ITT: Problems with capitalism

>>140349511
>if we combine our forces we can create a fist big enough to fist OP's mom

>>140349511
>current paradigm is clearly lmao Keynesianism
>wants people to be taken care of
>be taken care of
Fuck off you're not a baby anymore

>>140349511
>Disincentives more sustainable means of production in favor of efficiency and volume.

>Relies on overt consumerism and materialism to provide a means of employment for a sizeable amount of the populace.

All I can think of honestly.

File: UBI.jpg (9KB, 242x161px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 242x161px

>>140349511
the most basic problem with Capitalism is the tendency for monopolies to form

When you have large monopolies in place things can "look" like capitalism, people are buying and selling goods, but it is missing a key component for capitalism to work, competition

Adam Smith even lays out this problem in wealth of nations, you need government to regulate markets and prevent/break up monopolies which is counter intuitive because government is not a market force

>>140351581
It also works against national interests and the health/protections of the working class by sending tons of jobs like manufacturing overseas to benefit solely capitalists, overall it benefits a select few VERY disproportionately, it's resulted in things like planned obsolescence, and if unchecked leads to your society being run/controlled by large capitalist companies for their own benefit.

>>140349511
I agree. Staunch capitalists are like spoiled teenagers- no perspective, disgracefully wasteful, utterly unconcerned with cultural traditions, selfish, short-sighted, and exploitative.

>>140352246
>working class by sending tons of jobs like manufacturing overseas to benefit solely capitalists

well but on the other hand we wouldnt have all these cheap things if they werent produced like that.

>nd if unchecked leads to your society being run/controlled by large capitalist companies for their own benefit
in economic theory this has happened and rarely happens. All monopolies were formed with the government. in a free market the most you would get is an oligopol.

File: kaiserreich_flag__4__german_empire_by_alternatehistory-d5rqf9h.png (94KB, 900x540px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 900x540px

>>140349511
Syndicalism, not even once

File: nonfreemarket.jpg (114KB, 703x395px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 703x395px

>>140349511
The most significant problem with today's iteration of "capitalism" is socialism.

File: Crony Socialism.jpg (90KB, 638x437px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 638x437px

>>140353980
>>140349511
Or I should say, "crony socialism" and its monopolies

File: milton-friedman-monopoly.jpg (122KB, 640x852px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x852px

>>140352155
Yes and no. Competition will arise naturally as an answer to monopolies if the following occurs:

1) the monopoly starts to lower the quality of their goods and services

2) the monopoly doesn't innovate or adapt to changes in the market place in relation to movement of people and their needs

For instance, A&P held majority of the market share for a long period of time. They were hit with anti-trust laws even though shortly after (not because of the anti-trust laws) they low majority of market share.

Why did they lose their monopoly? They didn't adapt to the increase of sub-urban living. The competitors did and stole the market share away from A&P. Also, A&P were only able to be relevant due to the family that started A&P. Once the last family member passed on (newer generations were not interested in continuing the business, as it was the first generations of owners who remained interested in it) the company couldn't stay afloat. As the company was quite literally being run by the founders of the company. Without proper direction they crashed and burned.

If you ever get the chance check out the book "Good to Great", it illustrates why a lot of companies are just good and don't really become great companies. While showing what makes those companies they have found to be great.

Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics also covers the monopoly structure as well within a free market/capitalist society. Even Milton Friedman had stated that if a single company were to hold a monopoly you'd almost guarantee that someone would compete with them within about 5 years. That is if government isn't backing the monopoly, as a true monopoly can only occur if the government protects it. With over-regulation and creating barriers of entry into an industry beyond the capital and labour/skill required.

Another noted example is Montgomery Ward and Sears. With MW being taken down by JC Penny. Who taught and trained Sam Walton who made Walmart.

File: Bank Welfare.gif (75KB, 670x480px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 670x480px

The death of the American Dream coincides with the death of the free market.

>>140349511
how much are you focusing on your so-called "self-realization" after you're done with your job for the day?

no really, how much self improvement do you actively pursue with the little free time you have when you're not working at your job

because that's about as much self improvement you're going to pursue when you don't have to work
it's not that you don't have time
it's that that's not actually something you truly want

what you want is eat the cake without having to bake it

you'll be just as miserable without a job as you would be with a job

just look yourself properly, this goes for me, too
we'd spend all day shitposting on 4chan

>>140349511
>I support free markets
>Let's not pursue free markets

Just admit your a communist, nothing's worse than communists pretending to hold liberal values.

>>140354802
So Sears goes down because Amazon out maneuvered them

But now Amazon is the monopoly, the problem has not been solved, it has been shifted to a new company, what you need to do is break up Amazon into several competing companies so that the consumer has choice

>>140356025
> Americans in charge of understanding free markets and concepts like communism
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and maybe Finland all have economies as free as, if not freer than the US's, while still providing a generous safety net and welfare state to provide for people. The two aren't even necessarily contradictory to each other or anything, I never advocated for banning private property.

File: IMG_20170820_135901.jpg (12KB, 193x217px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 193x217px

>>140349511
Being a wage cuck is the most soul crushing experience in the modern era. We don't even get capitalism like it was intended. We get crony capitalism which prevents average people from living a comfortable life even if they work hard.

>>140352155
>the most basic problem with Capitalism is the tendency for monopolies to form
Bullshit. Monopolies form solely through the intervention of government and it's regulations, and anyone claiming otherwise is a keynisian faggot who is no better than a socialist about the absolute failure of their stupid ideology.

File: Drug Mrkting vs R&D.jpg (72KB, 1484x979px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1484x979px

>>140354802
>the monopoly lowers quality of goods or services
>monopoly doesn't innovate or adapt to market changes
One of the reasons De Beers (diamonds) is such a successful monopoly relates to:

1. Manufactured demand.
"Quality" is a matter of perception--as is known by anyone in the medical field familiar with the Placebo effect. A commercial for a meal doesn't raise the quality of the meal, but it creates demand for it. Your BELIEF is more powerful than any objective quality. Why do you think pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than R&D?

