What would happen if every single regulation on every company

>>129992235
Work conditions would become shit, environment would take a massive hit, innovation surges and our technology advances 50 years within that time.

>>129992235
It would be extremely painful

>>129992329
>innovation surges and our technology advances 50 years within that time

lol

File: IMG_2106.jpg (52KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x375px

>>129992457
for whomst

File: c7c.jpg (28KB, 403x378px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 403x378px

>>129992457
You're a big company.

>>129992661
you, the people

>>129992235
One year isn’t enough, they wouldn’t change shit.

>>129992235
Communism.

>>129992235
Those hip bones are out of regulation. Feed that girl a cheezburger.

File: The_Bosses_of_the_Senate_by_Joseph_Keppler.jpg (361KB, 610x397px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 610x397px

>>129992235
A new gilded age, of course, as planned. The republican party's sociopathy and its base's profound ignorance of history represent an existential crisis.

>>129992235
Not much. It takes quite a while in practice for regulations to get rolled out in the first place, then you figure they're not suddenly going to hose down the hallways and wearing down the elevator cables just because they can.

Sale of stocks that actually have no value would be rampant. When everyone realizes the stocks are worthless, the entire economy will crash.

See: 1929.

>>129992235
nothing, it's too much effort to re regulate everything once the year is out

>>129993533
>eating food makes your bones widen
O-okay anon. It's not like genetics determine that or anything...

>>129992329
People with skills or money would make a fortune and get laid a LOT. People without skills would either make a fortune and get laid a LOT, flip burgers at mcdonalds for pennies, or RIP.

Thered be alot going on interms of trade.

Massive reduction in world natural resources.

As far as infrastructure, buildings and such , not much. Except maybe a bunch of shoddy construction and tin roof shacks as store fronts and stuff.

>>129993701
Padding. You want someone to lose an eye, soldier?

>>129993533
Those are male hips

>>129993701
no retard, you hide those eyesores with some meat, preferrably, or fat

>>129993946
Learn to do it yourself from Youtube. I mean, it's not fucking hard to build a house.

File: India Enriched2218743809.jpg (431KB, 1307x871px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1307x871px

>>129992235

>>129994113
So, take away all regulation and we suddenly all turn into niggers and shitskins?

>>129994009
>not just the hips are out of regulation
Faak. Off to /b/ for the night

ITT: Retarded commies

The free market regulates itself, if something is dangerous consumers can switch to a safe option. You statist fucks think papa gubmint can magically fix everything for you if you just give it all your freedom and money

>>129992235
Global financial meltdown as every CEO funnels all of his companies money into his own pocket.

>>129992329
>advances 50 years
but no one would be able to afford except the richest of the rich, low and middle income senpaitachi to become peasant serfs

>>129994487
Learn a skill fucktard.

File: 1417511736997.gif (3MB, 280x358px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 280x358px

>>129993071
CIA.. knew about Bane.. all along?

>>129994297
>why you commies so stupid for trusting the gubmint!
>the freeeee market will fix every problem, thy will be done!
Praxxxxxxx

Big Government and Big Business reinforce one another. More regulations keep established companies from from fighting better mouse trap builders

>>129994578
>foolish child! if the 99% work hard everyone can be part of the 1%!

>>129994487
Commie, that's what they said about the PC 30 years ago, and the cellphone 20 years ago

>>129994723
Easy solution. Don't suck at shit and be a fucking loser. Git gud. /thread.

Industrial revolution II: electric boogaloo

File: withnobatman.jpg (40KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1280x720px

>>129992329
>>129992235
We start living in the Batman: Beyond universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMXjtvMAFlI

>>129994792
I didn't say work hard you fucktard. I said learn a skill. Fucking dumbass commies. Too stupid. It's not even fun trolling your asses.

>>129992329
Hehe what a retard.

you're interesting. ;^)

>>129994955
He's, actually, not far off. I mean, pollution would go higher. Work conditions would lower, depending on the skill level and rarity of talent the worker possesses. This isn't really far fetched or retarded. It's how it is.

