/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>95523
>Can monopolies be broken by a free market?
Yes. In a free market a monopoly can be challenged by anyone, as there are no regulations stopping anyone from starting a business. In the case of natural monopolies that occur because owning all of one resource, there is an incentive to innovate so that resource control becomes irrelevant.
>Does state regulation create monopolies
Yes. Look at power plants. They are charted by the Govt. for certain regions. You legally can't start a power company in their allotted district by Govt. decree. Also, want to know who is killing green energy? Power companies. Power companies were losing money because people were installing solar panels, so the power companies lobbied to make installing solar panels illegal ins some US states.
>Is there something superior to capitalism
Post labor economics, that capitalism will bring forth once its economic output require no people to operate it.

>>95523
>Can monopolies be broken by a free market?
Not by the "free market" we currently have. Under an ideal free market perfect information would cause them to die right off the bat but we don't have that so once they exist they'll be ther to stay.
>Does state regulation create monopolies?
A lot of shit creates monopolies. Freedom to freely enter in and out of a market in one of the main reasons they exist though.
>Is there something superior to capitalism
Capitalsim especially a completly competative market is the number one ideal since it maximizes total welfaire but it cannot exist due to the market not being a completely compative market. Soooo… it works great on paper but has problems being implemented because we lack perfect information which is necessary to have a completely competitive market.

So capitalism if it were to exist in reality would be the system I would want with absolutely no government. However since it cannot I will just want minimal government with a strong monarchy.

>>95527
Green energy is a dumb fucking meme anyway, installing a solar panel costs you more in the long run than just paying the power bill. Not to mention there are extremely toxic materials used in its manufacture that only do a little less damage to the environment than nuclear waste.

At least solar panels are useful for providing small sums of power to remote areas where logistics make it impractical to connect to a power grid or stay supplied with fossil fuels.

>>95523
yes
yes
fascism

>>95599
Not really. The money saved can offset the initial costs of installation and maintainence. Various factors when taken in right, can make solar investment worth it. I just have problems when it is applied nationally sometimes. It can turn out well privately.

Strange, both 4chan and 8chan is VERY SLOW today, the heck happened?

NN is basically an issue of pessimism vs optimism both sides seem to agree that the current state of things with ISPs is undesirable. Those who are for it argue that things will get worse without it, while those who are against it are willing to bet on the chance that things might get better

>>95636
>non american
>paranoid due to changes to US law
maybe your faggotry is slowing it down?

>>95636
Its finals so most of the underage posters and summerfags are hard at work.
>>95607
>fascism
>economic system

>>95655
relative to free market economics you could say it is a different economic policy

>>95655
>>95660
Fascism is a corporatist (the elective regulatory body is comprised of vocational representatives who are employed in that industry along consumer representatives) economic with a centrally planned economy.

>>95642
>implying you're an American
Yeah, sure thing faggot.
>>95668
>Fascism is a corporatist
Except it's not, corporations are the most inhuman entity that's ever created, not to mention it's made by anglos and adopted by both capitalists and communists in some way, which are essentially two sides of the same coin.

>>95672
The term "corporatist" has been bastardised into something with a completely different meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Corporate as the vested interests of a guild like structure.

>>95527
Post labor economics would be hell on Earth, just like communism. If people didn't have to work real jobs that produced real things, we would go insane. I feel like this "post labor economics" thing is just a bullshit way of competing with the ridiculous ideas of communism by saying, "hey, capitalism will build a paradise too!". No economic system will solve all woes, and if all woes were solved people would just create more.

>>95677
I essentially believe a post labour economy is essentially what Marx would have wanted and probably what he meant when he wanted "for capitalism to run its course for the next stage of communism".

>>95682
Yeah, I think so too, but it won't happen either way. Humans always create their own problems.

>>95687
>>95676
>Corporate as the vested interests of a guild like structure
If that's the case, then it's certainly not very beneficial for the good of humanity as far as it's history shows, sure there are some who made the best out of it without being so usurious, but it's negative traits are starting to bear fruit by the turn of the century, even moreso when some corporate shmuck finally learned how the internet works.

Remember that the entity that is call the Corporation and it's purpose basically all boiled down to one thing; Money, and how to make lots and lots of money. By any means necessary. And it's successful means of profiting justify it's end. Also ruleslawyering turned up to eleven. And the 9001+ ways of wordsmithing and mental gymnastics like you would expect from sleezy merchants and shady businessmen…

>>95682
>>95687
communism never works no matter how many times it gets a retry, the only real reason communism (and it's successor ideologies and policies) never worked is because they are foundationally self-destructive and designed to fail.

