fumigator Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 The only thing protecting us from the corporations is government. If left to the 'free market' you would have a few mega-corporations controlling the global economy, key economic sectors dominated by a handful of virtual monopolies masquerading as duopolies, highly serviced enclaves for the rich while the rest of us would have to do with low-standard housing, high prices, low wages, hugely expensive health care and mediocre services etc. Oh, wait doesn't that resemble the current economic climate. Given the good sense in the rest of your broadcasts it does give me to wonder if you are being paid to spout this kind of nonsense, comes straight out of the plot of Atlas Shrugged. ref 1
barn Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 Hi @fumigator (is your nick, a variation of 'insect/pest exterminator'?.. mine can be seen as a stable-like structure with animals inside) Nonsense (your idea, respectfully) , while I'm not saying complete dominance of mega-corporations isn't possible... I am having a hard time imaging it being possible, though. (less than 1 to Googol chance) The reason why I think what you are stating is simply erroneous (and pro statist) is because it's evident, where you have more free-market (coercion free), the less things get subsidised to the detriment of the taxpayers/those involved, higher competition means better services all-around and those who wish to not fade away must, have to, need to provide actual (real) value or be outcompeted shortly. (i.e. To name a few things = laser eye-surgery, communication devices, GPS... technologies released out of the decay filled swamps of state power ruled prison) Imagine this. How long would the education sector keep up with it's destructive, ideologue factory like nature, if people would have to pay themselves from pocket for all the fees? How many students would consider taking a social-, art-, women studies degree for the CURRENT, REAL price of those options? ... never mind the soul crushing side effects, leading to childlessness, debts, extensive collection of cognitive dissonances, false and vacuous self-esteem... etc. Who would go to universities, where the value of the certificate they acquired devalued before they even began the first semester (no guarantee to be employed, in a merit based economy people who don't want to provide value wither away) ? How would universities attract students if they couldn't be subsidised? Would there be more, or less practice, field work for students? (consulting the industries on a regular basis, updating the curriculum so that it followed what was actually required to be employed) p.s. Just out of curiosity... Are you in possession of ANY non-coercion based work experience?
Jsbrads Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 When there was less government, there were fewer monopolies. Standard Oil kept prices down even tho they held 90%+ of the market. Every time they raised prices a little, competitors would outcompete and purchasers would replace their product with competitors products. Also even while keeping prices low, once the demand rose for their products, competitors entered the market despite their low prices. Every since time anti trust has been used, it was the government protecting a business competitor, not the consumer. Every large corporation today, is as large as it is due to government regulations that prevent competition. Healthcare, Banking, etc.
Recommended Posts