2. Monopolies (that control the supply and manufacture their own demand) DON'T have to adapt or change to serve "needs."
Compared to perceived needs, real needs barely exist. No one on Earth "needs" a diamond to live their life. You perceive a need for one when a commercial tells you that it's what you need to get married. In reality, a diamond won't make a marriage lasting/healthy. It's a manufactured "need" that pervades American society, coinciding with a rising divorce rate.

>>140357274
>Adam Smith was a Kenysian faggot

really makes you think

>>140356263
You don't break up Amazon. Other companies rise up to answer the needs and desires of Amazon customers.

At some point Amazon is going to alienate customers (if it hasn't already). People will lose trust in Amazon and will want to go to other companies that provide the same services.

It doesn't happen overnight, but it does occur. So long as government doesn't create arbitrary barriers for others to start up their company in competing with Amazon.

If Amazon maintains a high standard of treatment of their customers, providing good products/services than it isn't a problem. If a company does good by their consumers and by their suppliers/sellers (in Amazon's case) they'll have a stronger hold without the need of government intervention.

However people are inherently flawed and it isn't a matter of if, but a matter of when they'll start to slide. As a company is not a person, it is run by people. People who come and go and have various values. Unless the values that make a company great are cultivated and maintained those companies that are great will eventually just become good at best.

Monopolies are more than just corporate monopolies however. You also have wage monopoly with things like union wage laws, and minimum wage laws (pushed by unions).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6e8Pa6-IZU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2BH8eNj2Aw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUBK9_4OQIs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TGkfjaxFWs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4SIEl1j8e4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Ubp7U9Dq4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqZPMfxFj5M

>>140356263
>But now Amazon is the monopoly
Is Amazon preventing you from buying from anyone else? Do you as a consumer have the ability to pay just about anyone else for the products you need?

Are you a little faggot who is bitching that being a company that offers overwhelming more value is somehow monopolistic?

>>140349511
Free markets are based. Capitalism is a jewish trick based on leveraging lawyers and politicians to define "property" in increasingly arbitrary ways for the benefit of the already-entrenched elite.

File: 1504257918923.png (401KB, 447x438px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 447x438px

>>140349511
>Even though I support free markets, I also believe that the current paradigm traps us in wage slavery necessary to continue our existence.
>I think we'd do much better to pursue a model where everybody was relatively taken care of and didn't have to worry about surviving so that they could focus on self-realization and self-actualization.

fucking kek'd

File: 1504055676810.png (256KB, 1670x1392px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1670x1392px

>>140349511
Fuck off commie

>>140357416
Just like the early pilgrims were communist idiots even before Marx dumbed down Engels.

File: leftypol sperg 4.jpg (118KB, 1486x950px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1486x950px

The lefty/pol/ commiecuck shills have really rumped up their shilling and propaganda lately. What are they planning?

File: ig.jpg (56KB, 666x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 666x500px

>>140349511
>ctrl+f land
nothing

>>140349511
what do you think of syndicalism?

>>140354377
>but BUT thats not treu capitalism!!!

>>140357416
Please cite this. Smith discussed how markets reach equilibrium through competition.

>>140357502
>>140357598
Amazon is the archetypal example of a monopoly, they don't even make any money, they lose money ever year, they are propped up by investors

Their model is to undercut everyone and push out the competition, no one can reasonably compete with a business that is not even trying to make a profit

When anyone attempts to compete Amazon will undercut until they are gone then they will hold the monopoly and rape consumers at will

Starting a competitor would take billions of dollars, not anyone can do it, that is the simple reality of life, so when you say "a competitor will come along and..." just neck yourself

>>140349511
The biggest problem with Capitalism is that it depends on competition to be effective, but it naturally trends towards monopoly.

The sweet spot for capitalism is when there are many companies competing for the consumer $$$. When you file down to just a few companies pretending to compete you start to have real problems.

Just enough government to ensure that we stay in that sweet spot is, in my opinion, the best option.

File: 1501993578741.jpg (60KB, 506x615px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 506x615px

>>140349511

>>140357502
Not all monopolies are inherently bad, in some instances natural monopolies are a necessity, or they actually facilitate common trade, etc., for example, you wouldn't want a non-monopoly on the legitimately seen or recognized use of force because it would greatly impede the normal functioning of a society.
There are also things like public goods which should arguably at least have a publicly-provided alternative to private providers, and then there are economic factors beyond just simplistic analysis, like in healthcare, where larger organizations or collectives have greater bargaining power, which is seen in countries with have nationalized/collective healthcare systems.
On the healthcare note, you should look into economist Kenneth Arrow and his ideas regarding the economics of health care.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf
http://pnhp.org/blog/2016/03/16/kenneth-arrow-says-single-payer-is-better-than-any-other-system/
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

>>140352155
If there's a monopoly, it's not capitalism as it necessitates competition

File: bossman.jpg (38KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x400px

>>140349511
What you are taught as "capitalism" results in inequality and inefficiency because it lacks a theory to manage common resources.
It doesn't even recognize that there is such a thing as common resources.

A man named Henry George corrected this flaw in his book "Progress and Poverty".

George not only recognized common resources like land, minerals, water, fish stocks as such, but adds that by managing these resources with user fees, you can get rid of all other taxation and remove impediments to economic development.

So under Georgist system, regular folk are mostly taxed in proportion to the value of any land they may possess. The vast majority of people would pay a lot less than they currently pay in income, payroll and consumption taxes, but absentee landlords would pay a lot more, and the mortgage business of banks would be an order of magnitude smaller, because land taxes cancel the benefits of homeownership as an investment.

The system also discourages the inefficient use of land, controlling sprawl and inefficient farming practices. Housing and transportation costs would be greatly reduced, thus allowing for a greater equality of opportunity

Tax land not man

>>140358539
weed d00d XD

>>140349511
>pol loves capitalism
>pol hates illegal immigrants
>capitalism is the reason why migrant workers came here illegally to work
>pol supports illegal immigrants without even realizing it

Hilarious.

