Are huge corporations bug or feature in capitalism?

Are huge corporations bug or feature in capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/
fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--study-says-14565.html
entrepreneur.com/article/269593
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
cips.org/supply-management/news/2017/march/wal-mart-to-squeeze-suppliers-to-win-discount-chain-price-war-/
pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Corporations is the issue of our time.
The main problems with capitalism is that it is hereditary, instead of meritocratic, despite some fringe success stories (Hey, the Han emperor was a serf by birth, if you pull yourself by the bootstraps...); powerful entities tend to accumulate wealth and power, unless they are interrupted unsystematically, like the Standard Oil was dismantled; Power of capital is translated into political, social and cultural power.

Why not both? The real world is not a simple place.

More like the root cause of it.

It's a feature, although a buggy one that if left unregulated recreates the feudal systems capitalism intends to fight against. Disney is the most notable, for example the company that owns property adjacent Disneyland (BNSF of Fort Worth, Texas) has their own private police force.

The "best" capitalist systems are ones with sufficient inheritance taxes to fund things like food stamps and education for the poor. This has the dual action of limiting what can be passed on (although high limits is socialism and bad) while funding things to make common people smarter and capable of not being mindless slaves.

The best capitalist countries are the ones with strong antitrust laws breaking up monopolies. Fuck off with your welfare shit.

All antitrust suits do is delay the inevitable. Consolidation is the natural state of capitalism, and capitalism if left unregulated reverts back to feudalism. Which feeds back to my point that the voting public has to be smart enough to prevent such a thing, and this can be done through public education offerings. I suppose inheritence taxes because it's the path of least resistance compared to a property, income or sales tax.

"Smart voting public doing the right thing" is highly unsystematic and unreliable solution. Not a solution at all, really. They got Standard Oil, but Goldman Sacks got away. So what now?

They are a feature if they can get BIG without corporate welfare.

What you call "corporate welfare" is them actively bending the legal and political system, using the power of their capital. So noone gives them anything, they take it all themselves.

And? That is why voters should be skeptical of corporate welfare and push for free markets.

Maybe evil corporations manipulate the masses and we should be wary of people who accumulate enormous economic power but it doesn't help that the left demonizes capitalism as a whole.

Distributism or fuck off

again that's why there's an inheritance tax

also for as shit as american capitalism is, it's not the trainwreck russian or brazillian capitalism is

Feature, it's capitalism itself that is the bug.

>The main problems with capitalism is that it is hereditary, instead of meritocratic,
About 70% of billionaires and about 80% of millionaires in the United States are self-made. Those with inherited wealth make up a small minority of the wealthy population.
>powerful entities tend to accumulate wealth and power
The rich don't just hoard money and keep it in a vault like Scrooge McDuck. They invest it in stocks, bonds, real estate (as shitty of an idea that is). Gotta spend money to make money.
>Power of capital is translated into political, social and cultural power.
That may be true, but that's not a result of Capitalism itself, at least not in the United States. Corporations' reliance on the government for special benefits in exchange for lining politician's pockets is not capitalism. Corporations lobby because the government has special powers that they want to control. Cut off the head of the snake, and the worst these business can do is actually compete with other businesses.

It's worth noting that I'm not a lolbertarian, I just believe that it's the government's responsibilities are to:
-Protect its citizens from threats inside and out
-Protect the liberties and rights of said citizens
-Keep improving its infrastructure as time progresses

Feature, huge corporations benefit capitalists.

before industrial revolution you had lords and their possessions now you have rich people and corporations
they are extension of capitalism under democracies

Concentration of capital is inherent to capitalism.
>is it good?
No.

at worst they will just compete with other business? At WORST? are toy forgetin it was the governemENT that made mandates like the FDA a thing? That made ingredients having to be shared on labels a thing? Quit making corporat ions out as saints compared to the government. Both can't be fully trusted as they have pots of power one way or another that they can use to remain conspicuous if they please.
If corporations realize that can make more money disclosing thier ingredients to patrons, they will but if they dont...

What does the FDA have to do with anything I just said? The existence of government agencies like the FDA doesn't stop people from lobbying or corporations from acting shitty. Besides, anything can change in the FDA so long as wealthy corporations have a direct link to the power.

so these same corporations being as corrupt as they are now will turned to agents of the people ...I mean "consumer"
as soon as government fuck off? Despite their current track record and obvious willingNess to tplo be corrupt?
We are all truly doomed eitherway then as far as I'm concerned.

