Communism:

>Communism:
>the state becomes all-powerful

>Free market:
>companies become all-powerful (see pic for instance)

So is the answer really a free market + government intervention to curb monopolization?

Other urls found in this thread:

walmartsubsidywatch.org/
lmgtfy.com/?q=how many people does walmart employ
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-forgotten-wisdom-of-louis-d-brandeis/485477/
youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Nothing?

How does libertarianism for instance combat monopolization?

Wrong place I guess lol.

Monopolization shouldn't occur in a completely free market. IF it happens, it simply means they are too good and deserve the monopoly

sorry you need to post a black guy nailing a white girl to gather any attention.

on a more serious matter, it depends on the branch. I doubt if walmart suddenly started to be evil it would maintain its position. its superior because it providers a superior experience.

That's how economy of scale works though; the bigger you get the more powerful you get and the more you can drive down the prices.

No.

>Monopolization shouldn't occur in a completely free market.

Because price gouging doesn't exist right?

Driving down prices means you will lose money. You're trying to paint monopolization as black and white when in reality there's a lot more too it, such as what it is you are selling, what time of the year you are currently selling in, what the competition looks like, your realtionships with other companies. Just because you are big doesn't mean you can drive down prices as if it's nothing.

I'd say an ideologic market is bullshit. You need a technocratic market, Keynesianism or other shit for example

>Driving down prices means you will lose money.
Not if it means you're killing the competition.

So? The consumer benifets at the end and supply and demand adusts the markets. If walmart can sell the cheapest groceries, I really don't care that the mom and pop shop has to close down because it can't compete. Are you also on the side of taxis because Uber is stealing their bussiness?

Yeah but first of all that's a huge risk, if you're willing to take it, go ahead and take your chances. If not, you will still be fine selling at normal prices. There is no moral wrong in selling cheaper than the opponent, that's the exact definition of capitalism.

>go ahead and take your chances
It's exactly how companies like Walmart are booming.

They CAN drive down prices simply because they CAN deliver the products cheaper simply because they're so large.

>I don't mind monopolies
Pretty sure you do, you just don't know it yet.

So much this.

Added to that, rising population numbers increases potential for competition. And that's perfectly natural. Yes it sucks for the small business owners, since they are offering a service some people want, but sometimes not enough people use or need what they offer.

Such is life.

This doomsday message you're trying to spread has been spread for a very long time, probably 20 years in the case of Walmart, but the prices are still extremly low

How do you explain this? In my opinion we should stick to reality and stop with this hypothetical bullshit. There will never be a totalitarian company in a free market world. The only reason they exist today is because they take advantage of the huge government we have today.

Solution: smaller government, less oppurtunities to do some sleezy things as a company,

Name 1 (one) way that monopolization is a problem?

As soon as you find one, an entrepreneur will solve it.

See if a company is providing the market with goods and services with the best economy possible, it doesn't really matter if its the only provider.

As soon as the company exploits its customers there will be room to compete with it.

>but the prices are still extremly low
>How do you explain this?
I just told you; they CAN drive down prices simply because they CAN deliver the products cheaper simply because they're so large.

Companies like Walmart exist at the expense of smaller, local businesses DESPITE monopolies being illegal.

If monopolies were legal, Walmart would grow even larger.

Wait you are contradicting yourself

Read So is it good or bad? Because the way you just put it suggest that it's good becaues of low prices.

- kills small businesses
- drives down prices AND wages, thus lowering overall wealth
- quality goes down since competition disappears
- ...

You keep using this world "powerful"

You used it in the OP too

Corporations don't have any power. They just have the ability to create a good or service and hope that you buy it.

It's government that has the power, that is why it has to be chained with a constitution and power decentralized among the people.

Then the ebil capitalist has to bribe you.


Aaaaaaaaand /thread OP is now a libertarian

It's nice to have lower prices, but monopolies are shit.

Actual competition also drives down prices.

Driving down prices INCREASES wealth


You think the Wal-Mart wealth distribution machine has made Americans poorer?

>kills small businesses

And? Whatever gives the consumer the best option should stay and will stay because they are rewarded with customers. This is simple capitalism.

>drives down prices AND wages, thus lowering overall wealth

False. Just because the prices are low doesn't mean the wages should be higher or that the wealth should be higher. It simply says the the prices were too high prior the the price decrease.

