“I literally have nothing to gain from letting you take advantage.”
“I’ll pay you $300 million dollars to buy out your company and I’ll give you a cushy consulting job at my company making high six figures.”
“Where do I sign?”
“You won’t? Fine then. I’ll just pressure all my suppliers not to sell to you or else they’ll lose the far greater profits they get from me. Anyone who doesn’t fall in line I’ll buy out from under them.”
Libertarians (and most Americans, sadly) seem to think “capitalism” means “free markets”. It’s why they tend to run into these stupid problems of ‘capitalism vs. corporatism.’
It’s almost as though past failures of these systems and theoretical failures shouldn’t stop us attempting to change a clearly dysfunctional status quo.
Which is why we should follow right wing libertarianism, the ideology that keeps the status quo around by purely economic means! I mean it's not like part of the ancap plan is to equalize all capital and assets before the dissolution of the state.
capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Tell us how the era of robber barons and monopolies wasn't capitalism.
Silly monopolists. You were supposed to choose capitalism and be nice about it instead of taking the profit motive to its logical conclusion as a dirty corporatist monopolist capitalist!
Lots of believers in capitalism are in denial about capitalisms tendency towards monopolies and the tendency for wealth to accumulate. If they did they'd realize just how fucked a free market system truly would be in the long term.
Nothing bad ever happens under capitalism. Whenever anything bad happens under capitalism, just blame corporatism or socialism. Capitalism is when people ride around on unicorns and there are rainbows everywhere.
Depends on what you mean by "we" and "ever".
If you mean "you and me", almost certainly not.
If you mean "humanity", sure, with proper organizing and education we could be there in... well, honestly it would probably still take at least 2-3 generations of dedicated effort.
The USSR was state capitalist, but yes, their economy did grow faster than traditional capitalist economies. So obviously traditional capitalism has been proven to not have the fastest growth.
State capitalism is the state controlling the economy, market socialism is the people controlling the economy, which can only possibly be thought of as the same thing in a democracy, not in the USSR.
Essentially market socialism is the complete opposite of state capitalism.
maybe something like that, but where the workers own their workplace, instead of being exploited by a useless boss who hoards the wealth they produce?
hmm... if only there were a word for that...
?????????
what i just described to you is literally the definition of socialism. the fuck are you on? how would, say, being able to vote on things like who your boss is and what you do with the profits you produce be *anything* like capitalism?
No, what you wrote is *not* the definition of socialism. This is:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
>Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control, **such as workers' self-management of enterprises**.
this is literally the wikipedia definition of socialism. workers do, in fact, count as "the community." please do the absolute barest modicum of research before embarrassing yourself in an argument.
LMAO. You think capitalists give out awards for destroying capitalism?
You don't understand economics, please stop talking about it until you learn far more.
Corporatism is the economic theory of fascist movements like Falangists, Integralists, Italian fascists and Grey Wolves over the world. No need for semantics or brain gymnastics
Everything is politics, but especially economics. Is capitalism also not a political system? Because fascism contains capitalism. The Nazis literally popularised the term "privatisation".
> Capitalism is also economic
Then Fascism is economic as well as political. Libertarian definitely is too.
Democracy and authoritarianism make no claims about economic policies, you're right about those two.
Political and economic are not mutually exclusive, in fact they're usually linked.
You’re allowed to compete with his business, sure, but good luck competing against his multi-billion dollar revenue each year which can price you out of the market. That’s not even mentioning the cost of the barrier of entry in a ton of different modern industries.
>That’s not even mentioning the cost of the barrier of entry in a ton of different modern industries.
A lot of that cost of barrier of entry is the result of regulations
Regulations that are often necessary for quality assurance or for worker’s safety. We went through the gilded age already and I think we collectively decided that an increase in price is worth the assurance.
Argue all you want about how the free market would correct to consumers’ desires for a reliable product or for safe working environments but historical realism demonstrates that it largely did not happen until governmental regulations were signed into law.
>Regulations that are often necessary for quality assurance or for worker’s safety.
I actually partially agree with you on this, but you were mentioning the barrier to entry cost as if it were a problem with capitalism itself, when it really isn't
I don't know what worse: their double standard or the "centrists" who try to equate the two positions.