>>95688
The way you have you lumped a response to two posts about different topics is unwieldy and confusing. I feel like you made a point, but in the lack of focus didn't make any. I believe you have misinterpreted what I said, and only took my words for face value. You critique business corporations, yet my point wasn't about them.

>>95690
>I believe you have misinterpreted what I said, and only took my words for face value. You critique business corporations, yet my point wasn't about them.
Guess I have much to learn in discerning what people really meant to say, got a little too used to seeing posts mixed with half-truths and disinfo and end up getting confused
>Marx
I can guess he's someone who wants to make a world a better place since technology and proper structuring on most aspects are a bit lacking in his time, but sadly that didn't turned out well for him and for people who are with him on this.

>>95523
>Monopolies
>plural
Always gives me a good giggle. Worst case scenario is a duopoly and those working together. We just need laws to prevent that. Not a fuckton of laws that create more issues than they solve. Efficient, up-to-date laws. Sometimes less is more.

>>95677
>>95682
>>95687
I imagine a post-labor world being kind of what Star Trek was trying to suggest, where technology and automation has advanced to the point that every need of every person in the world can be met without human effort. It eliminates the human need to work by eliminating the need for compensation, basically. It could be good or bad depending on how it played out.

For one thing, humans don't just need food and drink, they need space to exist in. Even if it no longer becomes necessary for individuals or companies to own huge tracts of land for agriculture or industry, most people still need some sort of private dwelling for themselves and their family, and not everyone wants to live in high-density housing, so in addition to having human needs met, there would also need to be enough space that an individual could claim as much as he wants without creating conflicts between people. It also wouldn't solve cultural problems; we would likely still have the same racial tensions that we have now. Niggers for example already more or less live in a post-labor economy in the sense that most of them have their basic needs provided for them by the government without the need to work, but that hasn't stopped them from committing property crime and finding dumb reasons to kill each other, if anything it's made it worse.

This kind of relates to the issue of happiness in a post labor economy; how happy a person would be in a world like that depends mostly on how that person likes to spend his free time. Creative introverts, the kind of people who would rather be painting or writing or tinkering with stuff in their garage, would probably enjoy the freedom to pursue projects without the distraction of having to work and earn money to pay for living expenses. People who like to read and pursue knowledge to better themselves without any particular tangible goal in mind, and who probably also find work to be an irritating distraction, would also do well. However not everyone is like that. Some people are naturally competitive and goal-focused, and work because they want to build something or accomplish something or outperform someone they admire. If they don't have anything to work towards they go crazy and would likely be miserable in a world where everything important is already done. Going back to the Star Trek model, that's probably why Starfleet exists in the first place; they need to give all the ambitious and goal-oriented people in their civilization something to do. Probably the biggest problem in a system like this would be people of low intelligence who possess neither ambition nor creativity. These kinds of people benefit from work simply because if they don't have anything else to do they get bored, and when they get bored they generally get restless and start breaking stuff and fighting each other (again: see niggers).

The benefits are debatable and the only way to accomplish a world like this would be through technological innovation, which would absolutely have to evolve out of some form of reward-based economy to give people and companies an incentive to innovate. It wouldn't necessarily have to be pure free-market capitalism, in fact after reading >>95660 I think a fascist controlled economy would do a better job of producing and managing something like this. Pure capitalism might produce the technology but would likely just use it to replace human labor with machines, killing jobs without providing any tangible benefit to any entity other than the company that invented it. Adopting any form of communism or socialism would only hamper or prevent the development of technology that could lead to a post-labor world.

>>95691
I am thankful that you admitted to an error when so few often would not.
Although, my response had no inclusion of Marx, I will give some insight on his motivations. Marx was influenced largely by Hegel which puts thesis to antithesis to form the ultimate idea. Marx applied material as the main driver of this. Second, he was influenced by Charles Darwin, which combined with his dialectic, Marx posited what he framed was the synthesis of evolution and that communism was basically the next advancement.
Which I see as his problem. Marx put himself in theoretical framework that hinged on a linear timeline. Devoiding itself of empiricism to a great degree. Going by the second chart, his frame proved inaccurate.
>>95714
I find it amazing that you fitted Calhoun's findings quite well to humans. There's a great amount of consolidations you have made in your post.