>quality goes down since competition disappears

No, quality will have to remain because otherwise competition will take over. Learn 2 capitalism.

A lot of people work at places like Walmart (or McDonald's, etc.), and they don't make a lot of money.

>And?
Fewer people own businesses, more people work at places like Walmart, McD, ... instead.

So? They don't deserve what they think they deserve, they deserve what their job requires of them to do. If their job is very low-quality and doesn't produce a lot of wealth, they will have lower wages.

Small businesses is such a buzzword nowadays that people instantly assume is a good thing.

Yes

Walmart is all powerful in the same way that a communist government is? I better be careful they don't send me to the gulag for shoping at target

Putting aside how retarded it is to call Walmart 'all powerful', we HAVE government intervention and regulation to supposedly prevent monopolys, but most of the time the government encourages corporatism like you see with Walmart. Get rid of government if you don't want monopolies or corporate welfare etc.

OH NO! That damn free market is driving down prices and making things incredibly cheap, raising out standard of living and providing cheap goods for all! Somebody stop them!

>Small businesses is such a buzzword nowadays that people instantly assume is a good thing.
It really is.

Without giant companies like Walmart or McD, the same people who would be stacking shelves at minimum wage without any responsibility or satisfaction would be stacking their own shelves for their own business.

There's a world of difference.

>driving down prices and making things incredibly cheap
These same companies also drive down wages and thus wealth though.

You are glorifying small businesses. Many of them from the past were rip-off artists.

If they are adding value to society, they will always be viable and thrive.

>A lot of people work at places like Walmart (or McDonald's, etc.), and they don't make a lot of money.

Read Sam Walton's auto-biography. He made thousands of millionaires on his way up. Working at Wal-Mart had tons of advancement opportunities and management positions.

Look into regulation to find out why low-skilled labor has a poor quality of life now.

An employer has to pay unemployment insurance, SS taxes, obamacare, in addition to the wage they pay you.

Also, employees can sue their employers in our very litigious society.

It makes hiring people undesirable - in my small business I have no intention to hire anybody.

This process does overall drive down the price of unskilled labor.

Its unfortunate but we need to relax regulations to get small businesses to hire people and drive up wages.

So we should be fixing our economy to make people feel good about themselves? Not what they actualy deserve?

Because that's essentially your argument. These people are miserable working for McD or Walmart and would feel much better about themselves working for their own businesses.

While it's true, it doesn't provide the best and cheapest products for the rest of us, and it's also morally unfair.

>Monopolization doesn't occur in a completely free market because there's no power structure/government to establish a monopoly on

There are no monopolies that don't first need government permission and protection.

Government is not, is never the answer.

>So is the answer really a free market + government intervention to curb monopolization?

Walmart is benefiting from a completely fucked labor market, and have had help from policy makers.

Ideally, we fix the labor market and hope for a workers union to form. Prevent any future mergers.

If they're determined to be a monopoly, introduce revenue-cap/price-cap/rate-of-return regulation. There are different standards.

and there you have National Socialism!

...

walmartsubsidywatch.org/

Wow this is such a free market.
I'm so glad the free market has force the government to give Walmart over a billion dollars in free money every single year just to keep them for going out of business.

Yes its called Fascism.

>wages and thus wealth though.
wages =/= wealth

See: AUD vs USD

>deserve the monopoly
The problem with this is that past a certain threshold it becomes impossible for competitors to enter the game. The case with Walmart is a good example. If I decided I was going to operate a retail chain like that, I would fail because I could never compete with Walmart's prices. In fact they could probably afford to sell products at a loss for a while just to squeeze me out.

Is this not a real scenario?

yes
that is the exact economic model of nsdap
hitler did nothing wrong

Walmart shirks a lot of regulations; they don't allow unions for instance (which I really like).

I think that ideally, the world would have as many small business owners as possible, and as few paid workers as possible.

You don't think monopolies would arise naturally without govt interference?

I'm not sure we should be "fixing" anything, which is why my OP is a question.

I just think that ideally, the world would have as many small business owners as possible, and as few paid workers as possible.

Not saying I'm willing to use govt power to achieve this.

Is Walmart really on life support? Or is that just a grant they're entitled to as such a large employer?

>the same people who would be stacking shelves at minimum wage without any responsibility or satisfaction would be stacking their own shelves for their own business.

Look, before capitalism and industrialization many people were peasants and maybe they had the option to join a navy or a merchant ship with a life expectancy of 30 years old once they did.