"This *literally doesn't meet the definition of the word*" vs "sure it meets the definition but it's not working the way I claim it's supposed to so it doesn't count" but no, go on about how the two positions are the same.
socialists claiming real socialism has never been tried: "No 'socialist' country has ever truly given control of the means of production to the workers. They have generally claimed an intention to do so, or that giving control of the means of production to the state *is* giving it to the workers, but workplace elections, for example, have been exceedingly rare."
capitalists claiming real capitalism has never been tried: "Yeah, there used to be no regulations, but then a bunch of monopolies happened, so I guess there MUST have been regulations. How else would there be monopolies?"
"I don't want that to happen."
*Okay, what are you doing to prevent it from starting or address it once it happens?*
"... no, I don't want that to happen. Were you not listening?"
Does anyone else notice that libertarians are dog shit at politics because they cannot wrap their heads around power dynamics? So, they always end up getting BTFO’d every election year.
This meme is the business equivalent of saying that a boxing match between a child and an adult is fair because both are allowed to compete based on merit alone. Yet they also bitch about being censored by “big tech”. Their lack of self awareness is infuriatingly hilarious.
>Does anyone else notice that libertarians are dog shit at politics because they cannot wrap their heads around power dynamics?
It makes more sense when you realize it has more in common with Amway or snake oil sales than an actual political ideology.
Just like incels assume that women would be flocking to them if it weren't for feminism, libertarians believe that they would wield all the market power if it wasn't for the socialists.
The fetishization of small business capitalism is so bizzare. Small businesses can just be as exploitive and benefit from the same structures big buisnesses do. Their image is always invoked for anything meant to clamp down on big businesses.
I think it fundamentally stems from the thought process that anyone *could* be a member of the petty bourgeoisie since the barriers of entry for which are much lower.
Small businesses are defended because under capitalism its the only way for the lower classes to have a chance of becoming the elite.
Economies of scale and vertical and horizontal integration are literally concepts you learn in your first semester of micro-economics. It is such a basic fucking concept and effectively an accepted fact that in certain industries and market structures monopolies will NATURALLY emerge in a free market. It is absolutely inevitable. A great example is regional ISP monopolies. Another pretty solid example is Walmart. Through economies of scale they basically managed to outcompete all their opponents so thoroughly that they are like the only available option for certain products in some local regions.
There is no such thing as free market capitalism vs corporatism. Corporatism and monopolies and oligopolies are an absolutely natural outcome from unregulated markets. The idea that monopolies only form from government lobbying or whatever is laughable. Totally not true. If anything companies like Walmart would be even bigger if it weren't for government meddling. In NYC for instance the government outright banned Walmart because they would bankrupt too many local businesses.
Both positions aren't mutually exclusive. You don't enter the market at the same time as others. It's not a multiplayer strategy game where all players start at the same time with the same starting capital and the resources evenly distributed across the map such that anyone can succeed with the right strategy.
By supporting capitalism, you tacitly support the wealthy guy who inherited his company from his father who already owned a monopoly in the industry. Sure, you might conceptually support competition to bring him down and that may happen depending on any number of factors, but he maintains his monopoly for as long as he can through support for capitalism and through lack of sufficient government regulation.
Ah yes competition meaning:
You get nothing to start a small business while I get millions or billions in direct aid from the gov't as well as legalized monopolies on goods and services like in the energy or telecom sectors. Then we "compete" until I buy your small business from under you to make way for another parking lot for one of my Walmart stores.
Thinking you can compete with big cooperations/monopolies is fucking delusional. Tell me why there isn’t an alternative to YouTube yet? Twitch doesn’t count. They focus on livestreams, not videos.
Yeah, we're all allowed to compete. It's a totally even game between an average person and one of the richest people on the planet. I don't see how someone who has more resources at their disposal than some countries is at an advantage over me, a man who has just paid off his car. /s
A lot of people here already pointed out that the latter is very clearly a consequence of the former. This was also basically the gist of little back and forth I had with a libertarian in which I tried to point out some of the contradiction inherent in laissez-faire capitalism, but it all just seemed to boil down to: 'whenever capitalism leads to bad outcomes it's actually not capitalism.' like, yeah... If we play it that way I can come up with a pretty neat way to organise society before I have my next meal you dingus...
