/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9017382
>What is the world and it's governments doing, if anything, to resolve this issue, and can it be resolved?
Why would the kings give away their wealth?

>>9017386
Are you implying the Governments (or Monarchs) are the wealthiest?

>>9017382
I think it would be better discussed on /his/ or /pol/
Considering it is more to do with sociology

>>9017382
>As you all know capitalism is great so long as it's controlled - but it's not controlled enough

It is controlled, by the private banks, e.g. The Federal Reserve. They directly control the flow of money in the US, as does any other central bank in any other country in the world.
The governments have their hands tied pretty much all of the time, because they have to keep the banks afloat. In the case they do not, banks crash, people starve, and no more countries

>>9017389
Governments are clearly the wealthiest, name one person who spends as much as the US

capitalism is ridiculoudly controlled in all the wrong ways, thats the problem,

free up the market, let it do its thing, government only gets in the way and in alot of cases it corrupts it further

>>9017460
the US government, while immense, is hardly more than a puppet of the powerful and super-wealthy

like, who would want to actually be the president, or any other high position? it fucking sucks, and you have no real power

meanswhile the rothschilds etc are chilling in their dank villas while paying the smartest people in the world to do the hard work for them

>>9017460
>name one person who spends as much as the US
Rothschild

>>9017460
Yeah, you are right. What I mean to say is that governments are tied to rely on corporations because they pay large taxes and provide income to tax payers.
It's another topic anyway. I'm more concerned with how private ownership is eventually going to be made impossible for the regular citizen.

I think there are cycles of power and wealth concentration in any given society.

Wealthy/Power naturally accumulates IN ANY CONCEIVABLE SYSTEM because the more you have of it, the easier it is to gain even more of it.

So wealth and power accumulates. This has a cost, both politically and economically. Eventually the society collapses when the accumulation reaches a certain point.

A whole paradigm change occurs and a new system of governance emergences along with a new vibrant economy and a new golden age follows

and then everything goes to the shitter once again.

>>9017414

>/pol/ and /his/ are both to ideologically driven to discuss politics in an intellectually honest way

Unfortunately we are littered with engineers here so the discussion won't be so much better.

However mathematicians and physicists can be really good at thinking about these things without bias since they are mostly politically apathetic.

There's a wave of disenfranchised youths in America that are investing their time and energies in all kinds of non-market solutions - Neoliberal capitalism is working perfectly in the eyes of the government and they have no incentive to change. Research hacker / maker spaces and the concept of dual power institutions. It's the idea that if people are presented with a viable alternative to the rigors of capital then it will only be a matter of time before everyone jumps ship for a bigger slice of the pie. The trick is maintaining a DPI with lots of support and minimal interference. The hacker collective soon becomes the 'rogue cyber-terror group' if their objectives don't align with imperialist American interests, ya know

>>9017382
Fundamental theorems of welfare economics: A market tends to a competitive equilibrium which is Pareto-optimal (under some assumptions) and any desired Pareto-optimal equilibrium can be reached. (Actually they need a more precise writing, but you get the idea). The first one can be seen as the mathematical proof of Adam Smith's Invisible hand of the market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics

>>9017497
>Eventually the society collapses when the accumulation reaches a certain point.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I think technology naturally leads to unequal wealth and income. But that doesnt necessarily mean the non-wealthy are worse off.

Suppose that the next ten years of technology lead to economic efficiency that both doubles inequality, but halves the cost of living. True, it might be harder to compete with economic giants who can capitalize on such efficiency, but theres also less need to compete. If in the future, one only needs to make $10,000, to live at a standard of living typical of $50,000 in income, then one is better off ceteris paribus.

>>9017382
You should check out "the origin of wealth" it is an introduction to complexity economics
I wish I could find individual papers on complexity economics but have no idea what to search for

You could check out Peter Turchin as well, he deals with cycles of inequality. Though I think he is bit overconfident on the predictive powers of his model.

>>9017512

I used to be heavily involved in a non-profit hacker space that was relatively successful. It lead me to getting a job at a snazzy start-up that wanted their own hacker space, and I ran that for them. I have years of experience running hacker spaces, and years of technical experience outside of that.

You don't know what you are talking about. I don't like to appeal to my own authority, but it's not feasible to argue about this with you. So I just want to say you are a loon.

>>9017382
Capitalism should be left fully unregulated. Freedom brings about progress and wealth because free markets work.

Read Atlas Shrugged.

>>9017545
Nah there needs to be some order and negative feedback loops for complex systems to function properly
At least that's how I understood it, I could be wrong but that's what've learned

>>9017382
wealth isn't measured just by money, and inequality isn't inherently bad. If a person buys a fridge, for example, her quality of life will improve vastly in case she didn't have one before, but she'll also be poorer and inequality will grow.

>>9017573

>but she'll also be poorer and inequality will grow.

That doesnt make sense. Her income won change, so income inequality wont change. Her wealth will change somewhat, but not at the price of the fridge, because a fridge is also wealth. Wealth inequality wont change much.

>>9017382
You might want to read Piketty's capital in the 21st century, if you haven't already. Yes, wealth does tend to concentrate. This process is usually reversed only by world wars

>>9017545
>I've only ever read Atlas Shrugged: the post
>let me dazzle you with my meme economics

>>9017587
>This process is usually reversed only by world wars
This is also what Peter Turchin finds though he talks of conflict instead of world wars. There was another recent book by an economist called "the great leveler" which claims the same.
>Yes, wealth does tend to concentrate.
This was what happened in the sugarscape model.

>>9017533
I mean, I was mostly poking fun about the terror group thing, but I do believe that dual power is an important step forward, whether it be a hacker space or mutual insurance or whatever else. I am not under the assumption that hacker spaces operate as some kind of homogenous radical digital vanguards that would be silly

>>9017605

Whats a dual power institution? I googled "dual power" and the first results were about Lenin and Marxism. Not less looney than terror group or digital vanguards yet.

>>9017612
Dual Power is a fancy way of saying 'We're trying to create alternate frameworks for society outside of capitalism'

and yeah, it's a Leninist philosophy RE 1917 revolution
I suggest this article for a better explanation of what that means in a contemporary setting

http://left-liberty.net/?p=265

>>9017640
Also a bit from the Dual Power in Russian Revolution Wiki for a more modern take

"Libertarian socialists have more recently appropriated the term to refer to the nonviolent strategy of achieving a libertarian socialist economy and polity by means of incrementally establishing and then networking institutions of direct participatory democracy to contest the existing power structures of state and capitalism. This does not necessarily mean disengagement with existing institutions; for example, Yates McKee describes a dual-power approach as "forging alliances and supporting demands on existing institutions — elected officials, public agencies, universities, workplaces, banks, corporations, museums — while at the same time developing self-organized counter-institutions."[5] In this context, the strategy itself is sometimes also referred to as "counterpower" to differentiate it from the term's Leninist origins."

>>9017545
You have to be 18 to post here.

>>9017389
governments are puppets

>>9017461
that's retarded though, it would always result in severe wealth inequality and monopoly. But it's even more retarded today, when we already have severe wealth inequality and monopoly, freeing up the market in this climate would amplify the issues. There would be no restrictions, the people won't have any way to influence and restrict them either.

>>9017516

>Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

It collapses because there is a cost to wealth concentration and same for power consolidation in the hands of the elite. It's not healthy for the economy, nor for democracy.

>>9017382
>>As you all know capitalism is great so long as it's controlled

The literal textbook definition of capitalism is that government does not control anything and private owners control everything in terms of regulation.

So you're basically saying capitalism great as long as it isnt capitalism. You cant have it both ways. What youre asking for it plainly contradictory.
The more government steps in the less it is capitalism. You seem confused OP.

>>9017545

We were expecting you Mr. Engineer.

>>9017815

Who gives a shit what you call it. It is what it is.

>>9017819
le engineer meme XD

>>9017803

.. of the people!

>>9017815

> The literal textbook definition of capitalism is that government does not control anything and private owners control everything in terms of regulation.


Find me a textbook that says that. "Capitalism" is some what vague, but clearly refers to capital ownership, and presumably the ownership of things produced by that capital. Its hard to imagine any real property rights existing without an existing government, therefore government is implicit to capitalism.

