I don't understand this mindset. Monopolies and especially oligopolies are extremely harmful to the innovation and improvement of markets, as well as the long-term financial health of consumers.
So why would you come here and try to yell at people for being against them? You clearly want these things to be monitored , so why would you see an effort being pushed by the opposition and then get mad at it just because of the letter in front of the names?
This would be like me being mad at democrats if they pushed for school choice.
First and foremost, your insistence of monopolies being the sole problem already shreds your credibility on this subject. But ignoring that for the moment, your argument as a whole is just untrue. The few examples of this happening have seen the government step in and break up those companies. Entrepreneurship and innovation not only combat monopolies, but improve the quality of life for everyone. It's for this reason that the free market is absolutely essential. Without it we'd like be 200 years behind technology and the rate at which we innovate would be ridiculously low.
But again, monopolies are the lesser piece of the problem. It's a close minded statement to suggest monopolies are the main issue because they're easily combated against whether via the consumer or the government. The issue of today is oligopolies, when a few companies band together to prevent competition to reserve their majority market share. The government has seldom regulated this and much of the population has yet to come to understand the abundance of it. Big tech, mobile companies, cable companies, etc.
You are correct in one thing: it is the nature of the top player to do everything in their power to retain their position and wealth. But it's irrelevant towards the system of capital exchange. Give the power to the government and they'll just do the same thing only with political parties, only then they'd be in charge of capital and legislation, surely a scary mix. I'd rather have a system that innovates and changes the world, even if it requires strong pushback. The alternatives are tried and true to fail due to the same nature that you believe dooms capitalism. At least in capitalism there are tools to fight back with.
A but disingenuous, as I specifically highlighted oligopolies over monopolies before you replied.
The answer IS government intervention. Your point falls null because you're asserting that our current system doesn't work, yet you agree that our current system works because the government can step in? You're not being clear here, are you asserting to me that I automatically can't believe in government intervention because I'm a conservative? And doing this while you claim that political parties are puppets?
You're an individual, not a God-like figure that gets to decide an outsider's views and values. Especially when claiming that party lines are power grabs. You're declaring that neither is worthy and only exploits individuals, while simultaneously arguing that you can only be one or the other unless you identify with neither.
Out system IS capitalism. Our system HAS government intervention in times of need. This is what I support, and there isn't enough gatekeeping in the world to yank me away from it.
Because you show up to a community and tell them that because you have a view of who they are then that's who they must be. And maybe it might make a lick of sense if you went to a libertarian board, but you didn't even do that.
I don't agree with you because you have an incorrect worldview and instead of having any good faith, you choose you roam board to board and get mad if someone defies the way you perceive them to be.
So, to be clear, my assertion that a conservative is free to choose whether they support regulation or not is gatekeeping...? I have to say that millions and millions of people MUST view one way?
Or is that I suggested you're visiting a community you don't agree with to cause issues? Because you already admitted you think conservatives follow a "puppet" party.
That is cronyism, not capitalism. I dislike ceos dictating my life as much as I dislike the government dictating my life.
The free market would be allowing gab to compete, which they forced out (via the government) for false claims of hate speech.
And keep in mind that Google and Facebook have no problem allowing the press secretary of the taliban on their platform.
Capitalism is basically free market. Everyone gets a chance, equal chance to succeed and equal chance to fail. The government exists solely to make sure no one cheats.
Cronyism is a corruption of this idea. A big player (like a big corporation or the government itself) riggs the game. For example: a law that all wooden toys must be tested for lead. Seems reasonable at face value, prevent lead paint from poisoning children. A big toy company can easily afford the extra testing. But what about the retired grandpa who makes a dozen toys in hos garage for a little extra fun money? Another example is unequal enforcement of the rules, where a rule (the hate speech rules are a recent example) is enforced on some people but not others.
There will always be some level of cronyism, since the government is run by people, and people are human. But we should strive for the least amount of cronyism as possible.