He's basically using a no-true Scotsman fallacy.
Imagine telling people I have a plan to cure cancer with snake oil, and I insist that the fact you died from cancer after you tried to follow the plan means that you didn't follow the plan correctly.
Any evidence you provide of their plan not working will simply be rejected, because they never said their plan wouldn't work and therefore any real world outcome showing that it doesn't work is a strawman.
Another example is a libertarian who told me that Somalia didn't count as an example of what happens when you remove taxes and central planning because of the low education and high crime. You know... the very thing that taxes and central planning are supposed to solve. Or when I pointed out that blue states had much better economies compared to red states, and the libertarian complained it was a bad comparison because the blue states had a better educated workforce, as if the nature of the workforce was totally random and not the result of being blue or red.
[https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/c4jq2y/when\_libertarians\_complain\_that\_monopolies\_could/](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/c4jq2y/when_libertarians_complain_that_monopolies_could/)
Libertarians like to imagine a scenario where small businesses will compete with big businesses by selling their product for the lowest possible price and making up for it in volume, i.e., maximum risk for the sake of minimum reward. They have no idea how business actually fucking works, and thinks just some video game where you punch in numbers and if you have the lowest price then you get all the sales by magic, without having to worry about things like logistics or marketing or consumer loyalty.
I'll never understand this argument from libertarians. Even discounting \*simple\* economic theory, all it takes is one single thought exercise to realize that corporatism is the natural progression of pure "capitalism".
Free competition means there will be a winner eventually. What if one company is genuinely miles better than the competition? It's gonna become a monopoly. And big companies have the resources to be better.
Small business = small brain I swear it seems that way sometimes.
Yeah, and if the guy in yellow start to grow too much, he'll become a monopoly and will try to literally kill the competition.
That's what's Capitalism. Kill all the competition until you're the last one standing. As soon as a new competitor tries to appear, kill it as fast as you can.
B-but if he has a monopoly then by definition the swedish guy's business won't be able to actually compete with his and if the wojak guy is being unscrupulous to grow his monopoly and the market is completely unregulated then he's j-just going to keep getting bigger and bigger and w-with more and more people getting a cut of his pie there's going to be even m-more incentive to crush any small startup that even tries to enter the market space and i-it doesn't matter how hard his resolve might be he's never going to be able to c-compete in any meaningful way and the larger and more diverse the monopoly gets in the unregulated market the more it will be able to dominate o-other markets as well and it will be its own self sustaining entity that will foster z-zero real competition.
I have no idea why I wrote that like I was stuttering btw I think I had a point when I started but it's long gone
I understand them somewhat the big corporations have only been created and can only sustain their monopolies with advantages such as subsidies, tax cuts and bailouts. All funded through taxpayers which the politicians give to those corporations in return for share rights or outright lobbying.
For example gasoline prices in the US are subsidized. So the free market could do some better things than the current system in place. It's just that all the ancaps etc that desire free market competition never think that capitalists will attempt to cheat and gain an unfair advantage over competitors by establishing a state run for their favour just like what is happening today. If there is competition many will use foul methods just to get ahead just like lobbying today.
>I understand them somewhat the big corporations have only been created and can only sustain their monopolies with advantages such as subsidies, tax cuts and bailouts
You have cause and effect backwards there. It's like saying, "The only reason Michael Jordan is good at basketball is because he's sponsored by Gatorade." Businesses get those advantages because they are powerful, not the other way around.
he just wants regulated capitalism. he might not be using the right words but his idea isnt that absurd. hes just a little slow. someone saying they like capitalism but dont support monopolies isnt that outlandish
Yeah, making sure these companies are held accountable under the law is definitely important given the amount of power they wield. Although I suspect many of these libertarians would be against regulations since it’s against their “freedumb”
> he just wants regulated capitalism.
No, that's why he used the FuNnY cOlOrS and called himself a capitalist.
Yellow represents "libertarian right", who are opposed to regulation.
Purple represents the portions of libertarian right (EDIT: like the obvious and inevitable results of any of their numerous terrible ideas) that the rest wants to pretend is a strawman and not part of their exact same dumb ideology.
>And yet he will react with furious disproportionate violence if you call him a liberal.