The idea that the people that are 45 years old without ANY skills would somehow own successful businesses if Wal-Mart and other companies didn't exist is just a real stretch.

Hint: Wal-Mart doesn't dominate because of the free market, they dominate because they get preferential treatment from regulators and the IRS. Google and Facebook are far worse offenders than Wal-Mart though, they have literal monopolies, or in Google's case like 90% market share. Again, only because of patronage from the state.

They literally CAN'T. Unless the market is so "free" that there is no law and order and a powerful enough company can kill their competition. Instead, they just lobby the people with a monopoly on legal force, the government.

>Look at those filthy capitalists! Lowering prices for their customers which in turn makes the quality of life because of cheaper prices.

How do you suggest we fix this "problem" without regulating the economy? This is what fixing means, you regulate the economy and take away freedom.

Also, while your ideal world is very pretty and cute. My ideal world is actually one where we have very cheap prices and good products

>See Walmart

This is why we have anti-trust law. Again though, every single monopoly or hegemony can be traced back to patronage from the State.

I sincerely hope you're using the term free market facetiously.

>Is Walmart really on life support?
Walmarts business model is completely unsustainable without government aid.
Like the banks in 2008 walmart is so large and employs so many people that it's "Too big to fail" So the government will continue to prop them up by funneling tax dollars into their failing business to keep millions of Americans from losing their jobs.

>I think that ideally, the world would have as many small business owners as possible, and as few paid workers as possible.

Well believe or not Belgium, I myself want to organize many small businesses and provide a service to them instead of hiring people to work for me outright.

So I am working on your vision.

But nor from a "feels" perspective, just from the point of view that its the best way to deliver value in my industry.

The hard part is that people don't understand the sacrifice that it takes to own a business.

Well, the more people make less money, the lower wealth will be and the more people will rely on the cheapest products and food.
Looks like a vicious circle.

You don't need much skill to operate a store.

Looks to me like large companies dominate DESPITE government interference like anti-monopoly laws.
In a truly free market, you don't think companies would grow and acquire until only one or two major players ended up with the monopoly?

>Monopolies in a Free Market

The only reason Walmart and other huge corporations do so well is that they get special treatment from the Government regulators

>You don't think monopolies would arise naturally without govt interference?
Without legal protection and the government's promise to back said protection with force, what are they gonna do?

It doesn't because monopolization doesn't happen without government contract. The barons of the late 19th Century uniformly had government subsidy which exceeded their payroll requirements.

>How do you suggest we fix this "problem" without regulating the economy?
I'm not suggesting we fix anything.

I'm asking whether monopolization is evil enough to warrant govt intervention.

In a truly free market, you don't think companies would grow and acquire until only one or two major players ended up with the monopoly?

I'm a small business owner myself.
The sense of satisfaction and responsibility you gain is tremendous.
I die a little inside only thinking of working in a factory or large store.

I don't think Wal-Mart employs millions of people lol. How does that even make sense, use tax dollars for a bailout to save jobs, when those tax dollars would have been used by other small businesses that aren't using failing models to expand and hire. That same amount of money is ALWAYS going to create more jobs in the private sector. The government "creating" jobs is the biggest fucking meme there is.

>You don't need much skill to operate a store.

wew

Isnt the fact that companies manage to jew the tax system the real problems with big corporations? They outsource their production to places where its cheaper to produce (aka abuse workers in china) and fly most of their money outside the country they sell without paying thier share?
Arent all the problems created by greed basicly?
(>mfw i had a turckis flag in the chapca verification thing)

>Without legal protection and the government's promise to back said protection with force, what are they gonna do?
Grow and acquire slightly smaller companies until they're gargantuan.

>monopolization doesn't happen without government contract
You don't think monopolies would arise naturally without govt interference?

If we had a free market demand for justice would rise like crazy and the price to gain judgement for property damage etc would be cheaper.

. >In a truly free market, you don't think companies would grow and acquire until only one or two major players ended up with the monopoly?
No, no one does.

>Well, the more people make less money, the lower wealth will be
I know what you're trying to say, but it's not that simple. Wealth and dollar amounts are not the same thing.

>You don't need much skill to operate a store.
It's not the operation that does most businesses in, it's the long term financial actions. Most of the time, expanding too much too quickly. A majority of all businesses do actually go bankrupt.

