Thats also fine, especially if priced drop more. But even in a sane economy I would expect most would get raises as they work faster and better, even as prices fall.
Deflation being much much worse is a nice joke. You telling me that if gas and food and rent lowered in price over time, I will be worse off? Stuff are supposed to become cheaper as technology advances yet we only either get high or low price increases, all to fund the rich in the government.
If you don’t like that manifestation, you can work for another company that does not do it, or start your own. We are still a freeish market fortunately. So we’ll get to know which one is better thankfully soon.
Yeah that’s why i said believe in. Whether you tend to believe if fewer is better, or more is better. To me it seemed like you belong to the former, and thats why i made a specific question which you are actively avoiding answering.
You said you are far from being fan of capitalism. Free market means as many companies as needed. The opposite is one company only controlling everything, most commonly irl in form of communism.
You somehow believe that having only one corporation will yield better results for the society, instead of many companies competing in a free market? (Where you can also compete if you think your better)
Maybe we do indeed need that tax. My only request would be the decision to be democratic and making sure the revenue doesn’t go to to the monopoly that injected people with plutonium. Instead it can be used to reverse the damage and with any excess being returned to their rightful earners.
You make the weird assumption that any law requires a big monopoly that meddles in everything. Not true. Anti-slavery law covers the ability to discharge with bankruptcy.
That is just in popular culture. In theory and reality, there in no need for your or any other American’s blessing for the feds, congress, president or even judges to exist and have power.
Interest rates should depend on the market. Why you want to artificially meddle in everything? Solutions for student loans is simple. Stop government guarantees, and get rid of the government law that makes it not dischargeable. Government caused the problem and you ask for another government “solution”
You can be libertarian and accept government subsidies. It’s not like he could have kept the recent $11B if he did not accept the subsidies. If he believes in libertarianism and would pick freedom over oppression given the choice, then he is a libertarian. He was given no choice.
Maybe they are a “monopoly” because of the cheap and good services they provide. The only bad monopolies are the ones using violence to hold on to it. Examples include mafia, terrorists, talibans, governments etc.
As long as we have automatic rulers (countries with automatically powerful government) corruption will be there. Basically corruption is profitable so that is why it happens. If we had democracy, it will go down significantly, because is is not profitable to corrupt the majority. You have to offer them more than the damage you will do to them with your actions, which is unprofitable, and maybe not corruption at that point since you made a deal with the “to be harmed” people, not their ruling minority.
While I am confident prospective communist leaders are malicious, and want more easy power/wealth for themselves, without caring about the damage to everyone else, I apologize for trying to compare you to them this early in the conversation.
In a free market an entity has to be efficient to survive and especially make a profit. There are plenty of ways they can do it, creating more housing, better conditions, extras etc. and other things potential customers may value and choose them.
Care to reply to this:
> Why advocate for one big monopoly unless you have a potentially malicious agenda?
And why you won’t create a non-profit company if you actually believe in what you preach?
Why is someone being more efficient than alternative and making a profit a bad thing? Besides you are free to create a non profit housing company, if you truly believe in what you preach. And you will have an edge with prospective customers. Why advocate for one big monopoly unless you have a potentially malicious agenda?