Not a lot.

There'll be more growth, a lot more small to medium companies starting up as lending increases. Basically we get the 80s again.

>>129992235
ancap paradise

>>129992329
>innovation surges and our technology advances 50 years within that time.

Lol

Corporations don't give a shit about innovation, they care about money.

It's the reason why our Internet infrastructure is such shit in the US. Cable Companies don't want to invest in providing a better profit, better to form a cartel among themselves, split the market, and scalp their customers in tandem.

I swear, people pretend like "they totally know corporations only purpose is to make a profit" without understanding what that means.

>>129995280
>Cable Companies don't want to invest in providing a better profit

Christ, meant "better service".

Generally agree it would be a great boon, ancaps are right HOWEVER they are wrong in one area, and that is the environment would get raped and thats not something I'm okay with

>>129995280
Then someone releases something like Pokemon Go, and they're forced to increase their service. Businesses do business over the internet. The infrastructure will grow. Also, there's not enough competition because ---- Regulation. So, you're actually quoting issues that are occurring in a very regulated business and somehow attributing it to a non-regulated space, making assumptions all the while. You really are making no sense at all here.

File: Slavery is Freedom.png (469KB, 744x835px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 744x835px

America gave the kind of freedom you commies are looking for to blacks in the Antebellum South.

Would you believe that they weren't fans?

>>129995280
This here is also true, innovation probably wouldn't even change much. The biggest innovators would be the startups unchained from regulations though. But yeah , big corps have zero reason to innovate and in fact its within their interest to suppress "disruptive technology". Government has a role in innovation, because even startups are limited in what they can do because of resources.

>>129995524
The environment would survive. There's a LOT more environment out there to rape than they want you to believe. We couldn't make as big of a dent in it as you think.

>>129992235
Organized labor unions.

Also a lot of violence against immigrants.

>>129995693
Sorry but that attitude doesn't work for me. "Theres plenty of rainforest left to clearcut"

File: 1496238272986.png (632KB, 980x669px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 980x669px

>>129994206
>we suddenly all turn into niggers and shitskins?
So...nothing changes?

>>129994052
Dude but even though some building and plumbing and electrical and zoning codes seem to be bullshit.
Alot of them do serve a purpose.

>>129995803
It's true, though. People with no regulation and access to real information that's not laced with propaganda will naturally make the correct decisions when it comes to this. Unskilled labor is the only real casualty in this scenario. I don't much care about unskilled labor. Learning marketable skills is easy for me. I do it all the time. I think that people who can't or don't are shit stains. I don't much care what happens to them. Unless they're cute girls I can fuck.

>>129995887
The commies seem to want this either way, don't they?

>>129994297
How do you explain corporate coverups and fraud?
You assume that corporations will treat a consumer as anything other than potential revenue or profit.
A free market makes it okay for businesses to oppress their people.

>>129992650

no shit

>>129996200
Competition you idiot. Businesses have to worry about their competition. Another business pops up and is nicer to their customers, and they will go out of business.

>>129995553
>Then someone releases something like Pokemon Go, and they're forced to increase their service

Wait, what? How does a game somehow translate into an increased service? Are you mixing analogies or are you trying to imply a company like Google tries to release Fiber Optics to enter the cable market? Because we know from example how that goes down, Google gets thrown out of the market place.

>Also, there's not enough competition because ---- Regulation

I like how unsubstantiated this is, it's really like you're paroting talking points because you've never thought critically about the problem.

It would be like me saying

>Also, the universe is geocentric because ---- flat earth.

Cable companies have what is called an oligopoly. There's a big boy word for you, you should look it up.

>>129996200
In fact, it's the desire to make customers happy that will create poor work conditions and lower salaries. It's how it goes.

>>129992235
Prosperity

>>129996538
You are, legitimately, too stupid to have this conversation with. The oligopoly is sustained by regulation, fucktard. There, I interacted with an idiot on the interwebs, fuck.

