Here's an idea.
A government incentive to prevent monopolisation.
Company A has a niche product which is flying off the shelves, the government publishes a (secret) report, and offers Companies (X, Y & Z) a cash incentive to bring a similar product to the market, to widen it (market growth) and prevent monopolies.
Other urls found in this thread:
> wants more government
GTFO Al Franken
Not all governments suck as much as yours.
>and offers Companies (X, Y & Z) a cash incentive to bring a similar product to the market
This is so dumb I don't know where to start
>A government incentive to prevent monopolisation.
>government
>preventing monopolies
youtube.com
Yes, but there should be racial restrictions. For example, if you are a Jew, African, Arab or Chinese you cannot acquire the incentive.
Unlike most people here I'm actually okay with govt intervention when it's useful...
This is not one of those things.
Why would you actually punish people for inventing new things? By giving their not-even-yet competitors a subsidy?
Nobody would invent anything because they'd know someone else would get free money to make the same thing.
If you want to prevent monopolies I'd look at reforming intellectual property law (patents don't need to last as long as they do, and they should be less easily transferable) and monopolies that form by undercutting competitors at a loss to gain market share to the point where it's the only option, then jacking up prices again when nobody has the means to compete, in a market where a bunch of people *did* already have products. Not stopping people from inventing new things.
To prevent monopoly? And massive tax dodging? To keep the market competitive?
There's no loser here, people will keep buying a good product.
Taxes are theft
Redistribution of stolen property in a centrally planned economy an even worse crime
Frwe market would fix everything, hopefully we'll live to see the day we actually have it
OP here, haha omg this is perfect, thank you. Although do you think the rise of microsoft and its subsequent monopoly are because of government intervention?
Perhaps, but at the end of the day someone has to build the roads, and keep the streets clean. Do you really think that could work under anarchy?
Roads would be someone's private property, no publicly "owned" bullshit allowed
It makes sense to work towards increasing the value of one's property, right?
Same with garbage; having it just lie around causing filth and disease is hardly conductive to property value appreciation
>Live in your world
>Own my road
>Road to work is owned by neighbours
>PRIVATE PROPERTY KEEP OUT
>need to get to work
>fuck it
>whats the worst that could happen
>minutes later shot and killed for trespassing
Privatisation at its finest.
The government is a, and enforces the creation of, monopolies.
Instead of being expropriated from involuntarily you could choose to buy access to this or that road, which would be priced at a rate that would make sense in a supply-demand equilibrium at that particular locality
I am amused by how alien price discovery is to all kinds of authoritarians
Also
>being free
>wanting to keep being a wageslave
Fuck off. We're all born on the same planet and have the same rights to the resources. Free market and free will are dumb fairy tales just like god.
Propertyless, useless urban pleb detected, opinion discarded
How ridiculously inefficient. Free market types are always touting the inefficiency of governments but imagine everyone individually having to replicate the work of determining a price for passage over land. That's patently ridiculous.
lmao like I give a shit what you do with my opinion. I'm just stating facts - there is not, nor can there ever be a free market. It is literally a fairy tale to help dumb people like you sleep at night.
>Roads would be someone's private property, no publicly "owned" bullshit allowed
privately owned entities are incentivized to maximize profits, not utilization. This can mean anything from over charging so only the wealthy can use it to shutting it down to use as a race track.
supply and demand doesn't work so well when supply in inelastic or the business has a barrier to entry. US broadband being the main example.
I'm fine with keeping markets competitive, but examine what you're talking about closely. If you give a cash incentive to competing products you're really making it anticompetitive - why shouldn't the person who invented someone also be eligible for that incentive?
This makes perfect sense if you're completely stupid.
If the owners of that road have no competition, they have every incentive to exploit anyone who needs to travel on it. It's not a demand and supply scenario if there's no alternative and people need the thing or service. How do you expect the free market to sort out that scenario? Entrepreneurs building parallel roads to the same destination so they can compete on toll prices? Did you actually think about this at all?
Watching libertarians getting gang raped by statists is my secret fetish
>but muh free market efficiency and competition
since there are plenty more parasites outnumbering the wealth creators, libertarians have figured out it's impossible to achive peace and prosperity through political means
therefore, we are left with economic mechanisms to be used at such attempts and many have have figured out how to deal with authoritarian states, the largest monopolist out there
it goes like this:
- setup a "special economic zone" with loads of investors who want to profit as much as possible and are willing to spend a pretty penny in doing so
- the government likes development and rising standard of living because that makes a group most affected by expropriation so naturally it agrees
- in return, gov't agrees to not expropriate from entities residing inside the SEZ, some even apply a discrete legal system inside SEZ (e.g. gulf sandniggers have SEZs with English Common Law essentially done by private court inside them) whilst reaping plenty from fleecing its commuting plebs surrounding the SEZ
- hopefully, plebs come to realize that there's a better way of going about gov't since they see before them what happens when there's an actual free market to be had (the SEZ nearby)
- balkanization happens
rinse, repeat, checkmate statists
It still baffles me when I meet people who obsess about libertarianism or communism like it's a cult.
I understand wanting to simply the world in their heads, but having it bleed into their politics makes it feel malicious.
Efficiency isvreached via competition, eventually
Life would find a way and the property owner denying reality would be left not unlike a shitcoin bagholder
You have no claim over someone else's property
There would be a solution either a workaround like flight or a reasonable market price. You believe a flat rate charged to motorists who have to drove on potholed unkempt roads regardless of their intensity of use is somehow better?