>>140357381
De Beers goes farther than that in their quest for monopolization. This is a case where monopoly structures do go too far, but at the same time they are playing the game based on economic principles that inherit to supply and demand. As they'll only release supply in accordance to what is out there thus inflating the price. The same occurs with oil, gold, etc. They are not drilling all of the oil in the world and will stop drilling when prices get too low. They will begin drilling for oil once more when the price goes up.

Quality has a tangible aspect as well as illusionary. That is correct. What one person views as high quality may not be seen as high quality to another. That doesn't take away the need of quality as a value. If the majority of a companies customers no longer value the product and view it as a lower quality to what it once was they'll look for that which is a better quality. This can occur if the consumer becomes educated on the goods/services they were receiving or if they themselves have seen a decline in quality. Sometimes this occurs because the marketing has been too aggressive in their desire to make sales thus training their customers incorrectly to purchase only when the price is dropped in a "discount sale event".

While that quality may be perceived it is still important, and there isn't anything wrong with companies trying to market quality to people. As they are not twisting people's arm to make the purchase with a gun to their head. Are they manipulating them? Certainly, but it still is in the hand of the consumer as to whether or not they'll pay for that service or good.

Marketing is important, but Adam Smith also pushed for consumer education. Consumers should most certainly do all that they can to be informed. However, "consumer reporting" should not be solely relied on for this education. John Stossel will tell you that.

>>140357041
Capitalism is soul crushing by itself
There was never been such a system where the slaves fight to find a master willing to exploit them

File: pro immigration labour.jpg (175KB, 832x858px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 832x858px

>>140358910
Open borders are an ideological project of the left and various jewish "intellectuals" it has little to do with economics.

File: quote-land-monopoly-is-not-only-monopoly-but-it-is-by-far-the-greatest-of-monopolies-it-is-winston-churchill-81-46-06.jpg (75KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 850x400px

>>140358958
land is the mother of all monopolies and until we address that nothing else really matters

>>140354377
Subsidizing agribusiness, oil, and healthcare is a good idea though. Banks not so much since it's their job to be responsible with money, but it's hard to fault subsidizing businesses essential to transportation, quality of life, and food.

>>140358706
>>140357934
I'm not opposed to Georgism and find it interesting and would be interested to see an experiment in which it was tried but IMO it isn't even necessary, the current model + greater workers' protections, more guarantees of provision of basic public goods like healthcare, etc., greater vacation time, lower work weeks, etc. would probably be close to enough for me.

>>140359133
How do you think the illegals got jobs here then? It was greedy ass business owners and farmers that hired them to save a few bucks.

Liberals had nothing to do with it. Just capitalists selling out their country as always like the fucking judases they are.

File: wages-productivity-USA.png (77KB, 538x305px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 538x305px

>>140359133
wrong
capitalists love open borders so they don't need to raise wages anymore

>>140358910
>capitalism
>central bank

>>140359408
That's from removing the gold standard and central banking.

>>140349511
Sounds like commie bs to me. You can't be free market if you insist on being cared for by some pre-constructed organization (i.e. Government).

Your post is a giant contradiction.

>>140358341
So your argument is that amazon defies the laws of economics and can somehow keep losing money forever without anyone ever being able to compete with it?

You are no different from the faggots who have made the same claims of IBM, Walmart, and Apple, and never been right. Even the massive Standard Oil company, with its 50% market share, had more competitors than its subsequent break off components that were made into actual monopolies and went on to control 90% of the market share and nearly double the prices under standard and it's panoply of competitors.

In short, bullshit.

File: leftypol sperg.jpg (68KB, 823x865px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 823x865px

>>140359371
>>140359408

Wrong the main impetus behind open borders is marxism and the jewish socialist drive to eliminate nation states and replace white people with a brown proletariat. That explains why Trump who is pro business supports lower immigration while (((Bernie))) and other left wing politicians and intellectuals want more immigration

>>140359510
Who issues the money has nothing to do with it. Capitalism is defined as "private ownership of the means of production and property". It would still be capitalism if the tooth fairy issued the money.

>>140358634
Adam Smith stated that if no private person, enterprise, organization, corporation was able (or willing) to provide a good or service than having the public provide that service was a good alternative.

However, if people wish to provide that good or service in the private sector it shouldn't be impeded.

In terms of healthcare I'd rather we went back to mutual aid societies.

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

Which were ultimately shut down due to public healthcare, doctors complaining of too low cost of healthcare, raising the barrier of entry for doctors themselves, threatening doctors from lodge practice, and the mutual aid societies themselves lobbying for cartel pricing when those policies were put forth.

Healthcare can be provided privately while being affordable. I'd rather voluntary socialism, than mandatory socialism. Even worse is when government forces private providers to not be able to charge for services provided by the public system. This has resulted in the death of people in BC for example.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cambie-surgeries-healthcare-canada-public-vs-private-system-bc-dr-brian-day-1.3977566

The people that died in particular were co-plantiffs and patients of the doctor in question.

>>140359510
How exactly is a central bank opposed to capitalism? If anything the central banks are made to reinforce or help capitalism function more efficiently by more finely measuring or controlling the money supply.
Do you know anything about central banking other than stuff you 'learned' from /pol/ infographics and quote mining?

>>140359857
Let's archive
>http://cbc ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cambie-surgeries-healthcare-canada-public-vs-private-system-bc-dr-brian-day-1.3977566
https://archive.is/Q2qjQ

>>140358910
>you support eating real food
>you hate insects in your house
>your real food is the reason why insects into your house
>you support insects into your house without even realizing it.

You are an idiot.

>>140359727
So your argument is basically just fingers in ears lalala?

Bernie and liberals had nothing to do with business owners hiring illegals.

Your not gonna weasel out of this argument that easily.

>>140357502
>>140356263
Some monopolies are inevitable. The US dollar is a national, currency monopoly. We used to have state/colonial currencies, but it made sense to centralize it. Of course, this was when it was backed by something (gold/silver). Because of this universal system, Spanish gold doubloons were frequently accepted as equal payment alongside anything the central government produced. Gold is gold--nobody cared what nation stamped it. To this day, people would still rather receive a Morgan or Peace dollar for a service than a rapidly devaluing, worthless piece of Fed Reserve paper. The problem here, of course, is supply (or control of supply-- same reason De Beers runs a successful monopoly in diamonds).

