in order to subjugate the Ukrainian people. Economy had nothing to do with it.
And communism worked well enough to put a man in space first. It also managed to control a massive land empire with a massive number of diverse ethnic and religious groups.
spoken like a true euro. if it was the case, changes in market domination would never happen. that's the case. additionally:
a) large corporations have the problem of bloat
b) large corporations have the problem of bureaucracy
c) large social structures, like large corporations, tend to distort incentives for members, resulting in this case in teams (and managers) being preoccupied with social hierarchy / dynamics.
d) from this follows that large corporations become inefficient. (to a degree) and eventually, when this inefficiency becomes to big, they fail. happens.
e) it's not a given that any big corporation can emulate the given service at lower price for a sufficient time. a lot of innovation happens because of new and cheaper production methods unavailable to the competition.
f) why would they buy you when they can just go straight for the cheese?
g) look at ben and jerry vs hagen dash for an example of a small company finding a way to force its will upon a bigger competitor.
h) red bull was totally ousted by coca cola and pepsico in the 90s. (and yes, energy drinks did cut hard into the soft drink market cap)
*that's not the case.
you can *google* that on altavista or yahoo.
Zero *economic* profit aka zero opportunity cost
Aka you earn the same *risk-adjusted return* as everyone else for the same inputs of time+effort+capital
This has fuck all to do with accounting profit
Define "efficient".
Market efficiency isn't binary. It isn't all-or-nothing. Free markets may not be 100% efficient but they're still much better than the alternatives.
>There would be no room for profit, since every demand would have already been met.
Assuming supply/demand and population are stable over time, or if that's ridiculously untrue; OP is a retarded fag that doesn't understand the *most* basic of concepts involved in the subject. SAGE
she's french