>>9017382

None of this matters because the system that 'capitalism' tries to describe is currently not even being employed. It is merely a phoney simulation everyone in power has agreed to perpetuate ever since the idea of quantative easing was put in practice.

Central Banks aren't supposed to buy stocks, but they do these days, and massively.

Greece is a scary forecast of what kind of humanitarian crisis can emerge once the loaning stops and you can't default on your currency.

>>9018230
Actually, let me correct myself. Not everyone in power is comitted to quantative easing. Russia isn't, for example.

>>9017382
You basically need a strong populist president to come in and break up the trusts.

Too bad the current populist president is only president because of said concentration of wealth.

>>9017587
Thomas Piketty is intelectually dishonest. Read Carlos Goes' article discussed in IMF about that book. Piketty frauded data to prove his point.


As for OP, capitalism shouldn't be regulated, you should study Austrian Economics (maybe starting with Mises' 6 lessons). Sadly capitalism is already regulated (a lot)

>>9017382
>the economy works by making it good to make money
>WHY DO PEOPLE WHO HAVE MONEY HAVE IT BETTER WTF

communism is shit

>>9017382
Memes aside capitalism works great without regulation, it actually is the natural state of human cooperation in the grand scheme of things. It forces people to provide goods or services that people need or starve.
People that are stupid rich usually need government protections on their wealth or use the state on their benefit.

>>9018355
>Thomas Piketty is intelectually dishonest. Read Carlos Goes' article discussed in IMF about that book. Piketty frauded data to prove his point.
Carlos Goes argues that correlation does not equal causality, which is fair enough. I've wondered about the same thing when I read Piketty. But it still doesn't address the original claim, that wealth tends to concentrate, even if we disagree about the causes of that wealth concentration.

Just as an aside, you are familiar with the inherent flaws of capitalism, are you not? Flaws such as the cyclical nature of capitalism? Long term and short term debt cycles?

>>9017516
Do you really think it works that way in practice?

In capitalism if you have money it's harder to lose it and easier to make more, provided you dont bite off more than you can chew.

>>9018251
What do Russia do that separates them from the rest of the world? I'd argue they do exactly the same.

>>9018355

>data fraud

TOP KEK

All the right-wing propaganda economists immediately tried to tear Piketty a new one and they created all sorts of false claims.

There was no data fraud. Piketty and the economics community put those countered those claims immediately, but the right wing hatchet jobs kept spreading the rumours (or shall I call them fake news now?).

>Austrian Economics
>Mises

You guys live in an alternate reality. This stuff is like religion to you.

>>9017382
>funneling of wealth

It's interesting how people choose words. Wealth is not being "funneled"; in capitalism, people can create wealth.

Bill Gates created billions (maybe trillions) of dollars worth of wealth by producing a product that people valued more than the money it cost them. They were better off, Bill Gates was better off. He created wealth, not " funneled" it.

>>9019135
>You guys live in an alternate reality. This stuff is like religion to you.
You are the one who lives in fantasy land, and who doesn't understand basic economics.

A higher standard of living is achieved through higher productivity, and that is achieved by letting people free to think and produce, and by not taking away their incentive to do so (taxes).

Free markets are obviously the key to prosperity, and anyone who argues with this at this point is probably a moron.

>>9019150
How could you fix the issue of wealth concentration through monopolies, leading to the inevitable moment the markets become so saturated you will HAVE to work for one of the said monopolies.

Look how well the media monopolies have been treating us. Forging cleverly constructed propaganda, giving us bias new and shaping our government elections.

Freeing the market will only make these situations all the more common.

>>9019144
Steve Jobs didn't create anything you retard. He was just a CEO. The kids in child are making the phones.

He also didn't create any wealth. That money came from the consumers.

>>9019150

>basic economics

Oh here we go again with the pretension and the arrogance.

When will you engineers learn some humility?

>>9019144

Well sure, you can make your simplistic worldview of reality seem peachy when you construct a fantasy like that.

What Bill Gates did, in fact, was use his wealth and connections, that he had prior to ever earning a dime himself to sell his very rudimentary and inferior software to big state and corporate entities. He kept bribing governments worldwide to buy his inferior software and that's how he ended up with his billions.

If Bill Gates didn't exist, we would all be using superior software.

>>9019170
>Steve Jobs didn't create anything you retard. He was just a CEO. The kids in child are making the phones.
What you just said is equivalent to saying that the mind plays no role in wealth creation.

Those workers are doing what the CEO, engineers, scientists, etc tell them to do. Without someone doing the thinking and giving the orders, manual workers wouldn't know what to do and everything would go to shit. Retard.

>He also didn't create any wealth. That money came from the consumers.
The consumers gave him their money voluntarily, and they did so because they valued more that iPhone than the amount of money it cost them. They were better off, and Jobs was better off after that transaction. Win-win. Wealth creation.

For those interested in this stuff, read Ayn Rand, like I said in a previous post.

>>9017382
Pseudopol thread

>>9017471
Not even close.

>>9019170
Steve Jobs created Apple Computer Company and guided it to become the titan it is today. Without it, Apple would have been Steve Wozniak putting blueprints for snazzy home electronics in hobbyist magazines.

>>9017815
>the only capitalism is anarchocapitalism

>>9018466
>capitalism works great without regulation
Ahahahahahahahahahaha
Monopolies and corporatism are the natural stable endpoint of an unregulated market, they just give the maximum profit for a company and the incumbent company will do whatever it can to maintain that monopoly by artificially raising the barrier to entry, with anticompetition practices or above board things like buying manufacturing factories like Apple has done. Even in regulated markets where the formation of overly large , you

The natural state of human cooperation depends on how large the human pack is, for Hunter gatherer packs I'd say it's closer to anarchosocialism, for small solely agricultural societies its socialism, and for larger (but still very small) pre-industrial societies its anarchocapitalism. But anarchocapitalism only works there (if at all) because of the high social pressure on the owners to not fuck over people for money and rapid retribution if they do (impossible for the untouchable super rich shareholders) , as well as the high dependency of any business owners on small numbers of people (compared to the huge number of consumers shareholders have at their disposal in larger industrialised societies)

Yes stupid rich people use government protection. Without that they'd use private protect and have even less oversight from the people (since the state is there to and would be even more free to do whatever they want, since might makes right.

>>

>>9019150
Taxes don't act as an incentive to stop producing. It's absolutely twisted logic to think that getting a slightly decreased increase in money means people stop working harder. And, taxes work to ensure people are able to think and produce by funnelling wealth back into education, and keeping people safe through public services.

>inb4 muh private enterprises can do all the things
Enjoy your underclass of poor people who get subpar education and are doomed from the getgo to stay in the same socioeconomic class if not slip down further. That's not even mentioning that the poor won't be able to receive public services like police and firemen

>inb4 muh charity and voluntaryism

>>9019144
>be engineer or scientist
>create a new technology worth billions of dollars
>still just get paid your $65k a year salary
>Mr. Shekelberg says "look guys, it was ALL ME" and pockets the money
>you get laid off in a few years when Shekelberg decides to liquidate for a quick buck

>>9017382
>I thought the best place to start would be here.

Fucking hell Anon

>>9019882

Also you don't get taxed on the reinvested part of the revenue so actually taxes should incentivise innovation because you can retain wealth by reinvesting and growing your business instead of taking the revenue as profit and getting taxed on it.

Also if there are no taxes there is less incentive to not simply bag the revenue as profit. You are always taking a risk when reinvesting whereas profit is profit.

Funny how all the economic reasoning is inverted for all these liars from the right-wing. Funny how it always ends up being something that favours the rich.

Funny that. All right-wing policies magically end up favouring the rich. Weird coincidence.

I cannot stand the pretence any more. Right wingers are not intellectually honest. Bunch of liars and snakes.

>>9017382

> Implying the private sector won't be better at running our country than our pitiful excuse for a government.

Have you seen most government agencies? They are their facilities are normally complete shit compared to the private sector. Why do you think so much work is outsourced to private contractors these days?

>>9019211
and who do you think that all that money is owed to?
take your time friendo

>>9017805
Monopolies are only created through government favoritism. Less regulation combats monopolies and promotes competition to the benefit of the consumer.