Rent-seeking behaviour is dangerous and destructive, and as has been pointed out a few times in this thread, there's a lot of it going on and we should be alarmed.

Corporations are not inherently bad but fucking campaign finance reform needs to happen and it needs to be severe and airtight.

I need sources on those self made statistics to BTFO people with senpai

>All antitrust suits do is delay the inevitable.
There is no "delay" only "it does not happen".
> and capitalism if left unregulated reverts back to feudalism.
??? We still have not seen reversal to city states yet. Company towns is one thing, but not self sufficiant villages, thats 100% company property.
>Which feeds back to
Which is you stating, that you are faggot, attacking a unadjectant point, for cheap "muh speech craft skillz".

Reality: If companies can't get big, they can't create footholds, and can't create feudal societies.
And if they can't, they don't get enough legs to pushover the rest of society, without some form of cartel/collective thought.
If you don't allow massive company buyout, or proxy IP theft, you suddenly can't have stuff like Disney or Comcast anymore.
On the state side of things, things like NSB is sad, and so is partially segregated psuedo governmental private agencies, due being bound to a leash of a puppet without ambition.

L o L
o
L
There never where lords faggot. Stop reading Anglo propaganda.

Corporations, as we know them today, were a feature in mercantilism and absolute monarchies already. Some stock companies were basically semi-sovereign-states during age of sail and colonialism.

Corporation, in common parliance, is basically just a way of saing a for-profit organization that is also a legal entity, much like an individual person.

>thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/
I found that there are more accurate numbers here:
>fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--study-says-14565.html
>entrepreneur.com/article/269593

Corruption is bad business. With no government on their side, those corrupt business would not be able to practice those corrupt business practices unless they are willing to risk losing customers. The free market would let those corrupt businesses fail in this case.

>what are economies of scale
>what is monopoly power
>what is imperfect competition as a result of the natural operation of basically any market on the planet
>what is an economic
Read a fucking book.

Fuedalism > Capitalism

Capitalism fails when the rich realize investing in politicians has a better return than investing in their own companies.

Feudalism was a system of military vassalage. What you're thinking of is manoralism which is an economic system.

Corporations, in the sense of groups of men who pool their money to make MORE money, are a central feature of capitalism. Huge pseudo-monopolies are the result of state regulations, that make it too expensive for most people to start a corporation of their own to directly challenge the pseudo-monopoly. Of course it isn't just govt intervention that raises these price barriers to entering certain markets, in the case of media companies the regulations are only half the cost, making tv and movies is hella expensive even if there were no regulations. But the emergence of YouTube and online media in general shows how even the biggest pseudo-monopoly can't survive forever in a capitalist economy, it really needs the boot of govt to make a true monopoly.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think a monopoly can survive without government protection. How do they stop someone directly ripping off their products, without governmental IP protection? How do they stop someone entering the marketplace with a rival product, without government regulations to price them out? Non-capitalist economies are almost totally dominated by state monopolies, but you can't name even ONE true monopoly in a capitalist regime, no, not even MaBell at it's height was a monopoly, and it's breakup is absolutely typical of all corporations in capitalist economies that get "too big".

Feature. Even the Roosevelt's' smashing of monopolies and corporations didn't stop its rise to the power it holds now

What exactly is wrong with large corporations?

>concentrated wealth is a pre-requisite for effective r&d
>economies of scale
>benefits at these places are usually better than being self-employed

Feudalism is a blanket term for the economic AND military system of medieval Europe, because the two where intractably interwoven. Peasants owed labor to their lords, their lords in turn owed labor to THEIR lords, the nature of this labor varied (peasants owed farm labor, knights owed military labor) but even here there was overlap, it wasn't unknown for a peasant to join his lord's army in order to pay his feudal dues, nor was it unknown for a wealthy knight to pay his lord in cash or produce rather that serving in his armed forces.

If no government exists corporations can, and have repeatedly throughout history, simply use force and violence. If their is no government to enforce regulations then their is no government to enforce anything. Look at how companies used to use violence to crush unionization in the days when governments were hands off. Or how modern corporations use mercenaries in the third world to get what they want since the governments there are weak and ineffectual.