Capitalism is just a *nicer* version of slavery.

Why have a slave that you pay to feed, water, and shelter (plus will potentially try and escape) when you can hire a worker who you can pay less than it costs to pay for food, water and shelter and who rather than running from you will run to you when times get hard.

The only fair system is one where workers are fully compensated for their labour rather than have the majority of the value produced by their labour be sucked away as *profit*.

>>140349511
"You have to keep the dominance hierarchy itself in place, because there's no point in destroying what you are trying to climb." https://youtu.be/16WF1jLLyik?t=47m55s

File: IndexEconomicFreedomRankings.png (355KB, 964x630px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 964x630px

>>140359596
You don't know what a free market is or means if literally any government involved means that something isn't a free market, you're essentially arguing that only an ancap system would have free markets.
In reality, the government actually needs to play a somewhat active role in the economy to prevent market abuse and actually make sure that markets are free and consumers are protected.
The freest economies in the world have levels of welfare states, publicly provided goods, services, etc.

>>140349511
>wage slavery necessary to continue our existence.
and what else do you expect? we contribute to society so we can continue to live a more comfortable life. Sounnds like your (like most commies) just lazy and want a better quality of life for free.

File: commie posters.png (631KB, 1023x766px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 1023x766px

>>140360063
Business owners hiring illegals is not the cause of illegal immigration.

Border security is the job of the state and Congress creating laws.. Besides most brown subhuman immigrants are on welfare and don't even work. They are the brown proletariat created by jews and the left to replace White people. This is about policy not economics.

>>140349511
>didn't have to worry about surviving
so insted of wage slavery you want govt/automation cuckoldry

>>140359926
>>140360404

“It is not from foreigners that protection preserves and defends us; it is from ourselves. Trade is not invasion. It does not involve aggression on one side and resistance on the other, but mutual consent and gratification . . . what was done was not to force the people to trade, but to force their governments to let them.”

“Civilized nations, however, do not use their armies and fleets to open one another’s ports to trade. What they use their armies and fleets for, is, when they quarrel, to close one another’s ports. . . . Trade does not require force. Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. It is protection that requires force, for it consists in preventing people from doing what they want to do. Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the same—to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading. What protection teaches us is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.”

You have a small penis

File: 1414384919430.jpg (292KB, 1087x589px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1087x589px

>>140349511
Only a pampered twat even thinks wage slave is a thing. Would you rather be a subsistence farmer or a starving artist? Those are your options. You weren't born a noble like Marx or Guevara. You can't wax philosophical about the plight of the proletariat all day because your landed and have never needed to support yourself.

File: cotton.jpg (131KB, 628x314px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 628x314px

>>140349511

Congratulations, your highest aspiration in life is the existence of a plantation slave.

>>140360404
If you live ina poor country like mexico and American business will hire you then there is a clear incentive to cross the border illegally.

Refute this argument or literally shut your god damn mouth.

>>140349511
if people dont have to work to earn a living, you will see even more massive street gangs coz now they dont need to work to be on the street everyday

>>140360660
If you are poor, and other people walk around with a lot of money, there is a clear inventive to steal from the cracka.

>>140360349
> we contribute to society so we can continue to live a more comfortable life.
Except that's largely debatable. There's a lot of evidence at this point that shorter work weeks lead to noticeably higher per-unit-time productivity, and greater off/leisure time leads to greater happiness.
People largely work more so that they can buy more, thinking that this is what will make them happy, but that isn't the case, people are made happier by having more leisure time, spending more time with their families, girlfriends, going for walks, etc. than they are by buying stuff.

>>140358539
Delet this.

Paris is /ourgrill/ and tried to protect lindsay lohan from the jews. She also publicly said she would never touch a nigger.

File: leftypol tranny.png (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

>>140360660
Refute the argument that border controls are the sole responsibility of the state and the number of immigrants is entirely determined by legislation in Washington. Also clarify if you support the mass deportation of all illegal immigrants and putting a moratorium on all "legal" immigration.

>>140360404
>>140360404
>Th.Th..Th..Thank you sir m..m..m..may i have another?

ok fine


“Can there be any greater misuse of language than to apply to commerce terms suggesting strife, and to talk of one nation invading, deluging, overwhelming or inundating another with goods? Goods! What are they but good things—things we are all glad to get? Is it not preposterous to talk of one nation forcing its good things upon another nation? Who individually would wish to be preserved from such invasion? Who would object . . . who would take it kindly if any one should assume to protect him by driving off those who wanted to bring him such things?”

“When in the common use of the word we speak of individuals or communities protecting themselves, there is always implied the existence of some external enemy or danger, such as . . . robbers or invaders; something disposed to do what the protected object to. . . . What [systems of restriction] defend a people against is not external enemies or dangers, but what that people themselves want to do.“

>>140359852
>>140359864
Money and human labor are the ultimate "means of production," or capital. Without competing currencies, you cannot have a free market.

File: lolbertarians 2.jpg (58KB, 348x441px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 348x441px

>>140361029
TLDR. Lolbertarians get the rope too right after the commies

>>140351055
t. temporarily embarrassed millionaire

>>140360622
Not capitalism, and slaves in America had relatively good lives and worked less than any other farming demographic at the time.

>>140361029
> If you don't want your nation, the inhabitants of whom can vote and influence things, to be flooded by low-IQ retards who haven't properly shown themselves capable of running or creating a nice society independently you're just a poopoo racist and small dick :DD

File: weenies.png (269KB, 1360x1888px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1360x1888px

>>140361190
>this kills the stormfaggot
Are you an original or a useful idiot?

>>140361190
>when I don't have any arguments so I call anything I don't like Jewish

>>140353980
>>140354377
>Not true capitalism

>>140360506
Holy rare flag batman

File: weenie spammer.jpg (919KB, 1820x1800px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 1820x1800px

>>140361379
>weenies

Wow haven't seen that in a while. Why can't you mentally ill redditor freaks use the world faggot does it trigger you?

