In most Western countries, people aren't dying of hunger. I'd say it's taken significant progress.
Of course there's a sizeable chunk of people who want to live plush upper middle class lives without contributing a drop of sweat into the economy.
Of course there's a sizeable chunk of people who want to live plush upper middle class lives without contributing a drop of sweat into the economy.
Socialism involves heavy government intervention into the markets which includes regulatory capabilities.
Do you have a counterargument or are you going to leave it at ad hominems?
Not ad hominem: "Your statement is stupid" because it goes against what is said (however poor the statement may otherwise be).
Ad hominem: "You are stupid" because it goes against who says the statement.
GP's comment is an example of the former.
Monopolies drive the cost of items and services up. (besides having all the other negative effects that are always caused by a huge concentration of power in the hands a non-democratic institution).
And as we see and know very well, e.g. by looking around us, monopolies or (at best) duopolies are always the outcome of unregulated markets.
More or less in all sectors, and especially in this very globalised world, where economies of scale drive profits up for those who put them to effect. This of course includes the Financial sector.
So, I'd say the exact opposite of you statement is true.
I'm replying to your comment because you statement is kind of the prototypical statement of free-market champions. I'm sure this conversation has already happened tens of thousands of times.
Still, do you think you can share any more insights about how can you possibly think regulations are the reason of a higher cost of living?
Free markets do not exist. Capitalism does not exist. Socialism does not exist. Communism does not exist. Humans seem to be completely incapable of implementing any such systems. Human systems invariably seem to become oligarchies and/or fascism.
As regards your assertions of monopoly, a monopoly is essentially impossible without either a state apparatus to exploit. Otherwise, the moment money were made in any given industry, competition would result. Only via regulatory barriers to entry or via corporate welfare can a monopoly be built and maintained for any serious amount of time.
That's what I'm saying.. We seem to agree here :)
> Only via regulatory barriers (..) can a monopoly be built.
This is, to me, an absurd idea. There are a lot of other very common, real-world barriers that exist...
I don't know what you mean by corporate welfare exactly, but yes, large established capitals are a barrier.
Physical assets are a barrier. Think factories, etc. A new entry cannot just "acquire" a production plant or a datacenter or an oil pipeline. Hence having worse economies of scale, etc.
Network effects are a barrier, especially in tech. Think social networks, etc.
Control over Media channels is a barrier that huge corporations in various sectors employ very effectively.
Established guilds and cartels are a barrier. Nothing socialist about those.
Knowledge itself is a barrier, and in my opinion an underestimated one. If a firm recruits lots of very technical, hard to find knowledge on how to do a process, they'll become the best at it. Well, nothing wrong with that if they are useful. But if they congregate too much knowledge in disparate domains, without sharing it, and have the capital to defend it, they become basically unbeatable. This brings more capital, and that is how a monopoly is formed.
If anything, you should regulate that knowledge should be shared. Because that's definitely not what happens with the knowledge that actually matters.
> Only via regulatory barriers (..) can a monopoly be built.
Honestly, this is such a weird option to me, that I wonder if there are people out there who gain from intentionally pushing this propaganda.. (probably yes)
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
I specifically focus on the U.S. because we're perceived to be one of the most affluent countries in the world. Given that we throw away a third of our food, how is it that 12.8% of us are experiencing food insecurity? Are people just too lazy to eat?
The whole reason "food insecurity" topics like unhealthy diets, skipped meals, relying on food assistance, etc, are even a cause for concern is because starvation really isn't anymore.
Bar is on the ground, here. Added parenthesis mine.
Our knowlegde and technology are being underutilized, thus obstructing access to modern quality of life to the majority of the people on earth who, by the way, do not live in the western countries
At the cost of those who die in far away countries who work to keep our progress moving on.