>If no government exists corporations can, and have repeatedly throughout history, simply use force and violence.

Sure, but they HAVEN'T made themselves into monopolies without government, so what's your point?

The issue is not with the things you mentioned, but with what happens when they become unregulated. Even most Socialists these days don't want corporations to go-away, they simply want corps. to serve the economy instead of the economy work for them.

Corporations are a result of the government, not capitalism

My post literally gave several example of just that. In those situations there was no government regulating them so the corps crushed all resistance with violence.

If you're seriously claiming government enforced union busting is evidence of a lack of regulation OR evidence of monopolies existing in capitalism, then you're an idiot. Sure if there was no govt, a corporation could hire thugs to beat you up, but guess what? You could do the same thing, and so could every other corporation. How, exactly, is this going to lead to a monopoly?

If there is no government there is no society beyond the primitive village level, capitalism included. Any group needs rules that govern interactions to function and thus survive, and those rules can only exist if there is some ability to enforce them. Any population size that exceeds the ability for everyone to know everyone else personally, and thus operate using simple social pressures, must create a codified impersonal system of rules to be administered consistently. This of course necessitates an authority ,whether democratic or authoritarian, to decide upon and enforce those rules and WHOOPS! you have a government.
Even in small tribes the individual members can't just ignore everything the village get-together decides on. Centralized Authority doesn't have to be authoritarian. Look at any modern first-world republic or de-facto republic (England). They maintain central authority not by oppression but by making everyone part of an interconnected mutually beneficial system that allows everyone some share in forming the opinion and actions of the "Central Authority".
Libertarians and their ilk don't realize that getting rid of government/states would just make corporations and large scale landowners the central authority (and they would be infinitely more tyrannical than a republic.)

First, if "Gov't Support" means that the government could not or would not stop a corp from doing whatever they wanted then we need a new dictionary
Second, it will lead to a "monopoly" because someone will win that contest of arms and be able to dictate terms absolutely. You're literally describing warfare between states at this point. And if a corporation becoming a state (aka a sovereign power) isn't a monopoly then what is?

>First, if "Gov't Support" means that the government could not or would not stop a corp from doing whatever they wanted then we need a new dictionary

Union busting was supported by the state, that's why they did nothing to stop it. It's also irrelevant to the question, so idk why you keep bringing it up.

>Second, it will lead to a "monopoly" because someone will win that contest of arms and be able to dictate terms absolutely.

So someone will become the government and grant themselves monopoly powers? Thanks for agreeing with me that monopolies require state intervention.

You see, your main problem is that you don't read. I'm not an ancap and never even suggested that I was. Your other problem is that you're an idiot. Have a nice day.

How can I get this through your skull. In the government lacking Randian fever-dream you crave, a group people will inevitably pool their resources together. They will create an internal system of management and resource allocation, in essence a corp. They will then upon finding that there is no central authority to stop/regulate them they will use their pooled resources to crush (with violence if necessary) anyone who tries to move in on their niche/turf/whatever.

Antitrust laws are literally the best way to regulate major corporations. You just contradicted your only worry.

Most of the problems with these corporations would go away if governments stopped interfering in the free market.

That would be impossible because competition will always crush the corporation that tries to play dirty. Even if somehow a corporation managed to get a monopoly on some resource what makes you think that people won't start using alternatives

Nah, we need to take a pretty hands-on approach to corporations, there's an issue of public welfare involved. We do regulate the wrong things and distort the market but we need a change in regulations, not just deregulation in general.

counter-examples to this bullshit (even with regulations):

Microsoft, amazon, facebook, uber, nestle, cocacola, ... and a huge so on.

Not one of which is a monopoly, in any market. Thanks for playing you dopey faggot.

Not if the corporation crushes or buys the competition first, lobbies for more benefits and connects with the media to discourage any bad news leaking.
The essence of capitalism is allowing the ones with the most moneymaking skills to grow and the most lucrative stance is being as amoral and sociopathic as possible.

Competition weeds out the ones who would not do everything they can to create more profit.
Of course there are exceptions to this but a big international corp only falters when some new tech or resource makes them obsolete.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

>public welfare
Disgusting.
>we need a change in regulations
All the regulations we had so far failed, what makes you think the new ones will work?