>>9019970
>That'll be a $100 fee for using your Jumbo McFreeSpeech on the internet
>Thank you for doing business with Apple-Boeing-Sachs Corp., your friendly and exclusive choice in government

>>9020121
>I don't know what regulatory capture is, the post

>>9020126
Thats the problem with big govt., people can buy influence. Remove much of the govts power and corrupt fucks wont get any power over regular people.

>>9020124
Stop buying their shitty product if you dont like it. Can you opt out of paying for shitty government services? Nope gotta pay for gibsmedats for scum.

>>9020136
>opt out out of basic services like roads, police, the fire department, regulators making sure the food isn't poisoned
???

Why not just move to Somalia so you can live in paradise? Oh right, because only third-world African would be dumb enough to actually implement the retarded policies that you're proposing.

>>9020134
So what's going to stop the newly deregulated monopolies from pushing for new regulations that are friendly to them? You didn't think that far, did you?

>>9020148
>muh roads and muh somalia
Somalia is several military dictatorships not minarchist or libertarian in any sense

>>9020150
The fact that the government doesn't allow the initiation of force? If they cant force you to follow their regulations, then those are pretty ineffective regulations. They could force you to follow the regulations if they were in bed with government, which they all too often are.

What the fuck are you talking about, capitalism doesn't favor the wealthy, hedge funds rarely beat the market average.

>>9017382
The majority of the world's governments are aiding corporate capitalism in the generation of a globalist government controlled by a plutocracy.

>>9017382
Wow this is still up. /sci/ mods officially kill

>>9020206
>capitalism doesn't favor the wealthy

>>9019905
>implying a single engineer created billions of dollars of wealth
>implying a single engineer worked out the logistics of manufacturing, distribution, marketing, business orginization, patenting/legal, and human resourcing

Why is having a wealthy elite class a bad thing? Why is having huge wealth gap a bad thing? The value of money is directly related to the amount of money in circulation. Having big numbers sitting in bank accounts does little to the wealth you have, if anything it greatly slows inflation

>>9020370
It favors the poor too because competition encourages progress in distribution, technology, production, product diversity, and fairer prices.
You can't just make the government make people not poor, you will always have poor people as a result of freedom, but the lower class is better off now than EVER IN ALL OF HUMANITY'S HISTORY simply because of centuries of capitalism

>>9019116
What's inherently wrong with people getting rich? Consider people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Is it wrong that they are so rich? They revolutionized the lifestyle of millions. They've earned their money. They created a product and sold it to people who wanted it. No one was forced into this capitalistic scheme, they just wanted nice computers and phones so they were willing to pay.

What >>9017461 is saying is that having strong government regulations allows scummy characters to take advantage of the system, getting rich without actually doing a service to anyone. People like pic related are just the ones you hear about. There are countless companies and old money that take advantage of the government systems for their own gain. There are selfish people in the world

Another reason is that we have no way of actually putting the right people in charge. The people that thrive in the government are not the nicest or the smartest or even the fairest. They are the best liars. Do you seriously think any politician writes their own speeches when they can just use their "fairly" given money to hire some public speaking specialist. All they have to do is look good on camera and sound reasonable. And boom they're in charge, with all the benefits the people have chosen to give them.

As long as they got their wealth fairly, there's nothing wrong with that. Wealth is relative, and in the actions of getting rich, one can elevate the common man. The average person can do things with computers and phones people couldn't dream of even a century ago. Our lives are better now due to the businessmen so it's fair that they get rewarded.

>>9017382
You are retarded. Capitalism is best when it's not controlled at all.

>>9019970
Oh yes, involving the private sector and mixing corporatism with state functions truly leads to brilliant results. Like the American prison system, for example, where corporations lock states into virtually never ending contracts and force quotas on the number of prisoners they receive, and do all they can to prevent prisoners that should be released being released, basically going against a prison's purpose. Face it corporate interests will lead to muddying the purpose of whatever function the private contractor is enlisted to do, just to make more money. Assuming you're American, you're literally just doing statism wrong. The American state is non transparent and is not there first and foremost to serve the public, though that is how it should be ideally.

>>9020206

>hedge funds rarely beat the market average.

For tax purpose.

Or do you actually believe that the rich are purposefully investing in assets that consistently get below market returns, lol.

In fact you get divide hedge funds into two groups. Self funded and outside capital. Outside capital ones are always below average and self funded ones are always above average.

It's all part of a tax scheme to obfuscate yearly capital gains.

>>9019970
>Have you seen most government agencies? They are their facilities are normally complete shit compared to the private sector.

ARE YOU EVEN IN STEM? LIKE SERIOUSLY HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A LAB?

Private labs are a joke compared to public labs. All equipment is old as fuck. Debilitated building and decade old processes.

>Why do you think so much work is outsourced to private contractors these days?

CORRUPTION you fucking dumbwit. The politician gets his "friend" to open a shell company. The shell company nets the way over budgeted contract. The shell company sub contracts to whomever and they take a big cut of that sweet tax payer money. Politician makes off with millions.

If you look at the 10 wealthiest people in the world right now, they are all inventors, innovators, men who have harnessed science and technology for the betterment of mankind. None of them inherited their wealth.

>>9017382
>capitalism is great...
...for the capitalists. For us peasants,
it's not so fckn great, Spanky.

>>9020168
Not any of the guys you're replying to but

>>muh roads and muh somalia
>Somalia is several military dictatorships not minarchist or libertarian in any sense
That's literally how people work when there's no state to maintain an agreeable monopoly on force. Read Hobbes

>The fact that the government doesn't allow the initiation of force? If they can't force you to follow their regulations, then those are pretty ineffective regulations. They could force you to follow the regulations if they were in bed with government, which they all too often are.

>>9020399
Virtually nobody is saying capitalism should be abandoned, /sci/ is overall slightly leftwing (at least relative to the rest of 4chan) but not that left. What is definitely dumb though is this false equivalence of capitalism = anarchocapitalism, since one works and the other doesn't

>>9020942
Where do you people come from

>>9020136
>corporate monopoly is what unfettered capitalism leads to
>this monopoly can and probably will skimp on quality to maximise profits
>this monopoly can and probably will engage in anti competition practices, raise the barrier to entry stupidly high for any potential competitors, buy all manufacturing plants, blacklist, consumers that buy from their competitors or manufacturers that produce for their competitors (which is a big deal when the monopoly spans multiple sectors of the economy) and if they're rich enough and greedy enough (w hich they probably will be) , they may even engage in illegal (if the concept of "illegal" means anything in ancapistan ) practices like funding groups to steal from and destroy their competitors.

>bro just don't buy from them, go to one of your many other opti- oh wait
>bro just don't buy the product you need even though that neediness damages your ability to o be a completely rational actor

>>9021053
>t. Worthless individual with no skills

>>9017587
>You might want to read Piketty's capital in the 21st century,

debunked already google it.

>>9020370
Everyone benefits in a capitalist system rich people are rich because they provide value to others. If you actually provided value to others you'd also be rich.

>>9017382
you cannot have equality and freedom because people never behave the same and they only would through complete tyrannical control. Equality is Tyranny and Capitalism is Freedom. Social liberty and economic liberty are on and the same.

>>9017382
There is close to no country in the world that is purely capitalistic, all have a good amount of socialism in them to distribute the wealth more equally.

Also note that the increasing gap between rich and poor in the west is largely due to leftism destroying the traditional family, which used to be the primary and best working mechanism to redistribute wealth (e.g. doctor marries nurse, both are equally wealthy. today both remain single, now suddenly the society is statistically more inequal).

>>9019936
Economics favors the rich because they contribute more dumbfuck

>>9017382
>it's unbalanced in favour of the extremely wealthy.

Are you implying that any other resource distribution is more resistant to plutocracy than capitalism?

>>9021190
>Economics favors the rich because they contribute more dumbfuck

That's like saying, "the guy who has a monopoly on bread making deserves to own all the bakeries because he sells all the bread."

>>9021200
No it's not, you're fucking retarded

>>9020996
>for the betterment of mankind

That's the issue I have with your post.

That is not at all clear to me. Certainly they found a way to become rich.

However it's not at all clear that their product/service that we have to buy instead of that of the people they put out of business, is actually better.

For example, the world would definitely be better off if Bill Gates didn't bribe the world's governments and corporations to have Windows become the default operating system. It has always been the inferior software and still is to this day.