>>140357639
le epic meme lololol XDDDD!!!!!

File: commie autistic screeching.jpg (19KB, 216x234px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 216x234px

>>140361723
Calm down with the autistic screeching commiecuck shitskin

>>140361296
slavery is ultimate capitalism, literally, LITERALLY owning labour

>>140349511
The most important thing is to preserve your family and people. We live in a Capitalist more and more free-market world and it is destroying us.

>>140359133
*economic illiteracy intensifies*

>>140361637
So what are you doing now that your presence is being erased from the internet and your influence here on your containment board is slowly dwindling?

>Slide threads
not real
>cuck threads
you post them
>Liberals on /pol/
real people

Ive always woundered why a person who claims to hate Jewishness stoops down to admittedly Jewish techniques to spread his nonsense

face it Cletus you and your shitty ideas are losing the war.

File: leftypol spergs.jpg (165KB, 1200x1185px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x1185px

>>140362020
r/socialism isn't sending their best for sure

File: Placebo Effect.jpg (62KB, 590x631px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 590x631px

>>140358958
A key component of supply, demand, and quality that was overlooked by Smith (and relates more to Prospect Theory [Daniel Kahneman]) is the empirically proved "Placebo effect."

The Placebo effect is probably today's best analogy for what you've mentioned.
Take a person with a disease. They have a clear and obvious need for a cure. You have two options:
1. Give them a pill of sugar and water (low quality)
2. Give them a drug that will help alleviate the symptoms (low-moderate quality).
3. Give a drug that will attack the pathogen and eliminate the cause (high quality).
4. Give them something of low quality and tell them it's the high quality one

One can empirically determine that option 4 is superior to opt. 1 (by outcome). Opt. 4, in some cases (like pain killers), can be equal to or superior to Opt. 2. The fact that 4 can be superior to Opt. 2 proves that the entire "quality vs. need" paradigm is thoroughly misunderstood by most people. Including a large number of armchair economists.

File: CN6WfZgU8AAq_aR.jpg_large.jpg (82KB, 606x427px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 606x427px

>>140361029

File: leftcucks 2.jpg (164KB, 1168x1236px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1168x1236px

>>140362072
You can't even use the world faggot without getting panic attacks you mentally ill freak go get help there is something wrong with your brain.

>>140362072
Why are you posting the same thing you said before Hillary got elected?

>>140359727
Open borders liberals are the useful idiots of capitalists. They aren't the ultimate driving force.

File: faggot.jpg (9KB, 241x209px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 241x209px

>>140362267
>>140362213
>>140362432

swarmfront activate!

>>140349511
>where everybody was relatively taken care of and didn't have to worry about surviving so that they could focus on self-realization and self-actualization.


this statement is self-defeating.

>>140358958
>>140358958
the fundamental problem of ecnomics is value.
value is illusory, subjective. how can you base any analysis on an axiom such as subjective value?

>>140361982
>more and more free-market
Said as yet more business regulations, designed explicitly to snuff out competition, bloom every single day. Even now there are great things happening thanks to the free market, thankfully.

There's definitely a flaw in that free markets can get corrupted by statism, and it's not something that I think will necessarily be 'cured'. It doesn't mean the pursuit of a free market and free society is worthless, however, and it is very obvious that even "half capitalism" is by and far a superior alternative to full-on socialism.

File: SWOLE LEFT.webm (2MB, 640x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x800px

>>140362443
Stop falling for reddit commie propaganda you fucking retard.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.

>>140349511
>>140349511
It will eventualy happen considering the ever increasing automatization of industry and bureucratic jobs in the first world. The real issue is how goverments will solve the problem of an ever increasing unemployable population, to me this perhaps unavoidable scenario will probably lead into a new revolution followed by a Stalin scale extermination of undesirables (a.k.a. Anons).

File: tranny suicide top kek.jpg (336KB, 1484x724px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1484x724px

>>140362538
Nobody cares about your gay little autistic outburst you ugly mentally ill freak.

>>140360506
>Marx and Guevara were rich
lol
Marx lived in a slum and Che left his wealthy family to work as an itinerant physician.

File: polScreenshot3.png (52KB, 1326x279px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1326x279px

>>140362545
No, it isn't

>>140362102
>someone challenges your retarded opinions
>they must be shills because nobody would ever challenge your safe space
!!LE REDDIT!!!! XDDD!!!11!!!

File: IMG_7444.jpg (36KB, 363x287px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 363x287px

What are we talking about when we say capitalism?
Commies will say any property ownership is capitalist.

But for most of western civilization we had private ownership BUT also extensive limitations on competition. From Rome through the middle ages most economic activity centered around guilds and fuedal estates which were legally granted trade rights in certain areas. Even when that ended the mercantile period had substantial trade limits.

It seems like the problem is unlimited competition is the problem.
Even within the lifetime of people still around in the 50s we had large tariffs.

File: GasKey.jpg (101KB, 600x395px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x395px

>>140361379
Not an argument. Stop being a nigger. White adults are trying to have a rational, reasonable conversation about economics.

>>140362766
Neoliberals support open borders for a different reason, and neoliberals are a hell of a lot more powerful and widespread than communists.

>>140363435
capitalism =/= free market.
the biggest problem with capitalism is capital ownership is not even, even adam smith recognised to power of a capital owner to outlast a non capital owner in a game a economic chicken.

File: IMG_7437.jpg (21KB, 250x248px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x248px

>>140363435
Fuck my grammer.

>>140349511
>complain about capitalism
>by being a materialist
can someone explain this meme to me?

>>140363702
Depends on what you are talking about. For things like outsourcing theres no question a large company can get more leverage than a smaller one.
Again a reason for limiting competition

>>140364008
Most communists are materialists, why does being a materialist have to coincide with being a capitalist?

>>140349511
no, yo can either work for a living or live off the land. We are not an extremely advanced society, we cannot take care of everyone. Not everyone is worth taking care of.