Also - to do this point by point - when Pokemon Go came out, it was so popular that wireless companies across the board started adding bigger plans. Google didn't try to enter the cable market, they didn't get thrown out of the market place. They did the google fiber thing in certain places to goad providers into competing with them and offering larger plans. They created a demand, purposefully.

Again. You're just too fucking stupid for this. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>129992235
probably nothing since presumably regulations would be back at the end of this "Corporate Purge" year, yeah? The corps wouldn't make major operating changes if they knew it was going to be so short.

>>129992235
We'd be back in the 1900's, living in an Upton Sinclair-type dystonia of squalid living conditions, widespread disease, and child labour.

Regulations exist for a reason, they didn't come out of a clear blue sky.

File: Marines2.png (140KB, 433x420px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 433x420px

>>129992235
Many would die in product testing.
Many would die due to lack of workplace safety.
Many children would work in labor and production.
Many bodies of water and national forestland would be cleared or polluted.
Many riots or worker protests would break out.
Many currently standing class action lawsuits would vanish.
Many corporations would move operation and production to already present production centers, as building new ones would take more than a year's time.
Many monopolies would be created out of corporate buyouts or mergers.
Many towns or counties will come under the control of corporations, much like Hersey Town, where the residents live off full reliance to currency The Corporations print.
Many small businesses would wither be bought out entirely or be ran into bankruptcy.
Many terror organizations would be sold weapons without secrecy, and in much greater numbers.
Many companies will adopt markets that were once totally illegal, such as drugs and prostitution.
Many companies will adopt false claims of eco safety, child friendliness, or other good looking titles that may or may not be true to compete with opposing companies.
Many fields that previously had restrictions on production and distribution will make many advancements, such as agriculture and medicine.
Many fields in which have no major restrictions will not make innovation, and at times may actually begin to fall out of popularity. Automation progress will halt due to vastly cheap labor, computing will not make any greater advancements than it usually would.
Many, if not most people will fall below the poverty line due to low pay and sudden layoffs.
Many things would likely change, but many of them would likely not be good.

>>129997231
That's what you're to believe, sure.

Also, today we have the internet, full of great stuff. I would live like a king in a dystop...

Dafuq? Dystonia... ROFL... I took you seriously for 5 seconds, then... BAKA...

File: 1986_Obv.jpg (258KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 900x900px

>>129992235
You would make a profit. Because you cut out the middleman.

I'm guessing in an ancap society, the existence of comcast and at&t won't be such an issue? I don't think they will triple prices. You'll get a lot of angry goys rejecting the internet and setting up local area connections. Right?

>>129997421
Ah, you got me. Nice catch.
English isn't my first language, so bear with me.

>>129992235
weapons sale will skyrocket.

>>129996917
>The oligopoly is sustained by regulation, fucktard

Please, O Enlightened One, explain in terms simple enough for my feeble mind to comprehend the wisdom of this grand statement.

>Google didn't try to enter the cable market

This seems like a pretty big claim, could I get a source as to where you read that Google deliberately never planned to enter the Internet service provider market?

>>129997398
Depends on who you are, right? My children wouldn't work. I wouldn't have many problems, other than having to set up some turrets for home defense, maybe? A lot of that crap can be avoided. The biggest victims are unskilled labor, and children with shitty parents. The rest will be better off for the most part.

>>129992235
>>>/tg/onion

>>129997708
That's certainly right.
Many kids would still be made to work though.

>>129997568
Fair... I deal with enough people for whom English is a second language, I can let that pass.

To me, the answer to this is simple. Learn a skill. Take the time. Get good at it. If you're good at something, people will pay you to do it. The better you are, the more money you make.

Once you get really good at one thing, branch out. It's easy now, information is everywhere. Your second skill comes easier than the first, and they just keep getting easier after that. I, honestly, wish things were hard to do again like they used to be. I miss the challenge.

>>129992235
There ya guess it, why exactly ancaps are wrong

what the fuck is the point of this thread OP? to shitpost hard or continue pitting opposing groups against each other
>what would happen in this scenario that will never happen
fuck you faggot

>>129997869

Where are the parents? They shouldn't have had kids if they were that poor. Anyways this is great. Soft eugenics. Lot of suffering in the beginning but the market will settle and progress can't stopped.