It's not clear to me that we are better of having Walmart/Amazon instead of the absence of Walmart/Amazon. I mean surely it's better for them but I'm not convinced that it's better for us.

>>9021208

>engineer calls others retarded

How cute.

>>9021211
For all you know I could be Elon fucking musk faggot

>>9021060
Somalia has government, in the form of warlords. Google military dictatorship or junta. Also I'm not advocating anarchism, libertarians still want a state, just a minimal one (night-watchman state).

To all retards saying they want "controlled capitalism", that's an oxymoron. You can't have a free market with SOME regulations just like you can't have a square with SOME additional angles.

Also, a little challenge to lefties, please provide a real world example of a monopoly forming without government interference. Monopolies only form out of government favoritism, there are no naturally occurring monopolies, this is because government can enforce restrictions with their use of military might. A company can't force you to buy their product, but the government can force you to buy a certain company's product (like how people were forced to buy health insurance from one company in the US, skyrocketting the cost of it.)

>>9021213

>Elon the engineer
>knowing anything about economics

TOP KEK

>>9021219
>billionaire entrepeneur didn't know anything about economics
Engineer or not you're a total autist stemfag

>>9017382
>I'm starting to do some research on capitalism and I thought the best place to start would be here.

>best place

topkek

>>9021225

>billionaire entrepeneur

T.R.U.M.P

Engineer.

>>9021209
Sounds like you have an issue with crony-capitalism (i.e. not capitalism at all) rather than with free market, libertarian capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QsbvE_0Kpc

Government deciding to spend your money on windows systems is not part of free market capitalism, your money didn't go towards paying for those computers out of your own volition. You had not choice in it, you were forced to chip in.

>>9017470
>like, who would want to actually be the president, or any other high position? it fucking sucks, and you have no real power

You say this as if the President isn't literally Rothschild-tier and lacks dank villas.

You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about, do you? Also ironically, it's the people that vote in the President: that's how democracy works you fuckwad.

>>9021229
>i cand reed XD
Yeah, whatever dude

>>9017474
> that governments are tied to rely on corporations because they pay large taxes and provide income to tax payers.

>what is tax avoidance
>what is tax evasion

Kill yourself.

>>9017382
>>>/his/>>>/pol/

>by a wealthy *jew

>>9017499
>However mathematicians and physicists can be really good at thinking about these things without bias since they are mostly politically apathetic.

As someone who majored in Math, you clearly don't know what you're actually talking about.

The only person I would trust on economics or politics are economotrecists.

>>9017805
>that's retarded though, it would always result in severe wealth inequality and monopoly.

can you prove this? economists run simulations on these things, so I'm pretty sure if the free market always tends toward monopoly, we would know

>>9020150
why did I bother responding. This post just proves how retarded you are. Are you 12? How fucking dumb do you have to be?

>>9017587
Thomas pikketey's revitalization of the capital accumulation meme is totally batshit and obsolete. Wealth inheritance has almost literally nothing to do with inequality. If anything, it's the ridiculous patent/copyright laws in the West.

>>9021233

You're too slow and this is all going way above your head. You don't even understand what is happening.

I'm starting to feel like a bully so I'll stop.

>>9021242
>economists say X, they gotta be right
Before you mage some insane knowledge claim like that, maybe you sold a cushy offer am example of a firm that attained monopolistic powers without serious govt support

>>9021238
>The only person I would trust on economics or politics are economotrecists.

Econometrics is about studying capitalism. It has nothing to do with the broader picture that we are discussing here.

>>9021249
Maybe you should offer an*

eat fucking shit you faggot communist. kill yourself

>>9021242
>>9021249
>>9021252
Whoops misread your reply.

>>9021246
Good go masturbate while adults discuss works issues

>>9019150
Basics economics does not accurately describe reality. A free market is a selection system, much like natural selection. Thinking that a free market leads to happy people is as misguided as thinking that evolution maximizes happiness in organisms. The only thing that matters to an entity in the market is survival, at any cost. Genuine ethical beliefs are brutally punished by selection.

Is there a single reason why we shouldn't plan production using modern computing?
You know the "economic calculation problem" in socialism has been debunked for decades, right?

>>9020392
Because it undermines democracy which brings in a whole lot of other problems.

>>9021352
>Is there a single reason why we shouldn't plan production using modern computing?
Because freedom is kind of important?

All the leftists here arguing against capitalism by wanting more regulations and "wealth redistribution" (stealing) should be ashamed of themselves.

Right-wing economics is a perfect example of a successful scam. If you read any amount of history, it's clear that decent working conditions were achieved through political struggle and unionization. It took literal revolutionary conditions to make capitalists give some concessions to the working class. Arguing against the organization of labour and institutions to facilitate worker bargaining power, as "libertarians" do, is fucking insanity. Wages are not going to increase magically, it takes a constant pressure from the workers. This is so incredibly obvious that only decades of propaganda and Red Scare could conceal it so well.

>>9021383
How delusional can people be. You should read this.

>>9020112
When he lost track of the point because the argument was not about who was richer. It was about who spends more.

>>9021381
Can you explain why freedom is synonymous with the capitalist mode of production? This is a strange assumption to make. We're not talking about abstract concepts, we're talking about economic systems. Are you saying that a society is automatically free if it's capitalistic?

>>9021389
Guarantee that, nowhere in that book, does it say anything about higher wages ruining a country because thats never really happened to any civilized state of government. He was just trying to explain how the fiscal conservative doesn't have a credible base to say what will or will not work. Historically, higher taxes creates a more suitable economy for the working class.

>>9021381
Let's not pretend that rich people earn their keep honestly.

>le read Ayn Rand
this has to be bait

>>9021404
Most of them do.

>>9021417
It's not, retard.

>>9017460
Governments are composed of shitloads of people and since they are there to serve the public some/most/all of their money goes back into society, depending on how efficient they are and how many corporate interests there are meddling. So very few individuals actually get huge amounts of money in the same way corporations leaders do.

>>9021215
A small enough government with insufficient power is indistinguishable from no government. The weakness of such a small government can be seen in Somalia. So, Somalia is good for discrediting both anarchocapitalism and strong libertarianism.

A market without regulations is not a free market. A market without regulations leads to the overwhelming majority of the market share being held by a tiny number of individuals, who do everything they can to maximise their profit (at the expense of the consumer) and also to prevent competitors entering the market and thriving in the market.

Government interference is everywhere because no developed country is retarded enough to have a weak government. Your request is like asking for a real world example of an Alcubierre drive.
No, monopolies don't only form out of "government favoritism". They form out if maintaining their grip on the market. Government favoritism is only of the many tools corporations have to maintain their iron grip,getting rid of le ebil gubmint won't get rid of all the other tools corporations have. Cut off one head..
If the company is large enough, I'd say they could essentially force you to buy their product. If that company has a monopoly on force and enforce your property rights, then it's fairly easy for them to make you do what they want.
Once again, mixing the private sector with public interests, especially in something so basic and incompatible with complete rational acting and the free market as health care, completely fucks everything up. When will Americans learn?

>>9021404
>this socioeconomic stratum is a monolithic block

>>9017382
Where the fuck are the mods? Political "science" is not a science.

Saged and reported.

>>9021383
Completely brainwashed or maybe shill. Retard either way. Sage.

>>9021449
Simple question, do you believe workers should have bargaining power and unions should exist?
Or is the market going to fix everything?
This is not fucking communism, it's the lowest amount of common sense and historical awareness mein gott.

>>9017460
>Governments are clearly the wealthiest
This is what some people ACTUALLY believe.

Central banks are the ultimate authority on this planet, the families who control them have literally infinite wealth due to current FIAT-money system. Money is nothing but a tool for control and power, are you aware of the quantitative easing programs for example? AKA central banks buying government bonds and in ECB's case corporate bonds through commercial banks. ECB is dumping 80 BILLION euros a month to government and corporate bonds and BOJ's QE program is equally ridiculous 60 BILLION (in dollars) a month. US's now inactive QE program totaled to 4.5 TRILLION and UK's central bank has also been dumping several hundred billions through QE. They are cojuring hundreds of billions of money a month from thin air through their authority and essentially distributing it to the top .1% in order to reach their retarded inflation goals and keep the stock market infinitely ascending... up until the bubble gets too big to handle and the system crashes under its own weight, and when that happens they already have another system to take the place of the old one (which is equally likely to be based purely on perceived authority and godlike status of central banks). As it happens there is already a system to take place of petrodollar when it finally dies and current monetary systems fail; Special Drawing Rights. Its quite likely to become the basis for first truly global currency when we finally have another hard reset in our hands.