What would stop companies from growing slightly larger, buying slightly smaller companies, growing even larger, gaining scale advantages and increasingly owning more and more parts of the production cycle until they can drive down prices so much any competition becomes nigh-impossible and they end up being the only player left standing?

>How does that even make sense
Walmart spends millions of dollars on lobbyists, it doesn't have to make sense senpai.
Also
lmgtfy.com/?q=how many people does walmart employ

Walmart employs well over 2 million americans, and employ more americans than any other corporation in the world senpai.

>Isnt the fact that companies manage to jew the tax system the real problems with big corporations? They outsource their production to places where its cheaper to produce (aka abuse workers in china) and fly most of their money outside the country they sell without paying thier share?

>Arent all the problems created by greed basicly?
So is everything good that's ever been created. The point is, if the power is there, people WILL abuse it to enrich and empower themselves. Which is why the government should stay small.

>I'm asking whether monopolization is evil enough to warrant govt intervention.

Are you serious right now? You keep admitting that monopoly means lower prices for the customer, yet you keep insisting that it's evil for some reason?

What if I told you the rate at which a business has a monopoly in a certain area (such as Walmart in retail) fluctuates a lot? Just like inflation. We will have highs and lows, there's nothing you can do about it, it's the nature of economy and competition. Corporations fall of and new corporations take over. If you are good enough you will stay. If not, you will lose your investments.

Also, you said that operating a store doesn't require skills, which quite honestly is laughable, because running a store isn't the hard part, it's competing with other stores. This is what you fail to realise and what you need to learn to truly understand capitalism.

Monopolies cannot exist without the enforcement of the government
Some company might hold a monopoly for a very short period of time but there will always be competition

Would getting rid of the minimum wage help smaller companies compete?

>What would stop companies from growing slightly larger, buying slightly smaller companies,
Competition. Why the fuck do you assume everyone is gonna sell? Even in a market where Wal-mart is protected by the state, it still has competitors, in a free market it would have even more.

>Grow and acquire slightly smaller companies until they're gargantuan.
So they're the only ones acting in said market? Said purchases of smaller companies would always go through without a hitch?

>You don't think monopolies would arise naturally without govt interference?
Do you understand how monopolies actually form and are maintained? It's been spelled out a few times in this thread, but there's a necessity of legislation factor you keep overlooking.

>Most of the time, expanding too much too quickly. A majority of all businesses do actually go bankrupt.
Which is part of the reason why the smart ones keep expanding and buying smaller/failing competitors.

>You keep admitting that monopoly means lower prices for the customer, yet you keep insisting that it's evil for some reason?
The more such monopolies, the fewer smaller competitors, the more mindless wage slaves stacking shelves, the lower the wages, the lower the wealth, the lower the quality of life.

Yes, massively. So would a simplified tax code like Trump wants. Huge companies can afford to hire an army of tax lawyers, a small business can't. Even WITH all the patronage of large firms by the State, small businesses still provide 60% of the jobs in this country.

Yeah but now we cant really just say fuck it freemarket. Casue walmart is already a gargatuan dick that ships shit tier productgs made by slaves in china.
Basicly this is me saying that this is just a hipotetical talk that has little to no aplicability in the existing conditions.
Not saying that these talks araent nice (a mouth of fresh air among all the shit on the board). Well shit is fucked anyway.

>So they're the only ones acting in said market?
No.

>Said purchases of smaller companies would always go through without a hitch?
No.

We're talking thousands and thousands of companies, with just ONE ending up on top.

Nothing is easy on the way there.

What would stop companies from growing slightly larger, buying slightly smaller companies, growing even larger, gaining scale advantages and increasingly owning more and more parts of the production cycle until they can drive down prices so much any competition becomes nigh-impossible and they end up being the only player left standing?

>Competition. Why the fuck do you assume everyone is gonna sell?
Because it happens all the time.
Only thing stopping it from going to far are anti-monopoly laws.

>Which is part of the reason why the smart ones keep expanding and buying smaller/failing competitors.
>the lower the wages, the lower the wealth

It's becoming very clear your understanding of economics and capitalism could fit in a kid's 10 page pop-up book.

>Yeah but now we cant really just say fuck it freemarket.
I know, I'm saying just the opposite. Embrace the free market, greed is good, it drives innovation and the entire economy. Wal-mart would fail if it stopped getting subsidized, LET IT. Those jobs will be lost for a while but they'll quickly be replaced. Losing wal-mart wouldn't destroy the economy like losing all of the banks at the same time.