>>129992235
Still would

>>129997654
Dunno, spoke with someone high up at Google when they were first deploying Google fiber. Can't give you more than that. Do sum research.

Telecommunications companies are major lobbyists, they are sustained by regulation. Competition is severely limited because of this. There are local, county, municipal, state, and federal regulations and deals that protect and regulate these companies. Look them up. There's a whole FTC to manage most of them.

>>129998102
The parents are still there, probably working less than minimum wage.

>>129994113
Holy shit that place has to be nuked clean

>>129998209
And the difference between you and me is who we think should suffer for their lack of ability, laziness, or whatever it is that causes them to suck so bad and pass that suckiness on to future generations.

>>129997929
Thats what sucks about too much knowledge on hand everywhere because pajeet from across the ocean would learn a skill and do it for practically free.

>>129998552
I've never understood that mentality. I'm for free information sharing. You're either good or you suck. If you have to depend on not telling people your 'trade secrets' to be successful, then you probably suck.

>>129998209

Do you think all jobs will be paid less than minimum wage? Are there going to be no charities? Either way everything is going to deflate, we're going to see community sprung social services and the development of a new government. Those that shouldn't be alive, will die and the system will work better.

>>129997929
The trouble is though that most people don't have the drive or even the capability to learn a new skill. I'm sure it's the same in the US: there are so many people who grumble about their current sub-par life situation, without doing anything to change. It's so frustrating, and I don't understand the people who think this way.

Nonetheless,perhaps I'm too soft, but laziness shouldn't necessarily be a death sentence in this day and age. We're not animals. If your way of thinking were carried out, there would be certain groups of people who would be permanently marginalised if not killed off entirely. That can't be good for any society.

I'm Libertarian actually, and think regulation should be carried out at a minimum possible level. However a true 'libertarian paradise' would require a complete renaissance of thinking from within both leadership and the general populace. That's not likely to happen anywhere in the world anytime soon.

>>129998179
>Dunno, spoke with someone high up at Google when they were first deploying Google fiber. Can't give you more than that. Do sum research.

So you have a personal anecdote without any publicly available sources. Nice.

>Telecommunications companies are major lobbyists, they are sustained by regulation. Competition is severely limited because of this. There are local, county, municipal, state, and federal regulations and deals that protect and regulate these companies. Look them up. There's a whole FTC to manage most of them.

Government corruption is a whole other can of worms, but I think our problem is one of perspective.

What I see in the described scenario is a failure to uphold the spirit of regulations, which is to enforce fair competition and safeguard public interest. While your purported solution is to get rid of regulations in their entirety, is there any mechanism in this sytem that would still prevent the arising of monopolies and the like?

What would stop cable companies from, say, merging into one entity like Bell Systems and crushing any new competition to the market?

>>129998909

I hear ya. I, honestly, don't like seeing people die of their own laziness. I get you there, but at the same time, look what happened under Obama? You give them an inch because you feel bad, and they take a mile. Then they lord it over you and wave it in your face, and tell you that you're the piece of shit.

What do you want, man? The problem is always 2. 2 much of this, 2 little of that... However, some things are hard to take to the point that watching a few people die of their own doing doesn't seem so bad.

>>129998909

They'll definitely change when there's no food.

>>129998967
Meh, like I said, you're too stupid to have this conversation with. I indulged you way further than you deserve. Take it up with someone else :D.

>>129992235
FWell for one we would be richer. A study (along with several others that find similar results) found that federal regulations have made us 75% poorer.
www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf

>>129999223
>You give them an inch because you feel bad, and they take a mile.
Hmm, I'm not at all well-versed in burger politics, could you give me a specific example of this?

I can definitely relate though with our supposedly marganalised peoples. We get our fair share of Muslims and poos, and they're about the most ungrateful and clannish sods you could imagine despite getting moderately generous handouts.