Those who have the absolute control over money have the absolute power over a given nation. In 2000 there were 7 countries without privately owned central bank: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran

And can you guess how many of those have faced US/West backed wars and 'revolutions'? And how many are about to? Now there are 3 independent nations remaining: Cuba, North Korea and Iran.

>>9021400

Mandate a minimum wage of $15 in America, and almost every local business will go under in 2 years. Huge corporations will be all that's left and they will find loopholes to make it work for them, or use lobby power to make exceptions. People under 20 will absolutely never be able to find a starter job. Bars and restaurants will have shit service due to low staff when they can pay one fucking person to work the whole place for a night shift.

$15 an hour would destroy this country, it actually is simple economics even if it does not say the exact words in some book. But hey keep your little daydream going, and donate some more money to Bernie.

Capitalism is a disease.

>>9021497
Actually, it's a historical step towards the development of productive forces inside a specific framework of property ownership and wage labour, comrade. Given that its relations of production have become a complete obstacle towards this development, most obvious in intellectual property law, it will necessitate a revolutionary overthrow of those relations towards social ownership and democratic control.
This overthrow will almost certainly require the institution of a proletarian state, however it will have to done in a significantly different way than Marxism-Leninism, its material conditions no longer being applicable.

>>9021434
>A small enough government with insufficient power is indistinguishable from no government
Somalian warlords do have power, power that they exert over others. There would be no military dictatorship in Somalia if the warlords weren't strong enough to influence people. There's sharia law ENFORCED in Somalia by fanatic authorities, these armed people GOVERN how the somali population is allowed to act, hence it's a government, even if you think they are weak.

>A market without regulations is not a free market
That's the definition of a free market. Nothing can be free with limitations, it would be oxymoronic. Whatever vision you have of the market, it is not a free market and you shouldn't call it such. Call it "regulated free market" or some other made up oxymoron of a phrase, but don't perverse such a simple concept to favor your position.

>who do everything they can to maximise their profit (at the expense of the consumer)
The way you maximize profits is by pleasing the consumer, that's how relationships where no coercion is involved works, this is fundamental to any human interaction and should be obvious to you. If a relationship between part A and part B isn't beneficial to part A, then part A can opt out (unless B forces A to stay).

Also, provide some fucking evidence. You claim monopolies form when there's no regulations, so please provide an example. All hinges on this, we both agree monopolies are bad, so please provide evidence as to why they manifest when there's no regulations.

>>9021544
Fuck off with your revisionism, idiot. Not even classical liberals agree with your definition of the free market, it was obvious to Adam Smith, the "libertarian' prophet, that it needs to be regulated, and the government needs to provide essential services. Literally no one except deluded ancaps promotes this definition.

>>9021544
I didn't say it wasn't a government, nor did I say it didn't have a power. I said it obviously had insufficient power, as evidenced by the power grabs going on there.

Imagine you have two people running a race. One of the runners tries to trip the other runner up to get a better win. So, you put a barrier up to stop that runner tripping up the other. Is the race freer before or after the introduction of that barrier (which is a limitation)? I'd say it is you who should stop using the word "free" and instead turn to the word "deregulated", since that's what you really want.

No, maximising profits often (but not always) coincides with pleasing the consumer, there are a multitude of ways to maximise profits and pleasing the consumer is only one, especially if you're thinking only party selling a produce. Lowering non-valuable workers' working standards, raising prices
Ah, but a free (here I use your meaning of the word free) would almost certainly involve coercion. No ebil gubmint doesn't mean no coercion. Coercion is a tool to maximise profits, so it's a tool party B would use, if they can.
Rational acting dictates the formation of monopolies, since holding the overwhelming majority of the market share guarantees the maximisation of longterm profits, which any rational actor ultimately desires. Competition is good for the consumer, and good for society overall through innovations, but it isn't good for shareholders and the leaders of corporations, so they'll naturally come together to minimise competition (and maximise profits). It's what they're logical bound to do, and will do if they have the chance.

>>9021160
I know, why do these STUPID poor people not just provide value to others? jesus christ

>>9017545
This is a great book that should be required for every American to read in college. I wished i had read it as a young man. It's great guide.

>>9021572
>Imagine you have two people running a race.
The economy is not a zero sum game.

>One of the runners tries to trip the other runner up to get a better win.
And gets disqualified for breaking the rules of the game.

>So, you put a barrier up to stop that runner tripping up the other. Is the race freer before or after the introduction of that barrier (which is a limitation)?
Yes, of course, since the barrier limits the freedom of the racers, regardless of whether they break the rules of the game. But I'm glad you can see a distinction between the rules of the game and "regulation" or a limitation being put on the players that limits their ability to operate even within the rules of the game.

>>9021581
Competition very much is a zero sum game. From the viewpoint of consumers it's all great, but from the viewpoint of competitors any increase in an opponent's market share comes at a loss of your own market share, ignoring population growth rate which is usually too slow for consideration and assuming both of you have already reached all possible consumers, which large companies will have done or will be exceedingly close to.

Who disqualifies them? The state that is order of magnitudes weaker and poorer than them? The consumers who have no other options?
Why should they follow arbitrary rules that prevent them maximising profits, when there is insufficient power to back up those rules?

I don't think you answered the question, I said is it freer before or after and you said "yes".

>>9021591
>mercantilism

>>9017382

>As you all know capitalism is great so long as it's controlled - but it's not controlled enough, it's unbalanced in favour of the extremely wealthy.

That could because some are more competent than others at aquiring wealth and managing it. Maybe those who are poor deserve their miserable lives. They deserve to work till their backs break and then rot, forgotten.

>>9021599
Seems like you're responding to less and less with each post. But fine, let's say the number of consumers that can be reached by the mix of companies grows. Each companies market share would likely grow proportional to what they had before, though it would probably be skewed in favour of the largest companies, since when you already have its easier to get more. So, the formation of a monopoly is just as easy if not easier when the number of consumers available increases.

>>9021607
>*tips fedora*

>>9021591
>Competition very much is a zero sum game.
The economy is not simply competition, it is also transaction. Transaction generally results in a gain of utility by both parties.

>From the viewpoint of consumers it's all great, but from the viewpoint of competitors any increase in an opponent's market share comes at a loss of your own market share, ignoring population growth rate which is usually too slow for consideration and assuming both of you have already reached all possible consumers, which large companies will have done or will be exceedingly close to.
But that does not describe a zero-sum game either. You can lose market share while gaining utility, because the market can and often does grow. Market growth in general is necessary for a prosperous economy. And you are forgetting that the market is not equivalent to the amount of consumers, but the value being transacted. That value is not simply a function of the amount of consumers.

>Who disqualifies them? The state that is order of magnitudes weaker and poorer than them? The consumers who have no other options?
How does the power to regulate give them the power to prosecute? You're not making sense. They are two different things. Saying that the state is weak because it cannot regulate has nothing to do with it's ability to prosecute.

>I don't think you answered the question, I said is it freer before or after and you said "yes".
I think it is pretty clear from the context that I said yes to the former. Don't be dense.

Also, I don't know if you realized, but I am not the guy you replied to with the race analogy.

>>9021572
>since holding the overwhelming majority of the market share
This is not a monopoly, pic related is not a monopoly. Microsoft holds a large part of the OS market, but not all of it. There's nothing stopping any actor from creating their own service/product and snagging market share for themselves (like Linux OS has done in the picture).

Read carefully: A monopoly has 100% of a market cornered AND prevents other parties from entering that market. This can ONLY be achieved with the use of force. Historical examples of monopolies are government police forces, government healthcare (it's not a monopoly in all countries), military and government schooling (again, not in all countries). I've challenged you to give an example of a monopoly occurring without government interference, and you can't do it. You can't do it because there is no such example. Stop dodging this already.

A company can persuade you into buying their shit, but they can't force you to. Persuasion =/= Force/Coercion. A company can't force you to do anything (unless they get the government to provide some firepower for them via bribes/deals).