Wal-Mart is definitely not a "too big to fail" situation.

Then the consumer enjoys low prices for goods that used to cost them much more, thus making everyone more wealthy?

>The more such monopolies, the fewer smaller competitors, the more mindless wage slaves stacking shelves, the lower the wages, the lower the wealth, the lower the quality of life.

What makes you think it means lower wealth? The reason we have low wealth in that scenario would be because people are doing unproductive things such as stacking shelves and not actually educating themselves and becoming something useful for humanity.

You keep arguing from a feels standpoint. I'm gonna assume you are very young and still in your socialist stage of life. You will grow out of it, I did, everyone did.

By x-inefficiency.

>Because it happens all the time.
Point to one time in history a private company achieved and maintained a monopoly without help from the State, or the ability for the firm to use force to kill its competitors (Like drug gangs).

The more people make less money, the fewer people can afford anything but the cheap stuff, the more cheap stuff is in demand, the more Walmart-type companies make money, the more smaller businesses go out of business, the more people work for Walmart-type companies, the more people make less money, etc.

Read this

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-forgotten-wisdom-of-louis-d-brandeis/485477/

But most states forbid monopolies.

So adapt and start making more money? Clearly your skills aren't very highly wanted in the market. Is that really Walmarts fault, or your own fault for not actually being educated?

>corporatism
>companies become all-powerful

FTFY

Neither communism nor Capitalism work because the flaw is much deeper than that.
youtube.com/watch?v=6xGyKuyGhaE

1) Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for improved ecological sustainability in the world today?

2) In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs (“cost efficiency”) in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?

3) In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral, emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an effect?

>Only thing stopping it from going to far are anti-monopoly laws.

Why are you asking questions when you're not actually reading any of the answers?

This concept has been explained to you several different ways by several different people, you keep coming back and bleating the same fucking "but what if? but what if?"s over and over with absolutely zero regard to anything that has been explained in the meantime.

Are you leading? Or do you need a speak and spell?

If all you're really digging for is someone who confirm your belief in the pre-established conclusion that some nondescript "free market + government" is the true answer, save everyone the trouble of attempting to explain to you basic economic shit and say so.

>Clearly your skills aren't very highly wanted in the market.
Mine kind of are though.

>>Look at those filthy capitalists! Lowering prices for their customers which in turn makes the quality of life because of cheaper prices.
How come none of this text is in the post you referenced?

>anti-trust law
But then is it still a "free market"?

That's not how economics works. If someone figures out how to make things more efficiently, cheaper, etc, it does not make me poor. It makes everyone richer because less human labor has to be dedicated in order to make more wealth.

>Why are you asking questions when you're not actually reading any of the answers?
Trying to see if anyone can counter my argument.

So far the only counter seems to be "free market doesn't create monopolies, state intervention does".
And I don't think that makes much sense in many ways, like in the case of Walmart.

Although I do concede it applies to many cases, especially for government-operated companies as used to be the case for the Belgian state telecom company.

Ha Haaah!

Fuck this obvious nigger!

I think there is a point were greed stops being good.
And desu i think we have already passed that point. Walmart is making greedy bucks of the back of poor people who had the bad luck to be born in the shitty parts of china.
And also greed Kinda goes hand in hand with corruption. And not only at state level (aka lobbying). Also pay another big guy to shill for you both proffit while smaller guys dont have the power to do that. Its hard to portray this without going into politics desu.
Moderation is key" applies here as in anything.

Alright so you are young friendo. I was clearly referincing to the people you were referencing to in your Walmart story.

And you are very new.

Yes that seems fair to me

How is Walmart all powerful?
I have bought anything there in years

National Socialism is the only answer, it worked amazingly for Germany until they thought they could take on 20 countries at a time in war with retarded allies.

I guess I could see this being an advantage in that more technology may become more readily available, opening up new avenues for work and prosperity for instance designing software or producing music instead of only having the option to pick beets from the field.

>Trying to see if anyone can counter my argument.

Please, you clearly aren't reading enough or understanding what many in this thread have been explaining to you if that's the only thing you understood from what we told you.

Oh, where do you get your stuff? Amazon? Target? Amazon gets most of my shekels, personally. Can't beat not having to get off of my ass and go anywhere to get the lowest price.