>>129999245
Well, at least in Burgerland they'd probably riot until there's nothing left.

Then die of starvation or gunshot wounds.

>>129999314
>S-shit, I don't have a solution for monopolies without regulation
>Better call him stupid and back the fuck out of this conversation

I respect your intellectual honesty, whatever helps your self-esteem.

>>129999574
PS I've got to take the train home, so I'm probably going to post from a different ID.

>>129999314

Have you been told that from your parents? There has to be a source for you dismissing people. It's not a healthy mindset because this limits information to people who can comprehend it and I doubt a society can function like this.

>>129999574
Well, even look at the feminazis - check your privilege? Wtf? Seriously?

What we're talking about here is to give up some of our happiness and wealth to save people's lives, right? But, when those people who's lives you save shit all over you after? What are you supposed to do? Take it?

You give people things outright, from the government, and they feel entitled to it. They feel like they deserve it, then they feel like they're owed it. It's not treated like a favor, or help. There's no gratitude. Nothing, just, give me my stuff! Meanwhile that stuff saved their life, and was given because we cared. That care is thrown back in our faces. It's just not a system that works.

It's like saving someone's life, then having him kick you in the face for it afterwards. I mean, what's the point?

>>129999578

He said regulations are the things that limit new markets. Take example of the FDA who doesn't let new drugs to enter so easily into the market.

Essentially I believe that there is a function where if a company is too corrupt, word will spread out and create change.

>>129999999
>>130000000

>>129999574

Oh well. They weren't fit to live and it was cruel to create a system in which it fails to continue its effect on the feeble minded and disabled, such a system should not exist because it's a crime against natural selection and it's pollution contaminating the gene pool.

File: 1469680640573.gif (2MB, 280x358px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 280x358px

>>129994599
IT WAS SEE EYE AYE"S PLAN ALL ALONG!

>>129999578
A monopoly can't stop businesses from competing that are competitive. It is in the people's best interests to have the best products at the best price. If a monopoly is offering that, I don't see the problem. They employ and pay workers, etc. If someone is innovative enough to come up with a way to compete, then they are viable.

Seriously, your ego outweighs your intellect. You have no viable points, but you somehow think you're entitled to conversation you don't deserve.

>>129999986
>He said regulations are the things that limit new markets. Take example of the FDA who doesn't let new drugs to enter so easily into the market

We have historical precedence for monopolies, hell, it was one of the driving forces for implementing regulations. Monopolies do a hell of a job at limiting new competition in markets.

>Essentially I believe that there is a function where if a company is too corrupt, word will spread out and create change.

This is fantastically vague.

>>129992235
>CHINA
>H
>I
>N
>A

>>130000414
>Monopolies do a hell of a job at limiting new competition in markets.
So does regulation.

>>130000414

I'm reading up on the history of anti trust laws.

How about this. There's a function in which if a corporation does enough unfavorable actions towards the customer, in order to acquire more capital, enough dissatisfaction from the consumer will make such efforts actually damage profits.

>>129994487
that's not how it works commie filth

>>130000351
>A monopoly can't stop businesses from competing that are competitive.

Sure it can- whether it's as indirect as the monopoly lowering prices for their product or service until it's virtually free or as direct as buying the competition out- monopolies have an enormous toolbox of tricks and tactics for removing competitors that have historically proven effective. I'm kind of surprised we'd even need to debate this.

>It is in the people's best interests to have the best products at the best price. If a monopoly is offering that, I don't see the problem. They employ and pay workers, etc. If someone is innovative enough to come up with a way to compete, then they are viable.

I think part of the problem here is that it's not in the monopolies interest to provide the best service for the best price. Corporations a sole purpose is to make money- remember? They want to provide the shittiest product or service possible for the most expensive price feasible. Otherwise they'd just be leaving money on the table, and that's just bad business.

>Seriously, your ego outweighs your intellect. You have no viable points, but you somehow think you're entitled to conversation you don't deserve.

Excuse me? You're the one who has been insulting me the past several threads while offering anecdotal evidence and neglecting to buttress your arguments.