>>9021625
Transaction results in a gain of utility for the consumer and the provider. But the only relevant part to this discussion is the providing party, and if you're a competiting providing party, their gain in utility is your loss relative to the scenario in which you were involved in that transaction.

>But that does not describe a zero-sum game either. You can lose market share while gaining utility, because the market can and often does grow. Market growth in general is necessary for a prosperous economy.
You're still losing out relative to you being involved in the transactions in lieu of your competitor. Saying it's not a zero sum game because you gain utility despite losing market growth is like a triathlon where the winner gets £100 and 2nd place gets £1 but also gets shat on by the winner, is not a zero sum game. Sure, it's not purely a zero sum game, but for all intents and purposes, and especially to the shareholders, it's essentially a zero sum game.
And see >>9021615

>And you are forgetting that the market is not equivalent to the amount of consumers, but the value being transacted. That value is not simply a function of the amount of consumers.
Suppose the companies are making maximal value transactions, or at least they're all making transactions of the same value.

>How does the power to regulate give them the power to prosecute? You're not making sense. They are two different things. Saying that the state is weak because it cannot regulate has nothing to do with it's ability to prosecute.
Both powers have their roots in the force the state can bring to bear.

>I think it is pretty clear from the context that I said yes to the former
How exactly is the tripped racer freer if they're not free to pursue their goals? That's literally like saying you're free to live how you want if I can and do come into your house and kill you.
>Also, I don't know if you realized, but I am not the guy you replied to with the race analogy.
My mistake

>>9021638
Monopoly is the endpoint of the economy, the limit which the unfettered economy tends to. An absolute monopoly is virtually impossible to form in any way, force or not. Even in any historical example you care to cite, there will always be another party who deals in the same product. This may very well be illegal, and stamped out as soon as it is found, but it will be there (except for sectors with ridiculously high barriers to entry). Hence, the only worthwhile consider is overwhelming majority with competitors having statistically insignificant market shares. But regardless, for the average consumer a pseudo monopoly with overwhelming market share in favour of one company, with that one company actively harming competitors, is essentially indistinguishable from an actual idealised monopoly.

I didn't dodge it, I explained why there are no examples of monopolies without government interference. You're wilfully ignoring that explanation to bolster your perceived point.

A company can very well force you to do something, you're being wilfully ignorant or are exceptionally naive. Consider for example, any company which spans multiple sectors and its employees in one sector constitute a significant portion of its consumers in another. It's obvious to see how they can coerce people into buying their products them. Or imagine that they control (or bargain with whoever controls) the central currency. Those are just off the top of my head, but greed has no limits.

>>9021682
>But the only relevant part to this discussion is the providing party
Well, no it isn't.

>and if you're a competiting providing party, their gain in utility is your loss relative to the scenario in which you were involved in that transaction.
No it isn't. There is not a set sum of utility to win, since the actions which these companies are performing is creating utility. Remember that the argument here is whether the economy is a zero sum game. It's not. And neither is companies competing.

>You're still losing out relative to you being involved in the transactions in lieu of your competitor. Saying it's not a zero sum game because you gain utility despite losing market growth is like a triathlon where the winner gets £100 and 2nd place gets £1 but also gets shat on by the winner, is not a zero sum game.
No that's totally wrong. The definition of a zero sum game is that the utility won and lost by each competitor sums to zero. So a race with a set prize will always have zero sum. The winner wins £100 and loses £1 while the loser loses £100 and wins £1. This is obvious since there is a set pot of £101 which the winner and loser take from. With companies on the other hand, there is not a set pot of value to be split among the competitors, since the actions of the competitors directly affect how much value there is in the market. For example, if a startup introduces some new form of computer hardware, this does not mean Microsoft then loses utility to balance out the startup's gain in business. That action can actually benefit Microsoft.

>Suppose the companies are making maximal value transactions, or at least they're all making transactions of the same value.
I don't know what "maximal value transactions" means.

>Both powers have their roots in the force the state can bring to bear.
So then a state without the power to regulate is not necessarily weak. What does this have to do with prosecuting companies that break the rules of a free market?

>>9021714
>Monopoly is the endpoint of the economy, the limit which the unfettered economy tends to.
Nope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

>>9021682
>How exactly is the tripped racer freer if they're not free to pursue their goals?
Huh? You asked if the race is more free before or after putting up the barrier. So you meant that a barrier was erected after the racer was tripped and now want to know whether the barrier increases the freedom of the already tripped racer? I'm not following. Clearly it does nothing for that racer since he was already tripped.

I thought you meant that after this event occurred, from then on races are conducted with barriers. And my point still stands, the barrier reduces the freedom of racers running the race regardless of whether they are breaking the rules.

>>9020416
>No one was forced into this capitalistic scheme, they just wanted nice computers and phones so they were willing to pay.

Are you sure they didn't buy them because they were being promoted by capitalists and they were afraid of being left behind?

The economy is a social institution and as such it will continue to evolve.

Our economy does not look like anything we had even 30 years ago.

Capitalism is just what we have now.

We won't have capitalism in 2300 just like they didn't have capitalism in 1700.

>>9021727
Well, yes it is because we're talking about the formationnof of a monopoly. Consumers don't form monopolies.


Exactly, my point was that the triathlon a zero sum game but you were saying a similar scneario wasn't because the party that loses still wins a small amount of utility.
Yes, of course parties affect value available to their their competitors by taking up value.
Assuming the new form of hardware is unrelated any R&D of Microsoft, saying that action benefits Microsoft is again like saying it's not a zero sum game because they get that £1.

The transactions the parties partake in are of maximal value? As in they can't produce products of any higher value currently, for whatever reason.

A state that can't enforce regulations is necessarily weak.

>>9021733
My WiFi is shit, summarise the video

>>9021741
It's known the tripper will trip the other racer, yet you put up no barrier and allow the trippee to be tripped. How does the lack of the barrier increase the freedom of the trippee?

>>9021802
>just like they didn't have capitalism in 1700
>implying

>>9021714
>Monopoly is the endpoint of the economy
This is false, and history has proven it time and time again. They do not naturally survive, and they are only spawned by government intervention. Your only arguement against this is a number of faulty hypotheses that do not match reality.

>is essentially indistinguishable from an actual idealised monopoly
The only scenario where this is true is if the consumer has no other option other than this "pseudo-monopoly". Microsoft has a "pseudo-monopoly" on the OS market, but that doesn't stop me from using Linux OS.

>A company can very well force you to do something
So long as the employees can opt out and the company in question doesn't go against the written agreement between employer and employee, they aren't forced to buy anything.
The company isn't utilizing force or threat of violence to get what it wants in this scenario. At worst, it's breaking a contract by changing the terms for it's employees (having to buy something), and a breach of contract should naturally be punished, but it is not force.

You seem to have a warped view of what "force" and "coerce" mean, just like you seem to do with the concept "free" and "monopoly".
You're not forcing anyone to do anything without military power or threat of violence. If physical force or the threat of it is not present, then it is persuasion. Now persuasion can often be very strong, but making a strong case as for why a person should do something is never force.

>>9020399
>no tech progress without competition
...yep, got that correlation a bit inverse there, m8

>>9021805
>>9021826

>capitalism will remain the dominant economic system forever

So you're telling me that poor people will be stuck without clean water, without nutritious food, without education and without healthcare forever?

Great future to look forward to.

>>9020416
>it's fair that they get rewarded
sure, if we're talking an average wealth increase of 10 to 100%, something within a sane allowance that respects everyone else's need, but only fools believe the gangster cronies actually practice 'meritocracy'

Freedom and Capitalism are incompatible unless there is some kind of upper bound to how much wealth somebody can own.

Otherwise, one's presence, one's existence, infringes on the freedom of those around them.

>inb4 some engineer cannot understand my reasoning and goes apeshit

>>9021850
>Capitalism is this strawman I just constructed

Is there an easier way to spot a retard than to look for who's arguing with strawmen?

>>9021867
Everyone seems to have a different view of what capitalism is in this thread. How do you define capitalism?

>>9021826
Oh please, show me how my hypotheses are "faulty". Monopolies don't exist because governments break them up, and because paradigm shifts may open up the sector to competitors. Show me some modern examples of monopolies dying out, since you're trying to prove a negative.