The real problem with the country today is that everyone wants things they cannot afford. everyone wants a house , can't afford it. Everyone needs health insurance because they can't actually afford this reatments/medications. Every welfare child is wearing nikes and using their smart phone.

The ultimate lesson of life and how to succeed in it is given by this great song. This should be adopted as the new national anthem.

No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S94ohyErSw

>>140364498
because they're both exactly the same thing but with a different coat of paint

>>140364498
most communists are dead

File: HealthcareCostsByCountry.jpg (102KB, 718x529px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 718x529px

>>140364536
>We are not an extremely advanced society, we cannot take care of everyone. Not everyone is worth taking care of.
Literally what to both of those claims
> The real problem with the country today is that everyone wants things they cannot afford.
It's just as much a problem that the country largely does not do enough to help people, sure, you shouldn't just be buying a 2,000+ sq. foot house for everybody, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to ensure a minimal level of housing opportunity for people.
> Everyone needs health insurance because they can't actually afford this reatments/medications.
Well that is a huge problem, but people should have access to healthcare, and one of the arguments for a nationalized/collective system is that it would be very large and exert a lot of bargaining power to get cheaper medications for people, in addition to having a larger collective funding pool to actually afford better medications for people. I mean, pretty much every other developed country has a universal healthcare system at this point and ends up spending much less on health care while delivering better or more equal outcomes, not denying treatments or medications, etc.

>>140349511
Oh yeah you mean the exact opposite of communism and socialism definitely need to work on that in the future.

>>140362111
That certainly is an issue and one that does resolve itself. Especially if the placebo (which it inevitably does) fails to meet the actual needs of the customer. As such a lot of these providers are fly by night companies. Which results in people being very unforgiving of those who screw with them. This can result in people showcasing the reputation of those who play this kind of shell game. There are ways to maintain the shell game but all it takes is one slip up and someone can "whistle blow" on that persons reputation. Making it harder for them to play the same game going forward.

Some do play the 4 steps you mention. The big thing to note is that a majority of the population isn't affected, but sufficient people (especially nowadays with the rise and use of social network platforms) can showcase these bad practices more and more. Causing potential customers to pause on being suckered in.

I'm not saying it is perfect, but compared to a state run/centralized economy it is far better to have a free market system.

>>140359894
agreed, here is another article on that BC healthcare case

http://archive.is/1lYyo

>>140360077
Agreed, in order to bring back gold/silver though we need to end the welfare state. We also need to decentralize the system. Easier said than done however.

The biggest issue facing libertarianism is getting the government to voluntarily end its power game by shrinking in size and scope. This is a near impossible thing to do and even agorism is nearly ineffectual to this. As people have bought in to the state run semi-socialist system we find ourselves in.

>>140362698
Value is based on the use people have for something. Iron and salt were at one point currencies. Iron rust and salt could be washed away. They moved to copper (which rusted but not like iron which destroyed it) and then silver and eventually gold. It isn't perfect but it can work. Crypto currency can potentially work, but I wouldn't say it is the best solution either.

>>140358539
Yeah not capitalism and Paris is one of the only females in Hollywood worth shit. Plus the fact that the bankers and government regulation are why he was skewed. You can thank selective socialism for that fuck up.

>>140364977
By what benchmark do you judge the united states as an advanced society. We obliviously can't take care of everyone. Give me a legitimate reason why everyone needs to be taken care of. Not everyone should be taken care of. The answer to that is no. If you can't make enough money to feed your children, your children will die. This should drive you to work. By working you provide for your family you are bettering not only yourself but the platform from which your children start their lives.

The backbone of the people is not the government, it is the family unit. The left has replaced black family units with the government for the last 60 years and look at what it has done to the inner cities. Should a situation arise when a person has no family unit to support them, it falls directly on to the person. They have a choice to sink or swim, if they don't rise to the occasion, they can't afford food/shelter and hopefully die.

The government is not your mommy and you are too old to be breastfed. Grow the fuck up and get a job, craft, or art that you can use to support your family. Don't like it, kill your self.

>>140349511
>pursue a model where everybody was relatively taken care of
The issue with that is it would require people to perform work without giving them any incentive. If someone is not getting paid, they very likely will not do work for you. And even if the government mandates that they do work for you, they're certainly not going to do their best.

The reason Capitalism functions reasonably well is because humans are naturally selfish creatures outside their own personal friends and family. The entrepreneur and the consumer are both only looking out for themselves, and they take actions which happen to benefit the economy and, by extension, other citizens only as a means to the end of benefitting themselves.

An economic model where everyone uses their own expertise to provide whatever work is needed for anyone else in exchange for the same service in return from everyone else, resulting in a society where no one wants for anything, could never realistically work. The idea is inherently unrealistic.

>>140360980
Why the fuck are you pointing fingers, m8?
The argument is about your soulless degenerate ideology. It does happen of industries hiring illegals because these people only care about the material and not about culture and morality.
So don't redirect your shitty flaws on another shitty ideology. That's picking the lowest hanging fruit.

>>140362766
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9mSBQeRlKc

>>140366256
> By what benchmark do you judge the united states as an advanced society?
Having literally the largest economy in the world, producing literally more science, engineering, math, etc. than any other country in the world, having some of the most advanced and built-up public and private institutions in the world, how the fuck does it not classify as an advanced society?
> We obliviously can't take care of everyone
> obviously can't take care of anyone
More like we don't or choose not to for some reason, there are countries less economically productive than ours which provide a ton more for their citizenries.
> Give me a legitimate reason why everyone needs to be taken care of.
It's healthier and better for people and society, will likely lead to healthier and well adjusted people who are more economically productive. Give me a reason children should be taken care.
> The backbone of the people is not the government, it is the family unit.
Okay but this doesn't have anything to do with the government potentially providing more services, etc. to people, it could even be good for many families by greatly reducing the stress they are continually under to provide healthcare, etc. for their children/each other. A welfare state which provided extensive maternal/paternal benefits could mean that parents could spend more time with their children and strengthen traditional family values.
> The left has replaced black family units with the government for the last 60 years and look at what it has done to the inner cities.
Blacks would have produced shit regardless, it isn't like relative rates of fatherlessness are the only thing which make them shit.
> Grow the fuck up and get a job, craft, or art that you can use to support your family
I have a job, I just want people to be living better, happier lives, or be taken care of better.