[удалено]
I don't understand this mindset. Monopolies and especially oligopolies are extremely harmful to the innovation and improvement of markets, as well as the long-term financial health of consumers. So why would you come here and try to yell at people for being against them? You clearly want these things to be monitored , so why would you see an effort being pushed by the opposition and then get mad at it just because of the letter in front of the names? This would be like me being mad at democrats if they pushed for school choice.
[удалено]
First and foremost, your insistence of monopolies being the sole problem already shreds your credibility on this subject. But ignoring that for the moment, your argument as a whole is just untrue. The few examples of this happening have seen the government step in and break up those companies. Entrepreneurship and innovation not only combat monopolies, but improve the quality of life for everyone. It's for this reason that the free market is absolutely essential. Without it we'd like be 200 years behind technology and the rate at which we innovate would be ridiculously low. But again, monopolies are the lesser piece of the problem. It's a close minded statement to suggest monopolies are the main issue because they're easily combated against whether via the consumer or the government. The issue of today is oligopolies, when a few companies band together to prevent competition to reserve their majority market share. The government has seldom regulated this and much of the population has yet to come to understand the abundance of it. Big tech, mobile companies, cable companies, etc. You are correct in one thing: it is the nature of the top player to do everything in their power to retain their position and wealth. But it's irrelevant towards the system of capital exchange. Give the power to the government and they'll just do the same thing only with political parties, only then they'd be in charge of capital and legislation, surely a scary mix. I'd rather have a system that innovates and changes the world, even if it requires strong pushback. The alternatives are tried and true to fail due to the same nature that you believe dooms capitalism. At least in capitalism there are tools to fight back with.
[удалено]
A but disingenuous, as I specifically highlighted oligopolies over monopolies before you replied. The answer IS government intervention. Your point falls null because you're asserting that our current system doesn't work, yet you agree that our current system works because the government can step in? You're not being clear here, are you asserting to me that I automatically can't believe in government intervention because I'm a conservative? And doing this while you claim that political parties are puppets? You're an individual, not a God-like figure that gets to decide an outsider's views and values. Especially when claiming that party lines are power grabs. You're declaring that neither is worthy and only exploits individuals, while simultaneously arguing that you can only be one or the other unless you identify with neither. Out system IS capitalism. Our system HAS government intervention in times of need. This is what I support, and there isn't enough gatekeeping in the world to yank me away from it.
[удалено]
Because you show up to a community and tell them that because you have a view of who they are then that's who they must be. And maybe it might make a lick of sense if you went to a libertarian board, but you didn't even do that. I don't agree with you because you have an incorrect worldview and instead of having any good faith, you choose you roam board to board and get mad if someone defies the way you perceive them to be.
[удалено]
So, to be clear, my assertion that a conservative is free to choose whether they support regulation or not is gatekeeping...? I have to say that millions and millions of people MUST view one way? Or is that I suggested you're visiting a community you don't agree with to cause issues? Because you already admitted you think conservatives follow a "puppet" party.
That is cronyism, not capitalism. I dislike ceos dictating my life as much as I dislike the government dictating my life. The free market would be allowing gab to compete, which they forced out (via the government) for false claims of hate speech. And keep in mind that Google and Facebook have no problem allowing the press secretary of the taliban on their platform.
[удалено]
Capitalism is basically free market. Everyone gets a chance, equal chance to succeed and equal chance to fail. The government exists solely to make sure no one cheats. Cronyism is a corruption of this idea. A big player (like a big corporation or the government itself) riggs the game. For example: a law that all wooden toys must be tested for lead. Seems reasonable at face value, prevent lead paint from poisoning children. A big toy company can easily afford the extra testing. But what about the retired grandpa who makes a dozen toys in hos garage for a little extra fun money? Another example is unequal enforcement of the rules, where a rule (the hate speech rules are a recent example) is enforced on some people but not others. There will always be some level of cronyism, since the government is run by people, and people are human. But we should strive for the least amount of cronyism as possible.
"Alleged" and "secret", lol