The market share of non-Windows OSes isn't statistically insignificant, so it's not a pseudomonopoly.

Threat of firing falls under intimidation and probably blackmail, and that is coercion.

>>9021850
>>>9021805 (You)
>>>9021826
>>capitalism will remain the dominant economic system forever
>So you're telling me that poor people will be stuck without clean water, without nutritious food, without education and without healthcare forever?
>Great future to look forward to.
Less and less people are in those situations as society progresses. I'd imagine that when scarcity has vanished, which is far in the future since either requires both the satisfaction of basic needs as well as people owning the means to produce whatever they want, star trek replicator style, capitalism won't work.

>>9021867
I've always said this, economic problems could be instantly solved with heavy penalties for hoarding one's wealth, an arbitrary cap of savings greater than 1-2 Mil.
If bankster's didn't rule, it would already be law.

>>9021826
don't feed the shareblue

>>9021845
It's like natural selection, but for tech companies instead. Fire under one's arse is an incentive to climb.

>>9021805
>Exactly, my point was that the triathlon a zero sum game but you were saying a similar scneario wasn't because the party that loses still wins a small amount of utility.
No, my point was that market share does not represent the amount of utility. So talking about competing over market share tells us nothing about whether there is a zero sum game.

>>9021872

Private property rights. Not more.

You tell me how free you feel after you fight a court battle with an entity that is 1000x wealthier than you.

I had to go to court against a developer after I acquired some land through inheritance.

I got the land and was immediately forced to sell it to the developer for below market value. My other option was a prolonged court battle that would take years. I didn't have the time nor the money for that. I couldn't afford it the court battle. I would lose money either way.

That's the freedom that you feel when a rich guy crosses your path.

There is no way around the fact that wealth is power and power is by definition, influence over other people's lives, i.e inhibition of their freedom.

>>9017382
>it's unbalanced in favour of the extremely wealthy.
this only happens when you allow it to happen.

all the bottom class retards are so bad with their money and refuse to change anything that it doesnt matter what you do.

im still wondering how wells fargo can get away with literally taking money out of peoples account and still have a business that isnt radioactive.

>>9021805
>Yes, of course parties affect value available to their their competitors by taking up value.
They're not taking up value, they're creating it. That's the entire point of why the economy is not a zero sum game. I never said both parties benefiting makes it non-zero-sum. That is incidental to non-zero-sum games.

in free-market capitalism rich people are rich because other people give their money to them. Poorfags are the ones voluntarily giving money to Amazon, wallmart, McDonald's, and so on, spending every last dime on meaningless trash while barely saving or investing, it's their choice.

>>9021875
>Monopolies don't exist because governments break them up
Monopolies DO exist today. But only the ones formed by government (schools, police, military, certain goods like marijuana in some places). It is true that government break up some monopolies, thought, but monopolies exist today and they are 100% government created.

>Show me some modern examples of monopolies dying out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Diamond_monopoly
https://born2invest.com/articles/de-beers-the-rise-and-the-fall-of-a-diamond-monopoly/

>inb4 it wasn't a real monopoly
It's as close as you get. They couldn't maintain their monopoly because they couldn't get exclusive rights to selling diamonds (which governments would grant). No government restrictions = no monopolies.

>Threat of firing falls under intimidation and probably blackmail
Depends on the contract. There is no universal contract that workers and employers follow. You would be retarded to agree to a contract where you can fired over such a trivial thing, but it's your own fault if you agree to such a shitty contract in the first place.

>>9021805
>The transactions the parties partake in are of maximal value? As in they can't produce products of any higher value currently, for whatever reason.
OK but what does this have to do with zero sum? All players could play an optimal strategy in a non-zero-sum game, that doesn't change the fact that it's non-zero-sum game.

>>9017382
You create a new capitalism
>crypto currency am i rite

>>9021805
>Consumers don't form monopolies.

Monopsony

>>9021805
>A state that can't enforce regulations is necessarily weak.
Nice try, but we're talking about a state which does not have the power to make regulations, not enforce regulations it makes. That's like saying a police force can't enforce laws unless it can make laws.

>>9021890
That seems like an issue with the court system and bloated legislature that creates such lenghty cases. Such lenghty and diffuse laws are created by rich groups who use government influence to favor them.

Do you not agree with property rights in day to day life? Don't you care for your own property?

If it wasn't for capitalism we would have taken care of climate change 2 decades ago when Al Gore was a thing.

There.

/thread

How hard was that?

>>9021960
if it wasn't for capitalism we would be exploring the inside of black holes by now

>>9021960
>>9021968
If it wasn't for capitalism you would be living pathetic and short lives, and the computers you use to type your mental diarrhea wouldn't even exist.

>>9017819
Litwrally the first paragraph of the wikipedia article cor capitalism, are you really that lazy?

Gregory and Stuart, Paul and Robert (28 February 2013). The Global Economy and its Economic Systems. South-Western College Pub. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-285-05535-0. Capitalism is characterized by private ownership of the factors of production. Decision making is decentralized and rests with the owners of the factors of production. Their decision making is coordinated by the market, which provides the necessary information. Material incentives are used to motivate participants.

>>9022002
>Capitalism is characterized by private ownership of the factors of production. Decision making is decentralized and rests with the owners of the factors of production.

Exactly, thank you.
Proof that no such system exists anywhere today is becoming increasingly obvious

>>9021980
>If it wasn't for capitalism you would be living pathetic and short lives, and the computers you use to type your mental diarrhea wouldn't even exist.
we would be less pathetic if it wasn't for capitalism

>>9022042
Yea, nah not really. But I guess working and producing valuable goods for your fellow man is pathetic according to NEET like you.

>>9022052
>But I guess working and producing valuable goods for your fellow man is pathetic according to NEET like you.
that's what communism does.

Capitalism is exploitation of your fellow man so your boss can gather riches.

A communist worker is less pathetic compared to a capitalist worker.

>>9022065
>Agree to work for your employer
>Literally sign with your name that you AGREE to the terms of the employment
>Help me! I'm being exploited!

Why so many brainlets on /sci/?

>>9022065
a communist worker is literally a slave, he can't choose who he works for, he can't start his own business, he can barely eat, he is a slave.

>>9021908
What happened to muh absolute 100% market share to be a monopoly?
Anyway, De Beers is a shit example because supplying rough diamonds isn't really producing anything. A monopoly on ripping natural resources out of the ground is only really possible if you own all the land those resources come from. Any attempt to from a monopoly otherwise is doomed from the start, unless the attempt involves merging. The barrier to entry is low if you're lucky enough to live in a place with high quantities of unique diamonds. So, the barrier to entry can't be raised as high artificially as for other sectors of the economy
I'm not sure how libertarian you are, but if you have a subpar education system for poor people than to even suggest those (unskilled) people would have a choice in which contracts they accept is ludicrous

>>9021910
Because they're producing at the same value level, value is irrelevant. Only market share matters.

>>9021920
Anyone has power to make regulations, and that power is limited only by their imagination. I can make regulations myself. I just made several in my head, please follow them. The sheer fact of making regulations is irrelevant, only the power to enforce those regulations matters.

>>9021922
Not him, but it's perfectly rational for them to use government influence to favour them. Why would you think rich people would game the system less with no government? The government tries to attain, or at least tries to look like it's trying to attain, equality in the justice systemregardless of socioeconomic level. With parties that are purely financially motivated, like private parties that mediate legal affairs for money, this would be even worse and the rich would have even more power.

>>9022072
>>9022071
A capitalistic worker is free to work for the only guy he can work for and he works for the guy that will take all the profits put them in his pocket and screw over the working class by paying presidents like Trump to lower the taxes on him.
A communist worker is working for the benefit of the state, which takes all the money and distributes it fairly. He knows that he's working the job he is supposed to and isn't worried about getting exploited because of his work.
freedom is slavery.
I thought you knew this.

>>9022074
>Not him, but it's perfectly rational for them to use government influence to favour them

Exactly. The problem isn't that they are rich. The problem is that there is a mechanism were the rich can use the government to profit themselves at the cost of common taxpayers.