There would never be government again because it would be impossible. Every repressed P2P and weapon technology would make a mad dash... and win. Technology always makes people equal. At the very end it will make civilians and government equal.

But it will never make humans equal to God. That's where the line stops.

>>129992235
Your water supply would be full of radiation and you would make 50 cents per day.

>>129996353
Until the previous corporations pays off thugs to destroy the other corporation. Or the government to 'regulate' certain aspects of the business market that benefit them only.

Unchecked capitalism doesn't produce innovation or competition, it just leads to big companies becoming incredibly powerful and crushing any and all starting businesses.

Well if all the regulations were dropped but not government intervention then it would be a mass grab of monopoly forming, hostile takeovers, and plummeting work conditions. Essentially the big banks would grab every single asset previously denied to them and kick the white peons in the teeth for ever daring to suppose they shouldn't be chinese-tier wageslaves.

Now if the ancaps got their way and no government involvement then there would be no bailouts to save the banks from bad decisions and the whole thing would come crashing down before the year was out and then devolve into a level of anarchy that Max Rockatansky would feel comfortable in.

>>130000465
You're talking about regulation perverted by corporate interests in the form of lobbyists. I think it's disingenuous to use that as an reason to remove rules from corporations in their entirety.

>>130000414

Okay. I read the Sherman Act which is the first of the anti-trust laws to be passed and I find there's no logical precedent for the people, that made the Sherman Act to be justifiably passed.

Also I haven't slept all night. It's 5 in the morning so if I don't make sense, it's not my genes.

>>130001179

>Corporations a sole purpose is to make money- remember? They want to provide the shittiest product or service possible for the most expensive price feasible.

I don't think so. Otherwise, why would McDonald's try to make their food look good and somewhat close enough to look good enough to eat. I don't know if you play games but there are some games with microtransactions. The developers can sell the integrity of the game for quick milks but why do that when you can milk the audience for that? Your business may be to create the most amount of profit but the customers aren't going to eat literal shit for food. The business has to at least mask the shitiness. However in the end, the consumer decides what is good for him.

Essentially milking your customers is a lot better than just liquidating value at them for first sight because it's more profitable.

>>130001210

That's the true value of something. I would expect a barter system until a new currency can be developed. If you raise the minimum wage to 100 dollars, prices would go up right? What happens if you remove it? It goes down so 50 cents is not a problem. At least it isn't Zimbabwe dollars.

>>129992235
See
>>129992329

On top of that, expect big corporations to collude and kill any smaller businesses, get a monopoly, price fix everything and basically the whole world gone to shit.

>>129994297
Explain how a free market will prevent collusion and price fixing. Isn't a free market devoid of regulation after all? Including colluding with others and price fixing?

Yeah, think a bit next time before spewing your shitty free market theory. It doesn't work. It needs regulation, or else everything else turn to shit. It aint worth the few pennies you save for all the trouble.

>>130002523

Why would that be the case? I can see it happening to water but not everything.

>>130002728

Because not everything is going to be acquired by large corporations and not everyone is going to sell off their property. The Amish exist and they have their own Austen separate from everyone else. There's always going to be rebellion groups trying to fight against the top dogs. Social ostracism still exists. I suggest you argue this with Molymeme. I along with the rest of the listeners will enjoy the call no matter the outcome.

Offtopic: thank fuck i can show my true colors
:^)

>>129992235
regulations are good in most areas but the regulation enforcement of the energy industry has been a disaster since it began in California.

>>130001552
The Sherman Trust Act was in part about trying to enfore a competitive market place. I'd argue the public benefits from a healthy, competitive market.

>>130002064
>Otherwise, why would McDonald's try to make their food look good and somewhat close enough to look good enough to eat

Probably because no one would eat their food if it looked like actual shit, it looks pretty nasty as it is already.

>I don't know if you play games but there are some games with microtransactions. The developers can sell the integrity of the game for quick milks but why do that when you can milk the audience for that?