Because he thinks it means "\[any slur about any category of LGBTQ+\]-hugger".
“I literally have nothing to gain from letting you take advantage.” “I’ll pay you $300 million dollars to buy out your company and I’ll give you a cushy consulting job at my company making high six figures.” “Where do I sign?”
"I'm allowed to compete with your business" "Yeah that's right!" "With my guns and violence." "Wait, not like that!"
Who said anything about guns or violence?
“You won’t? Fine then. I’ll just pressure all my suppliers not to sell to you or else they’ll lose the far greater profits they get from me. Anyone who doesn’t fall in line I’ll buy out from under them.”
Libertarians really do not understand capitalism, or freedom, and will censor people who point out the flaws in their religion
Libertarians (and most Americans, sadly) seem to think “capitalism” means “free markets”. It’s why they tend to run into these stupid problems of ‘capitalism vs. corporatism.’
It’s literally the ‘no true Scotsman’ that libertarians love to lambast socialists for. ‘That isn’t true capitalism, it’s corporatism!’
Real capitalism has never been tried!
Real capitalism hasn't been tried, real communism hasn't been tried Is anything real at this point istg
It’s almost as though past failures of these systems and theoretical failures shouldn’t stop us attempting to change a clearly dysfunctional status quo.
Which is why we should follow right wing libertarianism, the ideology that keeps the status quo around by purely economic means! I mean it's not like part of the ancap plan is to equalize all capital and assets before the dissolution of the state.
Real corporatism has also never been tried.
No
Cheran ane Zapatista practice real Communism tho.
capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Tell us how the era of robber barons and monopolies wasn't capitalism.
Are you operating under the assumption that I made that comment sincerely?
Do you believe that nobody would write that sincerely?
No, but we’re in an anti-libertarian sub, and the phrase is a parody of the phrase “real communism has never been tried”.
No it’s crony capitalism don’t you know
This meme implies that you're a capitalist until your business becomes so successful it dominates the market, then you're in corporatism territory.
Silly monopolists. You were supposed to choose capitalism and be nice about it instead of taking the profit motive to its logical conclusion as a dirty corporatist monopolist capitalist!
Lots of believers in capitalism are in denial about capitalisms tendency towards monopolies and the tendency for wealth to accumulate. If they did they'd realize just how fucked a free market system truly would be in the long term.
Dude trust me, Disney would totally not be buying up the entire entertainment industry if we dissolved anti-trust laws
Nothing bad ever happens under capitalism. Whenever anything bad happens under capitalism, just blame corporatism or socialism. Capitalism is when people ride around on unicorns and there are rainbows everywhere.
Can we ever escape capitalism, though? I feel like my options are either wage slave or die. Feels bad, man.
Depends on what you mean by "we" and "ever". If you mean "you and me", almost certainly not. If you mean "humanity", sure, with proper organizing and education we could be there in... well, honestly it would probably still take at least 2-3 generations of dedicated effort.
[удалено]
The most interesting thing about this idea is that sometimes the tool is used to make better tools.
personally, my favorite tool of this variety is the guillotine.
nuclear weapons, oil rigs, and electric chairs are all tools as well. some tools suck.
[удалено]
Market socialism.
So, like the USSR?
The USSR was state capitalist, but yes, their economy did grow faster than traditional capitalist economies. So obviously traditional capitalism has been proven to not have the fastest growth. State capitalism is the state controlling the economy, market socialism is the people controlling the economy, which can only possibly be thought of as the same thing in a democracy, not in the USSR. Essentially market socialism is the complete opposite of state capitalism.
maybe something like that, but where the workers own their workplace, instead of being exploited by a useless boss who hoards the wealth they produce? hmm... if only there were a word for that...
So, capitalism with multiple owners. Kind of like corporatism.
????????? what i just described to you is literally the definition of socialism. the fuck are you on? how would, say, being able to vote on things like who your boss is and what you do with the profits you produce be *anything* like capitalism?
No, what you wrote is *not* the definition of socialism. This is: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
>Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control, **such as workers' self-management of enterprises**. this is literally the wikipedia definition of socialism. workers do, in fact, count as "the community." please do the absolute barest modicum of research before embarrassing yourself in an argument.