If the government has little power, there will be little incentive to bribe and muck up legislature (cause you'd get no returns). If the government then protects you from violence, the rich people would have no choice but to offer people good deals. They can't force the government to force you and they can't force you themselves, what choice is there left for them? (inb4 you create some fearmongering hypothetic scenario where megacorp has patented the human genome and now owns all humans)

>>9022082
>implying only one employer exists
>implying the state is a living entity reigned by virtuous principles not formed by corrupt and greedy humans

>freedom is slavery.

every time. the only retort communists have against the claim that socialism is literally, as in by definition, slavery, is to scorn freedom altogether, and claim we don't have freedom anyway, we can't choose who we work for, we can't negotiate our wages, of course everyone wants more but if employees had zero leverage then middle class would not exist. get yourself medicated, this slavery apology makes you look like a sociopath.

is there anything more idiotic than communists complaining about monopolies? The socialist state is a monopoly not only of a particular economic sector, but of the whole economy, the whole politics, force and circulation of ideas.

>>9022099
How exactly would you reduce the power the government has in the justice system? If you were to reduce funding, it seems like that would just go to hiring lower quality lawyers to defend people which would just increase the gap between the poor and the rich.
Also, I'd say it's hard for the average person vs a rich person since the lawyers have large differences in skill and motivation. There doesn't seem to be anything in the justice system itself that makes it easier for certain people intrinsically, the rich just hire better people who can game the system better. Though in the rich serving shorter sentences, there almost is something to do with the government there intrinsically.

>>9022124
>anyone who isn't an ancap or ultra libertarian is a communist or socialist
I'm roughly a social democrat and monopolies are just a big deal that just be addressed, regardless of your whataboutism

>>9022074
>Anyone has power to make regulations, and that power is limited only by their imagination.
That's some really great sophistry that doesn't respond to a word I said. Again, how does a government not being able to make regulations indicate ANYTHING about it's ability to enforce the rules of a free market? Does the fact that a police force cannot make up its own laws somehow stop it from enforcing laws that already exist? Do constitutional limits on what a government can do somehow limit its ability to do what it's allowed to do? Your argument is plain nonsense.

>>9022074
>Because they're producing at the same value level, value is irrelevant. Only market share matters.
Market share is not utility. Do you understand what "zero sum game" means?

>>9022074
>What happened to muh absolute 100% market share to be a monopoly?
I was going by your definition of "pseudo-monopoly" being essentially a monopoly. De Beers is as close you get to a natural monopoly and it collapsed even before it became a "true" monopoly, it could never have become the monopoly you fear in the first place. Being afraid of naturally occurring monopolies is like being afraid of dragons coming to eat you.

>De Beers is a shit example because supplying rough diamonds isn't really producing anything
Are you legit retarded? You think diamonds lie on the ground for people to pick? Unearthing them is a long and costly process as is shipping them all over the world. Just another example of your disconnect from reality. Besides, De Beers refined diamonds and made jewelry too (they still do), so your point is moot.

>subpar education system
The education system in the US is so awful precisely because it is so socialized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KytyESCJ7sQ

>>9022142
>How exactly would you reduce the power the government has in the justice system?

Rewrite laws to be short and concise so you don't need a team of 5 lawyers to interpret it. Now the little guy can compete cause the ceiling of how much you can game the system is lower.

Then remove all regulations of non-aggressive actions. Complete free trade, only thing limited is threats and the initiation of force. Also remove subsidies to corporations, they should stand on their own merit only. Please the customers or perish.

Then create a constitution that inhibits the sitting government from creating market regulatory legislation. Now there is literally 0 reason for a rich banker tycoon guy to buy influence into the government, now he has to have all of his focus on his business instead of relying on government beating his competition for him or bailing his ass out.

Now this is very hard to put into practice in most governments because they are already infested with corrupt puppets that will shoot such proposals down to please their corporate masters. I guarantee you nobody of the top 100 wealthiest men alive are pro-libertarianism, they've almost all amassed their fortunes with government assistance.

>>9022146
I didn't say it indicates something about the ability to enforce the rules of the deregulated market. You said that, and you're arguing against some argument that exists only in your own mind.

>>9022149
They create the same value per transaction, and gain the same utility per transaction.

>>9022151
No, I didn't say diamonds lie on the ground for people to pick, nor that it was an easy and cheap process to unearth them. Something being costly and difficult doesn't mean you are producing something that is removed from the whims of nature's deposits, as diamonds are. As you are at the mercy of these whims, monopoly formation is naturally doomed to fail from the get go since the barrier to entry, especially with rough diamonds, is so low.
They were only close to a monopoly in supplying rough diamonds, so it's your point that is moot.

Summarise the video.
Weird that socialised education makes the education system shit when developed countries around the world have (even more) socialised education systems and get even better results oftentimes.

>>9022082

>>9022232
Unearthing and selling rough diamonds has a very high barrier of entry. You need to make deals with land owners in Africa, you need to contract locals as workforce, you need to manage a shipping network and a potential buyers. But despite this, the barrier of entry was not impossible to overcome so other diamond companies emerged.

Let's agree that a certain barrier of entry exists. But the only way this barrier gets so high that it kills off any potential new companies that would compete is through government regulations. The barrier can be naturally high such as when producing medical compounds since it requires a large initial investment (skilled workers and advanced equipment), but it will never be a barrier impossible to surmount for all but one producer. It only becomes impossible to surmount when you have a giant military taking one company's side.

The only exception to this is when new technologies emerge, then the inventor companies has a monopoly for a while, until other actors try to mimic it.

>Summarise the video
Private schools meet demands better since they directly answer to the customer (the parents and their children). If demands aren't met, parents can pull their funding and put their children in another school. This is a fire under the school's arses that force them to meet demands or die off. It's natural selection but for businesses.

Now, demands are also put on government to run schools well. But government schools are worse at meeting demands since they don't answer directly to the people. If public school misbehaves to the point that you are dissatisfied with it, you have to wait 4 years for an election to hopefully have a miniscule chance of new politicians formulating rules that maybe will improve the schools. The feedback-response loop is much slower with government run agencies, and as such they don't improve as fast.

>>9021796
I'm speaking only about microsoft and apple here. There are of course situations where people are forced into poor situations due to capitalism. All I'm saying is that there are also many good results as well and they shouldn't be ignored. The economic and technological growth due to capitalism is significant.
>>9021853
I disagree. These men changed the lives of literally millions. Everyone knows who they are. And all they really did was create, market, and sell new useful technology. I think people like them should be rewarded so that others may do the same in the future. Look at all the young people going into computer science largely due to the impact of Gates and Jobs. They hope to do great things in their own selfish interest, to earn money, but to get that money they have to make improvements and advance the tech industry. Of course you may disagree with me on how positive the industry really is for many people, but on average I'd say people's lives are better now with this new technology than back then.

>>9018206
That beard is ridiculous

>>9022082
>communist worker
>state

dude please. why would a state exist if there was no property to enforce in a communistic society?

>>9019150
>A higher standard of living is achieved through higher productivity, and that is achieved by letting people free to think and produce, and by not taking away their incentive to do so (taxes).
Taxes increase productivity because the more taxes people pay, the more they have to work to get the same amount of wealth they would otherwise get. Checkmate

>>9023645
Someone has to enforce that people can't start claiming property again.

>>9021250
Econometrics is about OLS, statistics, and regression you fucking dunce.

I have a graduate degree in economics, so let me sum it up for you kids (this is very much a high school thread)

>free markets are efficient
>if we care about social welfare, we ought to maintain efficient markets
>introducing barriers to entry between firms causes monopolistic competition (NOT necessarily monopolies, just fewer competitors).
>therefore, we ought to minimize artificial barriers to entry.
>companies lobby the government to increase barriers to entry within their industry
>therfore, we ought to take steps to prevent lobbying

And the way to do it (generally speaking): Remove influence or decentralize power from the government so that nobody can use it for their own gain

>>9023762
A PhD in economics is probably one of the few degrees that upon graduating, does not mean you know anything about the subject.

>>9023792
Maybe you ought to face his argument rather than his degree?

There is a board for these topics
>>>/pol/

>>9023911
This. Economics is not a science

>>9023895
Maybe you should stop being a fucking cuck

>>9017386
because they could earn the interest on a loan, so they are incentivised to loan to responsible or successful people.

>>9023933
>>9023933
it's social science