File: Alex the Nazi.png (925KB, 1069x607px) Image search: [Google]

925KB, 1069x607px

>>140349511
The Jew will always be the born champion of private capital in its worst form, that of unchecked exploitation.... Voltaire, as well as Rousseau, together with our German Fichte and many another - they are all without exception united in their recognition that the Jew is not only a foreign element differing in his essential character, which is utterly harmful to the nature of the Aryan, but that the Jewish people in itself stands against us as our deadly foe and so will stand against us always and for all time.

>>140367500
>countries less economically productive than ours which provide a ton more for their citizenries

No shit idiot, when the government provides more there is less incentive for the people to produce more.

I don't understand why you guys act like people are getting turned away from hospitals. They never turn you away, they would rather bill you.

Can you give me any rationale on how enabling the entire country to shed personal responsibility is in any way good for society. Seriously

You and I just have a completely different set of values I suppose. What your asking for is utopia, and they are not real.

>>140360869
These mindless normies make everyone work more in the long run because society expects it and most decent paying jobs are expected to be full time year around. You can either have an abundance of money or an abundance of time, not both.

>>140360869
I agree to a point, that shorter sessions can be better for productivity but only from a payroll perspective. If someone works an 8 hour day in an office, they will be paid for a larger portion of downtime than a contractor (given he is not a piece of shit) who only bills the time he is actually working. I am currently working with a group as a contractor, and from their point of view it is great. I bill them less hours than they would pay an actual employee, while being equal in productivity.

But when you have someone working an 8 hour shift, even if they are a very productive worker they will tend to have more downtime than someone billing direct time and appear less productive.

No they arent they support socialism/marxism to make goyim poor while exempting themselves from the straight jacket....private "capital" aka material lol If we had a free banking system their power would be drastically reduced. The jews create a gov agency declare it private with fake "investors" aka owners and hide the records and convert goyim work into paper an digits to give to themselves while printing dsaid worthless shit paper out and loaning it at interest fraud upon fraud so they own and control everything then impose insane regs, taxation, and kneecaps all along the way with many other inputs and factors and EXEMPT themselves from ALL of it, only when a jew cons anothet jew is the court case accepted if you aren't in the system of the rulers you get no "justice" or recourse....they can't make their shit paper insolvent hence going from gold to Bretton to Bretton+Oil King Dollar is the face a privately controlled aka jewish controlled gov and international statist instrument in their hands Thats their methodology....what is so called "capitalism" its a smear word invented just like "racism" by a faggot mouth satanic Jew named Karl Fatass Marx. Man never had a job lived very well never did any work. The word was used and still is to smear independent goyim economic projects/businesses/ etc.

>>140362894
>lying on the internet

>>140360506
We can. For instance today if you join the American coast guard and aren't retarded, you can likely save over $150,000 after ten years, if you invest that, probably around $200,000 by when you get out.

You can buy property that is around $50,000 in Eastern Europe, and survive off of a hobby farm, well water, and your compound interest for probably the rest of your life quite easily.

>>140364977
>while delivering better or more equal outcomes, not denying treatments or medications, etc.
But that's a bloody lie. The whole system is based upon waiting lists, restricted kinds of medicines and treatments, and having lower survival rates for every single condition. Literally nothing you are saying is true beyond everyone paying less.

And that's why with out mentioning we already of a way to pay less than single payer and still have better care than any other country: cash only clinics.

>>140349511
But then who does the work no one wants to do? Actual slaves? It's a no from me dawg. At least until we can automate everything.

>>140371016
Except you're not right. According to the WHO:
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
That's an old study, how about a newer one?
http://www.newsweek.com/united-states-health-care-rated-worst-637114

>>140371431
>WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).
What's conspicuously missing here, I wonder...

Read your fucking sources, idiot.

>>140357274
So tell me: what kind of government regulations prop up Google or Facebook? I can't think of any, in fact it's perfectly legal to set up competing companies, and yet there's a monopoly that managed to crush existing competition in many countries outside the US. So, what gives?

>>140372709
net neutrality.
Government taking (((subsidized netbooks))) from google.
Google spending more on lobbying in 2017 than any other company in America, more than the fucking Koch brothers.

>>140372709
What gives what? Google or Facebook are not restricting you to the usage of their services in any way, and you can stop using them whenever you want.

Case point, I do not use any Google services personally, or in my (admittedly small) company, and I have no issues searching, email, or otherwise using the Web, interacting with others, or making money off the internet.

Monopoly is simply not just a company that's very big, it's a company that can't prevent you from seeking similar services elsewhere. Again, under standard oil, who controlled 50% of the oil business, there was far more competitors, lower prices, and more money invested in research than once it got broken up and it's component parts were given true monopoly powers.

If you don't like a company, find one you. You don't need to use their services.

>>140373304
To be fair, a bit part of their lobbying has little to do with monopoly concerns and more to do with privacy and censorship ones. Google breach of contract with its users and attached producers are becoming increasingly constant, as are their blackmailing of groups negative about them. Anyone else engaging in similar activities would have had their shit slapped in, but google's money to keep itself from being judge is significant.

Notice how when Trump talked of applying Antitrust powers, he spoke of what censorship and control of content, not the size of the company or lack of competition.

>>140374233
Yes but the fact that this censorship matters is because they are a monopoly.
If we had a monopoly where free speech was respected and no one was censored we wouldn't need to enforce the anti-trust laws, however I think Google and other social media platforms should now be regulated like utilities, where you cannot deny someone the platform due to their integral part in modern democracies.