What do you think this proves? Use your words.

Oh yeah if it wasn't for this anti trust law we would all be living under Microsoft tyranny

>Of course there are exceptions to this but a big international corp only falters when some new tech or resource makes them obsolete.

very rare exceptions.
for instance guess who bougth tech patents of electric cars some years ago.

Environmental protection has failed? Child employment laws have failed? Food labeling laws have failed? Safety standards have failed? There is plenty of good legislation, and plenty of bad, the solution is to go thru it with a fine comb and repeal the stuff that doesn't work, then write new laws to fill the gaps.

1- MS turned into a monopoly for a while.
2- People didn't start using alternatives
3- You are the dopey faggot

>1- MS turned into a monopoly for a while.

Nope.

>2- People didn't start using alternatives

Because the product Microsoft was offering was literally free

>3- You are the dopey faggot
>HURR NO U

>zero replies

I came to this thread expecting to be angry but once again commies butblasted into oblivion I suppose.

>Environmental protection
Just take a look at EPA. Also if you think that man made climate change is bullshit you'll get ostracised because the government feels the need to intervene.
>Child employment laws have failed
Whenever child labour laws are implemented in third world countries the children don't go to school but instead resort in child prostitution, working in the black market, etc. In other words child labour laws make everything worse for the children.
>Food labeling
There's no need for the government to do anything about it. If you don't care about what you're eating then go for it. But there's a large number of people that do care and it will incentivise companies to label their foods.
>Safety standards
Again there's no need for government. A company wants to make profits and if the workers are injured all the time instead of working the company is losing money, so of course they will improve their safety standards. Actually in safety standards were already increasing in factories long before unions started being a thing

>Nope.
ok, just because you said so.
>Because the product Microsoft was offering was literally free

>The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales (for at the time web browsers were not freeware, but payware)

>Are huge corporations bug or feature in capitalism?

It depends on your ultimate goal. The view of mainstream academic economists is that any corporation large enough to distort the market equilibrium and achieve "economic profit" (different from accounting profit) is bad and should be subject to anti-monopoly regulation. But the ultimate goal of academic economists is to achieve the most efficient allocation of resources in society via the market price mechanism.

Laissez-faire economists on the other hand would consider large corporations to be a feature, rather than a bug. But their goal is to maximise individual liberty, which is not the same as maximum efficiency.

It's pretty obvious that the tools gained from a government that protect and serve corporations is just massive lobbying, interest in having the gdp per capita increase and increase tax revenue.
Corporations has no other expectations than to make money, anything else is irrelevant of course and without something regulating it (invisible hand ain't going to do shit, people are fully aware that their products are almost made by slave labor and exploitation) a company will literally assassinate protesters highlighting their immoral practices (brazil) because the government won't stop them.

So a monopoly can't be created without government assistance and to do that you need to have significant influence in the government and move its original purpose of protecting its citizens down the priority list.
A corporation that no government regulates at all will literally wage war on competition that pops up, aggressively protecting its interests.

The problem with the U.S is that its government isn't strong enough to resist (mainly due to being so massive, Germany, China and Russia are also strongly controlled by business). Countries with a lower gdp per capita has many times higher standard of living that the majority of the U.S population because of wealth only moving in the top 1%.

>Just take a look at EPA
Yeah? What about them? Are you claiming they don't do a good job preventing pollution? Never mind global warming, I mean things like air quality and water purity, you think MUH FREE MARKET will take care of those as well?

>child labour laws make everything worse for the children
Good goy.

>But there's a large number of people that do care and it will incentivise companies to label their foods.
Yes why wouldn't you trust the company to honestly specify the ingredients, they absolutely would tell you about that high fructose corn syrup, they wouldn't just label it "sugar".

>Again there's no need for government
So you see no benefit from having one single standard for things like electrical sockets and food labeling? You don't see any danger in some shyster selling what he knows is a dangerous product, intending to just emigrate to Mexico with his profits before the victims can track him down?

The problem you highlight is regulatory capture, and it affects all mature capitalist states, not just America. The "too big to fail" mantra has a certain truth to it, from the government's perspective; a major economic collapse will spell electoral doom for the party in office when it happens, so there is a natural tendency to favoring the status quo, which is exacerbated by the overt corruption of corporate lobbying.