I'm having a hard time parsing this, nut I think you're referring to companies that don't have microtransactions when they could, but instead maintain their integrity. I have enormous respect for these corporations, and you might even be able to argue there's a profit incentive in maintaining a loyal customer base, but what you should understand is that most CEOs and corporate shareholder boards often times are only looking as far as the next business quarter. They want to generate profit as reliably as possible as quickly as possible, expecting a corporation to serve anybody except its own needs is a little naive.

>Your business may be to create the most amount of profit but the customers aren't going to eat literal shit for food. The business has to at least mask the shitiness. However in the end, the consumer decides what is good for him.

If we're still talking about monopolies than yes, customers will eat shit for food if it's the only option provided them. Hell, we have a minor case with Epipen ongoing right now and it's not even technically a monopoly. The corporation is price gouging their customers at an absurd rate for a relatively cheap product because their customers HAVE to buy it. Their lives are at stake otherwise.

>>130002064
Also, feel free to respond and I'll look at it-
but I need to get up in four hours.


I'm headed to bed and won't be able to reply.

>>129995280
>he doesnt understand regulations keep the monopolies in place creating a market with no competition thus no incentive to improve

>>130003051
That's where you are wrong. All big companies have to do is undercut their new competitors, sometimes selling at a loss (which is something walmart actually does). Once the competitor goes bankrupt, they raise the prices again. There is no competition then since they have a monopoly. This works even best when there are 2 companies sharing the mrket. They collude, sell at a loss, the competitor goes away, and they raise back the prices like crazy.

Your fairy tales about a free market are plain wrong. No regulations means they'll do everything to stay on top, and that at the cost of both the consumers, and population.

>>130003119

Why are regulations good in some areas?

>>130003263

Why is a competitive market good?

Purpose of McDonald's argument, there has to appear to have some kind of quality.

Reliable is the key word there. So in your reality, you have two possible outcomes for a company. You have the business go on a path for a monopoly or it shuts down. Now as responsible for the ceo, the shareholders understand that there's always a limited money gain given circumstances. Loss of customers is a big no no. Customers may be dumb but they're not braindead, if you are McDonald's, you're going to make your burgers as cheap as possible, while it making customers still want to go there. You do not want to lose your customers. You could make burgers a bit more expensive but the customers who are the poorest will leave McDonald's. Even as a monopoly you do not want to lose your customers. Let's say a monopolistic water company is rising up prices cause lol why not.You can't raise up water to more than humanly possible to get every week, cause people will die. Okay so you raise it just enough to make it tense for the poorest. Like I said earlier, but are going to revolt, people are going to complain, you're going to expect something to happen. How do you think the French revolution happened? Bad things will happen to this water company. Why risk that? Just innovate more products.

Do you know what happened with epipen? Now they have a cheaper version of epipen because it got super bad publicity.

If this thread ends you can hit me up on the /pol/ irc.

Go to rizon and join #/pol/

>>130004310

I'm not talking about corporations. I'm talking about people. Hipsters exist. You don't go to McDonald's to get a burger just cause it's cheap. There's a bunch of other burger joints that have better atmosphere. A breath of new life. There are going to be contarians. I don't think everything lasts forever. Explain the French revolution and how the government of France held a monopoly of the people. French revolution happened.

Flaggy.

>>130004310
Ok so if companies like Walmart can already do what you're bitching about in the current system then why do you think getting rid of government involvement entirely is going to turn the world into some type of hellscape? Commies are so retarded.

>>129992235
I know what i would do, claim sovereignty in some shit hole coutries, build an army and destroy my economic enemies with nasty biological and chemical attacks. I would also ingnore every patent known to man and build innovative products that exceed all it's predecessors by years, from medicine to automotives. Furthermore I will do research in stuff you would not beleive possible. With a vast hoard of human specimens I will create a superhuman hybrid, speed up all rinds of tests on for instance medication. I will also host sex slave parties and gladiator fights for my personell. They will drink wine from the skulls of my enemies while watching mutated dwarfs fuck eachother to death to grand arena's in their hovercars tripping on superacid.