File: americawasamistake.jpg (263KB, 640x695px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 640x695px

>>140373304
How about other countries? In Poland net neutrality is not even a thing and before Facebook there used to be a national social media company called NK. Then FB swept in and in a couple years NK returned to its original purpose (helping old people reconnect with their schoolmates) and was all but dead, while vast majority of social media users have migrated to Facebook. I don't know about any regulations preventing Polish people from starting competing companies, in fact, NK still exists for some reason, just no one uses it anymore. It happened purely through market forces.

>>140373754
>What gives what? Google or Facebook are not restricting you to the usage of their services in any way, and you can stop using them whenever you want.
That could be said about any monopoly that isn't in the market for basic goods and services needed for survival. For example, Scandinavian countries have state-run liquor monopolies - but according to your definition, these are not actual monopolies since you can stop using them by simply not drinking vodka.

>>140373754
>Case point, I do not use any Google services personally, or in my (admittedly small) company, and I have no issues searching, email, or otherwise using the Web, interacting with others, or making money off the internet.
I know it's possible. Only Google service I still use is Youtube. But one man (or couple other conspiracy theorists like me, I've never encountered someone who does as much as use other search engines with no political motivation) doesn't change the fact that Google has become synonymous with search engine.

>>140374233
>Trump talked of applying Antitrust powers, he spoke of what censorship and control of content
But that is directly related to monopoly power. If 4chan banned certain viewpoints, that wouldn't be a censorship issue - people could just move to infinitychan or another imageboard could be started. However, when Facebook does that, an average Westerner has no other options.

>>140349849
fpbp
>>140349511
tldr: i don't like to work, id rather just sit around and play vydya games all day,
can we take money from the people who enjoy work and
struggled all their life to get to the top of the economic ladder?

>>140375771
>For example, Scandinavian countries have state-run liquor monopolies - but according to your definition, these are not actual monopolies since you can stop using them by simply not drinking vodka.
No, I didn't stop using search, email, video, or any other service provided by google. I have access to all these services from other people and Google can do nothing to compel me to do otherwise but provide enough value beyond my objection to the privacy concerns. I, the consumer, get to decide if Google still has 99.9% of the market share vs 99.8%, and does everyone else who uses it.

I don't understand why you think you have to use Google or otherwise you don't get the services they provide.

>But one man (or couple other conspiracy theorists like me, I've never encountered someone who does as much as use other search engines with no political motivation) doesn't change the fact that Google has become synonymous with search engine.
And kleenex has become synonymous with paper tissues, but despite their near complete control over the market years ago, now they are but a fraction of the market while still being synonymous with it. Why? Because people decided kleenex branded paper tissues weren't providing them enough value to justify the cost. The fact Google has become the search engine of choice doesn't make it a monopoly, it makes it the best one and thus has the largest user base. Again, you, the user, decided that. You, the user, can decide to tell them to fuck off.

>However, when Facebook does that, an average Westerner has no other options.
That's complete bullshit, otherwise the number of people using it would be growing exponentially, and it's 16-24 group is collapsing. Ergo, generation Z is already abandoning Facebook. But it goes further than that, because we already have an example of another company you would call a monopoly, but you won't because Twitter is already reaching peak, and the markets know it.

File: 6a00e54ed2b7aa883301b8d234cbc9970c-650wi.png (93KB, 650x340px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 650x340px

>>140359408

Very misleading.

Back in 1965 there was a dishwasher using a rag, and some soap to clean all the dishes in a restaurant. They had to work a longer amount of time because it was all by hand.

Flash forward to the year 2001. I was washing dishes at a similar establishment. They had a dish washing machine for me so I just needed to load that. I could stand around most of that time doing nothing or dicking around.

The same is true in all areas. Be it a cashier with a bar code reader, a landscaper with a gas powered mower, a person working at a car wash that only needs dry the car after it drives through by hand... or any other job.

Technology is increasing productivity. People are not working harder.

In fact if you count "productivity" as actual manufacturing jobs like building cars or refrigerators the "productivity" is WAY down.

>>140352246
That's why you choose markets carefully. Capitalism works good, bear with me, when you have homogeneous society. Just like a buttload of other systems. The difference is that free market theoretically would eventually even out the differences, but that's not taking the government intervention into account.
>>140353980
That post best post. Whenever there's something wrong with economy and it's not because of external circumstances, it's because of government. Regulations, subsidies, bans.
>>140372709
>implying Google and Facebook don't get money from government for spying on people
>>140356263
Isn't Amazon able to circumvent government laws to get ahead of other companies? IIRC it had to do something with taxes, but I can't quite recall.
>>140358539
DEMAND
AND
SUPPLY
No, honestly, that's everything. You won't make money if you supply a thing there's no demand. You either have to create artificial demand (diamonds, smartphones) or stop doing that. World isn't fair.
>>140358706
>disincentivizing land ownership
Tbh this might work because somebody simply has to own the land, but I'm not sure if this wouldn't hit too hard common class. Does that book covers this subject?
>>140358910
>what is protectional capitalism
>>140359408
Not capitalists, just corporations. They aren't really in for free market, they don't like competition much.
>>140359864
I think what he meant that there is no competition in "currency market" - this means that, in a nation, currency (e.g. dollar) will never know whether it's doing good or bad things because there's nothing it can compared to and thus dollar can be a subject to all kinds of shitty malpractices and still be used, simply because government denies any competition. Why do you think US fights all those who propose international currencies with any kind of backing (like gold)? Because, perhaps, fiat currencies are noncompetitive.

>>140349511
We can do that when resources are infinite.

They are not.

>>140349511
>I support free markets

This is a completely meaningless statement.

In the Soviet Union, people went to the grocery market to buy radishes for rubles. In the US, people go to the grocery market to buy radishes for dollars.

What is the difference. Why is one a "free market" and one not a free market?

>>140386516
In US, the shop owner buys radishes from one of the available suppliers according to the demand.
In USSR, the shop manager gets set number of radishes every time to sell.
The difference is that in US shop has to compete with other shops and suppliers have to compete with other suppliers, whereas in USSR every shop is financed and supplied by the government and is so until somebody (out of good or bad reasons) decides to shut it down, without any concern whether it is financially viable or not.