Depends on what kind of stuff they do and where are they from.

Because those "economies of scale" are 9 times out of 10 the result of said corporation using their consolidated economic power to fuck over consumers, suppliers, or employees.

Unfortunately most economists are autistic bugmen that literally believe "cheap stuff getting cheaper" is all that matters

>t.dimwit

(((capitalism))) vs (((communism)))

cips.org/supply-management/news/2017/march/wal-mart-to-squeeze-suppliers-to-win-discount-chain-price-war-/

pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

wtf? i love globohomo capitalism now

>t.dimwit

Jobs was a real son of a bitch.

The point is that EPA like other government agencies are corrupt and end up making things worse. As for water purity let's say that a company provides dirty water to some neighborhood. You know what's going to happen next? The residents will go to another company that provides clean water and even sue the previous one. Competition will take care of the environment

>Good goy.
Nice argument

>Yes why wouldn't you trust the company to honestly specify the ingredients, they absolutely would tell you about that high fructose corn syrup, they wouldn't just label it "sugar".
Don't buy their products then if you think they're suspicious. Someone will come up with the bright idea to label all the ingredients and gain the customer's trust. And if they lie then that's great news for the media companies and bad news for that company who is going to get bankrupt.

>electrical sockets
Yeah because companies are unable to create the same electrical sockets in a given area, it has to be done under the watchful eye of the state.

>You don't see any danger in some shyster selling what he knows is a dangerous product, intending to just emigrate to Mexico with his profits before the victims can track him down?
What you're describing is a common thug, a con man and they exist today as well. No big company is going to try such a scheme because there's huge risks.

>national SOCIALISM
>"it's not socialism guys honest"

>Also if you think that man made climate change is bullshit you'll get ostracised because the government feels the need to intervene
You'll get ostracized by people who care about nature, not goverments.

>Just take a look at EPA
EPA is just singular agency in the US, irrelevant. Industry won't stop polluting out of their kind hearts or popular pressure.

>There's no need for the government to do anything about it.
There is, especially in these times full of chemistry, substituents and people with allergies.

>But there's a large number of people that do care and it will incentivise companies to label their foods.
Which will be led by alarmists who garner most popular support, instead of professionals. You'll know where is soy or palm oil, but azogeranine will be labeled as "food colouring".

>Competition will take care of the environment

So company A dumps a load of poison into the lake, then company B comes along and... does what, exactly? The lake is ruined, doesn't matter if company A went bankrupt after it destroyed the lake or not.

>muh corporations are 100% trustworthy and require zero public oversight!
You are the most servile little bootlicker I've ever encountered. I'd call you a good goy again but I suspect you're not a goy at all.

Feature

not an argument

americans must be the only people on Earth that could think that the only problem with excessive concentration of power is when the government does it

You're arguing against a strawman of your own creation, there's only one ancap ITT and you're not talking to him.

>Someone will come up with the bright idea to label all the ingredients and gain the customer's trust. And if they lie then that's great news for the media companies and bad news for that company who is going to get bankrupt.
And if you murder someone you will be defamed and people will come for revenge, so why not drop murder as a crime?

>So company A dumps a load of poison into the lake, then company B comes along and... does what, exactly? The lake is ruined, doesn't matter if company A went bankrupt after it destroyed the lake or not.
It all depends on who owns the lake

>You are the most servile little bootlicker I've ever encountered. I'd call you a good goy again but I suspect you're not a goy at all.
Nice ad hominem.

>It all depends on who owns the lake
No one.

>You'll get ostracized by people who care about nature, not goverments.
I wonder who funds all these universities that produce progressives that just virtue signal and circlejerk
>Industry won't stop polluting out of their kind hearts or popular pressure.
If the industry starts polluting it will get bankrupt. You think people are going to be okay with smog everywhere?
>There is, especially in these times full of chemistry, substituents and people with allergies.
Yeah because agencies that provide these information to the populace are impossible to operate without the government
>Which will be led by alarmists who garner most popular support, instead of professionals. You'll know where is soy or palm oil, but azogeranine will be labeled as "food colouring".
It will be both actually. But in the end it's your responsibility what you put inside your body, if you don't like a product then don't buy it. Besides since there will be huge competition there will be a lot to choose

>If the industry starts polluting it will get bankrupt.