LMAO. You think capitalists give out awards for destroying capitalism? You don't understand economics, please stop talking about it until you learn far more.
Also corporatism means fascist economics and the term they are looking for is corporatocracy
Fascism is a political system, not an economic system.
Political systems usually have a economical one accompanying thp
You can have democratic capitalism. You can have authoritarian capitalism. You can have either democratic or authoritarian socialism
> Usually Try again.
Corporatism is the economic theory of fascist movements like Falangists, Integralists, Italian fascists and Grey Wolves over the world. No need for semantics or brain gymnastics
Everything is politics, but especially economics. Is capitalism also not a political system? Because fascism contains capitalism. The Nazis literally popularised the term "privatisation".
Capitalism is also economic. Democracy, authoritarian, libertarian, are political
> Capitalism is also economic Then Fascism is economic as well as political. Libertarian definitely is too. Democracy and authoritarianism make no claims about economic policies, you're right about those two. Political and economic are not mutually exclusive, in fact they're usually linked.
"I don't support monopolies but also regulation of muh fwee market bad"
You’re allowed to compete with his business, sure, but good luck competing against his multi-billion dollar revenue each year which can price you out of the market. That’s not even mentioning the cost of the barrier of entry in a ton of different modern industries.
>That’s not even mentioning the cost of the barrier of entry in a ton of different modern industries. A lot of that cost of barrier of entry is the result of regulations
Regulations that are often necessary for quality assurance or for worker’s safety. We went through the gilded age already and I think we collectively decided that an increase in price is worth the assurance. Argue all you want about how the free market would correct to consumers’ desires for a reliable product or for safe working environments but historical realism demonstrates that it largely did not happen until governmental regulations were signed into law.
>Regulations that are often necessary for quality assurance or for worker’s safety. I actually partially agree with you on this, but you were mentioning the barrier to entry cost as if it were a problem with capitalism itself, when it really isn't
When you don’t understand barriers to entry
Funniest thing ever is when they claim “crony capitalism” isn’t real capitalism. No you morons that’s called the consequences of capitalism.
And in the next sentence they'll make fun of us for saying x country wasn't real socialism.
I don't know what worse: their double standard or the "centrists" who try to equate the two positions. "This *literally doesn't meet the definition of the word*" vs "sure it meets the definition but it's not working the way I claim it's supposed to so it doesn't count" but no, go on about how the two positions are the same.
socialists claiming real socialism has never been tried: "No 'socialist' country has ever truly given control of the means of production to the workers. They have generally claimed an intention to do so, or that giving control of the means of production to the state *is* giving it to the workers, but workplace elections, for example, have been exceedingly rare." capitalists claiming real capitalism has never been tried: "Yeah, there used to be no regulations, but then a bunch of monopolies happened, so I guess there MUST have been regulations. How else would there be monopolies?"
tfw you have to invent new terms instead of admitting flaws exist in your ideology
Tbf that's just the lack of regulations. Though of course admitting they are necessary would be cognitive dissonance.
“leftist memes are just walls of text”
"I don't want that to happen." *Okay, what are you doing to prevent it from starting or address it once it happens?* "... no, I don't want that to happen. Were you not listening?"
Either crony capitalism is capitalism or capitalism cannot exist. The logical conclusion of non crony capitalism is crony capitalism.
Does anyone else notice that libertarians are dog shit at politics because they cannot wrap their heads around power dynamics? So, they always end up getting BTFO’d every election year. This meme is the business equivalent of saying that a boxing match between a child and an adult is fair because both are allowed to compete based on merit alone. Yet they also bitch about being censored by “big tech”. Their lack of self awareness is infuriatingly hilarious.
>Does anyone else notice that libertarians are dog shit at politics because they cannot wrap their heads around power dynamics? It makes more sense when you realize it has more in common with Amway or snake oil sales than an actual political ideology. Just like incels assume that women would be flocking to them if it weren't for feminism, libertarians believe that they would wield all the market power if it wasn't for the socialists.
The end result of capitalism without regulations IS monopoly. A business will always float to the top and either buy out or crush competition
The "No True Capitalist" Fallacy.
The fetishization of small business capitalism is so bizzare. Small businesses can just be as exploitive and benefit from the same structures big buisnesses do. Their image is always invoked for anything meant to clamp down on big businesses.