Hahaha
>all roads privatised
>live at the end of a very long road
>have to get to work
>have to pay a fee to pass through each one of my neighbours roads
>on the way see a small feud going on between two of my neighbours, they are disputing whos road it is
>they are actually shooting at each other
>as i drive by the fighting stops, both neighbours pause the fighting so i can pay them
>pay them both a fee
>as i drive through i see one of my neighbours head explode
>finally get to work in debt and having been shot at multiple times
>finish work
>heres your salary
>dont have enough to get back home
>die
Im actually dead
whoa there mr caricature
That's your solution? You're not even disputing that there's a fatal flaw in your proposition, just saying that it'll be solved by "like a flight or a reasonable market price." Did you read and understand the problem? Why would the owner of the road charge a reasonable market price, if, say, he can make more money by exploiting those who can afford the higher price, at the expense of those who can't? That's how unregulated capitalism works, that's why people who think it's the solution to all of society's problems are drooling retards and I don't even know why I'm replying to one of them
There is no problem, you don't 'need' to travel anywhere, find other work then
I womder where you've seen anything but authoritarian centrally planned solutions to be so sure of status quo working great
I also wonder how people were able to exist peacefully prior to 20th century usurpation of state powers at the expense of liberty
>Efficiency isvreached via competition, eventually
That's not fucking efficient at all, unless your actual definition of efficiency is "whatever, as long as it's not a government"
any libertarian society immediately becomes a worse state than the one it replaces
>live in muh free libertarian paradise
>sick of doing literally everything by myself
>get together with a neighbour and decide he's gonna manage electricity, I'll manage food
>another neighbour looks at our efficent compromise and wants in
>give him slightly less good terms but he still agrees
>between us we grow rich and buy a lot of land
>rent it to people
>administer services like water, electricity etc. for a fee
>oh look we're a state except it's back to literal monarchy now because the government of this state has absolute ownership of everything
god you people are fucking dumb
You speaking like the competition is an inevitability of the free market; in actuality the free market hates competition and gravitate towards monopolies. Companies large enough to capture an entire market would rather buy each other out rather than pay to compete and advertise.
>You believe a flat rate charged to motorists who have to drove on potholed unkempt roads regardless of their intensity of use is somehow better?
why would the private owner of the only road be more inclined to maintain it more than a public owner of that road?
>There is no problem, you don't 'need' to travel anywhere, find other work then
jackiechanwtf.jpg
>I womder where you've seen anything but authoritarian centrally planned solutions to be so sure of status quo working great
Ah yeah the libertarian paradise of Somalia is working out way better
>I also wonder how people were able to exist peacefully prior to 20th century usurpation of state powers at the expense of liberty
By paying (even more) taxes to the god-king-emperor, the natural consequence of absolute ownership of property
an actual contract != so-called social contract
the former is always preferable, to put it gently
of course things like utilities cost, noone is forcing you into anything in a purely voluntary society
it'll be a blast to see how useless state dependent serfs of today deal with their situation tomorrow when there will be nothing left to reistribute and keep them inside urban zoos
>Somalia
those are sand/niggers
I hear their telco sector is booming tho
allodial land is a beautiful concept
Why do you idiots keep pushing this kind of narrative
Tell me now, what percentage of people would be willing to shoot someone in said scenario? What percentage of people would get finicky about their percentage of road?
A private company would buy or rent roads and would establish toll booths, that's it, besides voluntary community organizations that may purchase roads, or individuals who own and develop roads.
If some guy decided to what you propose, he'd be a murderer, he'd be sent to jail and would be socially ostracized.
You can't use Somalia as an argument. Somalia is a nigger nation, nothing would or will ever work there
fucking lol. the perfect line of logic
>have idea for system of roads
>no rebuttal for fatal flaw in idea
>solution: don't need roads
Shit, you can apply this logic to anything! We don't actually 'need' anything! What's all this civilization nonsense?
Want a new TV? Instead of buying one, consider the fact that you don't actually need it. Isn't that just as good? This viewpoint developed by one of the great economic thinkers of our time, retard user.
brainlet.jpg. Is the world a confusing and scary place for you?
There is an actual contract, you can choose to pay your taxes, agreeing to the terms and conditions of the state, or you can renounce your citizenship and go live somewhere else.
Nobody will take you because you're not willing to pay them the appropriate fees? Not their problem. People already "owned" all the land a thousand years ago - you have no right to their property.
We already live in a libertarian world. If you have a problem with the rules where you live, go start your own country.
>voluntary community organizations that may purchase roads
>and then charge for their use
like a... oh... there's a word for that... a state
A state isn't a voluntary organization, you can't opt out of paying taxes, nor dispute any aspect of the government in any reasonable or practical fashion.
How could you seriously argue that a small commune of people buying a road is comparable to the state, that ensures people are born into debt and commits wars without your consent (that you have to pay for).
nope, there is no such "contract" anywhere in the world
a contract can't be arbitrarily and unilaterally changed via so-called legislation by so-called representatives
nowadays you don't really own anything in full sense of the word since state has supremacy over everything within its territory and expropriates however it wishes, hence the only viable solution is to demonstrate there's a better way like I laid out out here and hope that communities having experienced the advantages turn on their masters
endgame is total balkanization and full autonomy of local communities (of property owners)
re ownership: as long as it's gained lawfully (not through violence or theft) the one having such a claim does with it as they please
there's nothing controversial about that
Join the free state project. if it's still a thing
It's entirely voluntary - you are more than free to go somewhere else if they will have you. Not their problem if nobody else wants you on their land.
>How could you seriously argue that a small commune of people buying a road is comparable to the state.
Assume this commune is pretty efficient at what they do. Then they make money and can buy more roads. Eventually they own all of them. Lots of people are born, on land their parents are renting from this, now large, "commune". Those people equally have no choice about the conditions they have to either A) agree to or B) leave. Literally this is what a state is.