How can you be so deluded?

>I wonder who funds all these universities that produce progressives that just virtue signal and circlejerk
Is this really your argument? Education is bad, because it makes people care about enviroment? We should close our ears, sing lalala and wait for another '52?
>If the industry starts polluting it will get bankrupt.
Bullshit. Without a decent state there's no reason why should pollution damage a factory, even the fucking Battersea operated 40 years until it was no longer profitable.
>Yeah because agencies that provide these information to the populace are impossible to operate without the government
Those proposed agencies would need someone to force food companies into providing information.
>It will be both actually.
Professionals for the rich and gay frogs guy for the poor.
> if you don't like a product then don't buy it
What if I like the product, but it is secretly unhealthy?
>Besides since there will be huge competition there will be a lot to choose
Competition will be the same and populus will choose the ones with best marketing as they do now.

>''Capitalism is the best system, but it only works when others aren't more competative then me"

This is the problem with you capcucks, everytime you get out competed you make arbitrary restrictions to your version of capitalism. Just like the commies and their "that isn't real communism." I'm sick of listening to capitalists complaining of how hard it is to start a business w/o taking on a ton of risk or how people overseas are willing to work for less or how its impossible to compete with big corps like Walmart. Welcome to Capitalism dipshit. Its literally the most cut-throat Darwinian philosophy there is. If you are going to support it don't whine about it. If you are going to ask for social regulation to "help you out" then stop shitting on socialists because they just had more foresight then you.

>Is this really your argument? Education is bad, because it makes people care about enviroment? We should close our ears, sing lalala and wait for another '52?
Education is bad because it makes young people into progressive SJWs. It's not a problem if they care about the environment, the problem is when they believe that they're right and everyone else is a racist, sexist, xenophobe, science denier, etc. Try to talk about climate change with a liberal and you'll see.
>Bullshit. Without a decent state there's no reason why should pollution damage a factory, even the fucking Battersea operated 40 years until it was no longer profitable.
The only reason factories produce so much pollution is because the state protects them. You think Chinese are happy with all the pollution in their country? But the government protects these harmful industries and so nothing is done about it.
>Those proposed agencies would need someone to force food companies into providing information.
If a company doesn't provide information to the agencies then the agencies can tell the public that that company didn't give us any info regarding their products. Customers then can make judgements. And if you say that the company will just bribe the agency then you forget the fact that companies want to make profits. If they spent all their profits to bribe the agencies then what's the point? No matter how many agencies the company bribes new ones will always pop up.
>Professionals for the rich and gay frogs guy for the poor.
Professionals for people with common sense and gay frogs guy for the nuts
>What if I like the product, but it is secretly unhealthy?
When people find out that the product is unhealthy the company gets out of business. So most likely this scenario wouldn't happen in the first place because companies want to make profits and continue to make profits for many years

>Competition will be the same and populus will choose the ones with best marketing as they do now.
No it won't. Less government means fewer taxes and regulations meaning it's easier for everyone to start their own company therefore increasing competition

> smart voting public doing the right thing is highly unreliable.
t. American

Protip: you don't know what a smart populace looks like.

>Education is bad because it makes young people into progressive SJWs.
I let this spoke for itself.
>Try to talk about climate change with a liberal and you'll see.
I'm doing that right now.
>The only reason factories produce so much pollution is because the state protects them.
Protects them from what? Angry people with pitchforks?
>Customers then can make judgements.
Customers make judgements based on advertisement.
>agencies
Why do you bring up agencies into this? Even in deregulated state I see no reason why should agencies do this, it's responsibility of manufacturer. Govermnent intervention doesn't even do anything that costs manufacters relevant amount of money, it only prevents them from doing immoral stuff.
>Professionals for people with common sense and gay frogs guy for the nuts
That's not how it works. Commoners like theater, professionals don't make theater.
>When people find out that the product is unhealthy the company gets out of business.
That's why coca cola is the most popular beverage in the world?

According to your ideology. It could also make it easier for the big guys to crush the small guys.

> education is bad because it makes young people into progressive SJW's.

Are you for real? Like, for real for real? So we should stop educating people, because it might make them question your extremist abortion of an ideology?