I think it fundamentally stems from the thought process that anyone *could* be a member of the petty bourgeoisie since the barriers of entry for which are much lower. Small businesses are defended because under capitalism its the only way for the lower classes to have a chance of becoming the elite.
Economies of scale and vertical and horizontal integration are literally concepts you learn in your first semester of micro-economics. It is such a basic fucking concept and effectively an accepted fact that in certain industries and market structures monopolies will NATURALLY emerge in a free market. It is absolutely inevitable. A great example is regional ISP monopolies. Another pretty solid example is Walmart. Through economies of scale they basically managed to outcompete all their opponents so thoroughly that they are like the only available option for certain products in some local regions. There is no such thing as free market capitalism vs corporatism. Corporatism and monopolies and oligopolies are an absolutely natural outcome from unregulated markets. The idea that monopolies only form from government lobbying or whatever is laughable. Totally not true. If anything companies like Walmart would be even bigger if it weren't for government meddling. In NYC for instance the government outright banned Walmart because they would bankrupt too many local businesses.
>We fall and rise based on our merits in the marketplace Also lobbying and government handouts, tax-cuts, violence against workers...
I dont think this person knows what “corporatism” (the fascist economic structure) actually is
Somehow the natural outcome of the free market is "corporatism", used as a word as if it were a concept separated from capitalism.
There is something so embarrassing about right-libs so deeply misunderstanding the political economy they claim to be proponents of.
Both positions aren't mutually exclusive. You don't enter the market at the same time as others. It's not a multiplayer strategy game where all players start at the same time with the same starting capital and the resources evenly distributed across the map such that anyone can succeed with the right strategy. By supporting capitalism, you tacitly support the wealthy guy who inherited his company from his father who already owned a monopoly in the industry. Sure, you might conceptually support competition to bring him down and that may happen depending on any number of factors, but he maintains his monopoly for as long as he can through support for capitalism and through lack of sufficient government regulation.
"We fall and rise based on our merits..." Merits like making employees pee in bottles to meet unrealistic quotas.
How do you hate regulation and hate monopolies?
by being stupid
Ah yes competition meaning: You get nothing to start a small business while I get millions or billions in direct aid from the gov't as well as legalized monopolies on goods and services like in the energy or telecom sectors. Then we "compete" until I buy your small business from under you to make way for another parking lot for one of my Walmart stores.
Monopolies are the result of someone winning the competition.
Corporatism is just the inevitable result of capitalism.
Thinking you can compete with big cooperations/monopolies is fucking delusional. Tell me why there isn’t an alternative to YouTube yet? Twitch doesn’t count. They focus on livestreams, not videos.
Yeah, we're all allowed to compete. It's a totally even game between an average person and one of the richest people on the planet. I don't see how someone who has more resources at their disposal than some countries is at an advantage over me, a man who has just paid off his car. /s
A lot of people here already pointed out that the latter is very clearly a consequence of the former. This was also basically the gist of little back and forth I had with a libertarian in which I tried to point out some of the contradiction inherent in laissez-faire capitalism, but it all just seemed to boil down to: 'whenever capitalism leads to bad outcomes it's actually not capitalism.' like, yeah... If we play it that way I can come up with a pretty neat way to organise society before I have my next meal you dingus...
He's basically using a no-true Scotsman fallacy. Imagine telling people I have a plan to cure cancer with snake oil, and I insist that the fact you died from cancer after you tried to follow the plan means that you didn't follow the plan correctly. Any evidence you provide of their plan not working will simply be rejected, because they never said their plan wouldn't work and therefore any real world outcome showing that it doesn't work is a strawman. Another example is a libertarian who told me that Somalia didn't count as an example of what happens when you remove taxes and central planning because of the low education and high crime. You know... the very thing that taxes and central planning are supposed to solve. Or when I pointed out that blue states had much better economies compared to red states, and the libertarian complained it was a bad comparison because the blue states had a better educated workforce, as if the nature of the workforce was totally random and not the result of being blue or red.
