I guess in some case, the free market just doesn't work

I guess in some case, the free market just doesn't work.

Bump

What is it called when the government can break up monopolies, but otherwise mostly let's the market free?

anti-semitism

Kek

This is so stupid. These theoretical models are retarded.

Why isn't stealing the bridge an option? That's what would have happened in real life history.

>muh ancap privately owned roads
Well, duh.

Capitalist fantasy-land

top kek

If that is how you think the world works, even in a simplified manner, you are so stupid that you'd be considered a retard even in central Africa.

Thats why you dont give contracts to rando’s...

But I thought private citizens couldn't build roads. That's why we need the government.

>the citizens can't use the long route
>they can't opt to boycott the first bridge the second the cunt raises prices
These "arguments" always count on the masses being idiot sheeple that cant do anything without big daddy.

All it would take is one bullet to the temple of Goldenfold anyway.

That's the solution OP's graphic is hinting at
Also, there's no bigger monopoly than the state, something you retards don't have the intellectual capacity to understand

Mr Peters should have build the bridge sooner than mr goldenfold. Free market is about competition. And the price that Mr Peters its called barrier of entry. Literally economics 101.

Doesn't usually work like that, and when it does it's usually because the state has granted the company a monopoly in some way (e.g. ISPs).

In this example the road would remain open, because the cost of maintenance is very low compared to a bridge. The bridge owner would raise prices until he begins to lose revenue because the citizens are either no longer going to the mine or are opting to pay to use the road.

Also, usually there is more than one way to earn a living, even if the mine only had bridge access at some point it would become unprofitable to pay to go mine there, the people who were least efficient at mining would redistribute their labour into more profitable areas. Overall, things are better thanks to the bridge owner - efficiency is higher at the mine, and there is more labour to do other things.

Most people Don't want to live in ancapistan, the fact that there are certain types of problems the free market isn't well equipped to solve doesn't mean it can't solve most problems.

based estonia kek

That's not a deer trail, deer trails are much thinner. If you go into a pasture cows will do the same thing and trample trails down to dirt.

>free market
>roads

So roads do exist in free markets?

What happened to all the meme rhetoric?

>t. David Attenborough

This doesnt happen because the town would have grown around the mine not 2 miles away from it, or the people would have moved there for empoyment.

...

Bump

pretty long explanation to describe a monopoly. anyway if consumers are intelligent this won't happen so you reap what you sow.

Maybe we should just stop warshipping the elite and stop accepting their bribes? Maybe people should have some backbone and stop worshiping their idol the dollar. In other words if you dont stop worshipping money you can rot in hell and you will. (or whats left of the husk of a planet)

>Muh labour theory
If the workers got all of the value they made, who would pay for the upkeep of the factory, the marketing of the product, R&D etc.

>If the workers got all of the value they made, who would pay for the upkeep of the factory, the marketing of the product, R&D etc.
The government. You become a wage slave for life as you can never own income generating property.

The market always adapts. Monopolies are impossible unless you have government intervention. Study some fucking economics.

>These "arguments" always count on the masses being idiot sheeple
But they are
>All it would take is one bullet to the temple of Goldenfold anyway.
All it took was one bullet to Nathan Rothschild's temple.

A unionized factory can also be profitable. See Germamy, for example. I once worked at a factory where the Jewish CEO made as much money as everyone who worked in the factory actually making the products combined. Do you really think he contributed as much value as everyone else who worked there, or he just had the power to extract that amount of money? In the US, a CEO makes 350x what a typical worker makes - in Japan it's closer to 10:1. Are ypu telling me there's no capitalism in Japan or Germany? Are you telling me that if the government put a gun to the head of the CEO who owned the factory I worked at and told him he had to cap his salary at 35x what a worker makes, no one competent would be willing to take that job, they really need 350x or the whole system collapses and we go back to scavanging for roots and berries?

that's why the town that owns the land has a contract, which controls prices

the town also has options such as eminent domain, building another bridge, breaking the first company into multiple companies.

they can pass these laws easily if they are coordinated since they outnumber our businessman 99:1

this is why the businessman has to be savvy and careful, because with one big enough wrong step everything can be taken away from him with one law

just like they did to Standard Oil and taxed them 90% overnight. The law was photographic, only one company fit the bill and they paid the bill.

how is it detrimental to you? if you can do the job alone just start a business. if you can't the only reason you think you are being taken advantage of is because you are delusional, you are doing something because someone else did work before you to make it possible. they are investing in you and you have agreed to take less, for less risk.
if you want prove your worth and become partner.

>Monopolies are impossible unless you have government intervention
>Study some fucking economics

Are you retarded?
Scenarios close to monopolies, oligopolies - or in very few cases even monopsonies - occur in a free market

>comparing one single factory vs large multinationals
>my anecdote works so the next attempt at worker owned factories won’t end with mass starvation
>implying owners of successful businesses can’t be rewarded for their leadership

It's detrimental to me because societies that have high levels of inequality and poverty also have high levels of crime, high levels of broken homes, violence and social neglect. That is why America has those things and Germany and Japan do not, because Germany and Japan are cohesive societies whereas America is a dog-eat-dog free for all. The town where that factory was in (North East Rust Belt) had whole neighborhoods that looked like a literal war had happened. What actually happen is that most of the factories left for other countries thanks to Libertarian economic theories that said free trade wpuld be good for everyone. What happened in reality resembled a literal war zone where you either lived on food stamps and charity, found a job and accepted whatever conditions were offered no matter how bad, or turned to drugs amd crime. That's the world the 'invisible hand of the market' actually created, because countries that play as a team economically outcompete countries with and individualistic laissez faire attitude.This is why semi-Communist China is coming to dominate economically while the US stagnates

The U.S. USED to play as a team economically btw. Our policy used to be high tariffs with the revenue put towards public goods and infrastructure. This was the dominant economic policy of the US from 1790-1970, which is when Libertarian free trade theory became dominant and treaties like GATT, the WTO, NAFTA started coming into being. It was called "The American School of Economics," and it worked. You aren't supposed to know about that, you are only supposed to know about the "Austrian School of Economics" brought to you by plutocratic think-tanks