Besides, on the question of global warming, it's patently you who are on the wrong side of the issue. You don't need to talk to a liberal to see that. Try talking to just about any geologist, geographer, astronomer, meteorologist or oceanographer. You have to be seriously deluded to think that this is in any way a partisan issue, for anyone other than the people on your ideological fringe.

> the only reason factories produce so much pollution is because the state protects them.

Right. The only reason... They produce pollution because it's economically viable. Can you really not see a situation in which that would be the case, even without government regulation?

In your utopian free market fantasy, you would not only have to have an incredibly skilled free press, with full access to all information from these companies (which would be impossible without government enforcement), you would also have to have a populace sufficiently interested in the issues, and sufficiently educated to understand them (which doesn't really go well with your resistance towards education, now does it?)

> the agency can tell the public that the company didn't give out information.

Then the company will just tell the public that the agency is a bloated bureaucratic mess that doesn't serve any purpose, other than to hurt free enterprise and help China. As evidenced by this thread, and America in general, idiots like you are more than willing to believe that so long as it fits your world view.

> when people find out that the product is unhealthy the company gets out of business.

Sure worked that way for the tobacco industry. Oh wait.

>Protects them from what? Angry people with pitchforks?
It protects them from bankruptcy among other things
>Customers make judgements based on advertisement.
Customers make judgements based on whatever they value. Some value price, others value quality and others value reputation and you don't get that only from ads.
>Why do you bring up agencies into this?
The agencies can do the job of the government of finding out if the companies are honest. And it doesn't have to be agencies, I'm just giving an example. The point is that the free market will find a solution so customers can buy good products and the companies can profit
>That's why coca cola is the most popular beverage in the world?
I thought you meant unhealthy as in you're going to get food poisoning. In the case of Coca Cola, yes it's unhealthy but clearly a lot of people don't value their health that much. I don't see how that's a problem of unregulated capitalism.
>According to your ideology. It could also make it easier for the big guys to crush the small guys.
How? Are you saying that the big corporations will buy the smaller ones? Do you not realise how much money they'll have to spent?

>Are you for real? Like, for real for real? So we should stop educating people, because it might make them question your extremist abortion of an ideology?
I meant modern universities with their gender studies courses and so forth. Read the whole thread to get the context

So why are scientists that believe man made climate change is real but not to the extend most people believe, afraid to speak out? And in the end it doesn't really matter if it's real or not because the government should not interfere in the free market.

>utopian free market fantasy
I never claimed that smaller government leads to utopia, problems certainly still exist

Maybe don't get a regressive tax system and a progressive instead

> modern universities with their gender studies.
What does that have to do with environmental regulation? Environmental research isn't done at gender studies courses. It's done by natural scientists, who overwhelmingly support the notion of man-made climate change.

> why are scientists who disagree afraid to speak out?

They aren't. If anything, they are afraid to look like idiots.

>It protects them from bankruptcy among other things
Why would they bancrupt, when they don't have to spend resources on regulating pollution?
>Customers make judgements based on whatever they value.
In your liberal dreamworld. In reality the decisive edge comes from marketing. Just look how huge bussines advertisement is, it funds youtube, it funds google it even funds this damn site.
>The agencies can do the job of the government of finding out if the companies are honest.
No they don't, you need a standard. I don't even see why should there a competition, since you need the companies to have a consensus.
>I thought you meant unhealthy as in you're going to get food poisoning.
Food poisoning is extreme case, Most commonly you'll get cancer or mantits. However how would you deal with the fact someone sold you food and you got food poisoning? Will free market fix by defaming the company?
>yes it's unhealthy but clearly a lot of people don't value their health that much. I don't see how that's a problem of unregulated capitalism
Our taste evolved during a different times, they were supposed to make us feel good when we ate stuff that's good. Nowadays we have developed substances that can make food that makes us feel good and crave it, despite lacking in nutritional value. Companies exploit this and make us eat as much of this "falsely good food" as possible so they can make money. Other than that demand for healthcare increases and people will grow weaker.
>Are you saying that the big corporations will buy the smaller ones?
For example, or dumping, or they will spread rumours, or crush them with massive advertisement
>Do you not realise how much money they'll have to spent?
As much as the gained advantage will be needed.