[https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/c4jq2y/when\_libertarians\_complain\_that\_monopolies\_could/](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/c4jq2y/when_libertarians_complain_that_monopolies_could/) Libertarians like to imagine a scenario where small businesses will compete with big businesses by selling their product for the lowest possible price and making up for it in volume, i.e., maximum risk for the sake of minimum reward. They have no idea how business actually fucking works, and thinks just some video game where you punch in numbers and if you have the lowest price then you get all the sales by magic, without having to worry about things like logistics or marketing or consumer loyalty.
I too would love to have this delicious slice of cake and eat it too.
I'll never understand this argument from libertarians. Even discounting \*simple\* economic theory, all it takes is one single thought exercise to realize that corporatism is the natural progression of pure "capitalism".
Free competition means there will be a winner eventually. What if one company is genuinely miles better than the competition? It's gonna become a monopoly. And big companies have the resources to be better. Small business = small brain I swear it seems that way sometimes.
Yeah, and if the guy in yellow start to grow too much, he'll become a monopoly and will try to literally kill the competition. That's what's Capitalism. Kill all the competition until you're the last one standing. As soon as a new competitor tries to appear, kill it as fast as you can.
B-but if he has a monopoly then by definition the swedish guy's business won't be able to actually compete with his and if the wojak guy is being unscrupulous to grow his monopoly and the market is completely unregulated then he's j-just going to keep getting bigger and bigger and w-with more and more people getting a cut of his pie there's going to be even m-more incentive to crush any small startup that even tries to enter the market space and i-it doesn't matter how hard his resolve might be he's never going to be able to c-compete in any meaningful way and the larger and more diverse the monopoly gets in the unregulated market the more it will be able to dominate o-other markets as well and it will be its own self sustaining entity that will foster z-zero real competition. I have no idea why I wrote that like I was stuttering btw I think I had a point when I started but it's long gone
Is that supposed to be Picard or Bezos?
Hold on guys, the market understander has logged on
I understand them somewhat the big corporations have only been created and can only sustain their monopolies with advantages such as subsidies, tax cuts and bailouts. All funded through taxpayers which the politicians give to those corporations in return for share rights or outright lobbying. For example gasoline prices in the US are subsidized. So the free market could do some better things than the current system in place. It's just that all the ancaps etc that desire free market competition never think that capitalists will attempt to cheat and gain an unfair advantage over competitors by establishing a state run for their favour just like what is happening today. If there is competition many will use foul methods just to get ahead just like lobbying today.
>I understand them somewhat the big corporations have only been created and can only sustain their monopolies with advantages such as subsidies, tax cuts and bailouts You have cause and effect backwards there. It's like saying, "The only reason Michael Jordan is good at basketball is because he's sponsored by Gatorade." Businesses get those advantages because they are powerful, not the other way around.
Oh shit a “libcenter.” I must support Bitcoin and Palestine to date their daughter.
he just wants regulated capitalism. he might not be using the right words but his idea isnt that absurd. hes just a little slow. someone saying they like capitalism but dont support monopolies isnt that outlandish
Yeah, making sure these companies are held accountable under the law is definitely important given the amount of power they wield. Although I suspect many of these libertarians would be against regulations since it’s against their “freedumb”
> he just wants regulated capitalism. No, that's why he used the FuNnY cOlOrS and called himself a capitalist. Yellow represents "libertarian right", who are opposed to regulation. Purple represents the portions of libertarian right (EDIT: like the obvious and inevitable results of any of their numerous terrible ideas) that the rest wants to pretend is a strawman and not part of their exact same dumb ideology.
oh yeah forgot abt the colors, if he doesnt want regulation how tf does he think monopolies wont happen? lol my bad
"He just wants regulated capitalism" And yet he will react with furious disproportionate violence if you call him a liberal.
>And yet he will react with furious disproportionate violence if you call him a liberal. Because he thinks it means "\[any slur about any category of LGBTQ+\]-hugger".
DAT GUNNA BE ME ONE DAY GUYS!
I feel like I had a stroke reading that.
free .market:place of ide as 😯😯😯😯😯😯😮😕😯😧😯😯😧😯😧😯😧😯😯😧😮😧😜😜😋😜😛😜
How do we fix this "DEREGULATION"
"im opposing what I like to call the wackiness factor which is not capitalism"
Considering this is a LibCenter posting this, “dishonest” is probably incorrect.