that is not true.. Monopolies are granted as a special privilege by government.. Government is the ultimate Monopoly.. I'm very well read in economics.. just not in the interventionist economics you were taught. Free market capitalism raises the standard of living. only throught intervention are monopolies able to persist... IE Microsoft was a so call monopoly in the eyes of many interventionists.. yet they got knocked out by competition in the FREE MARKET.. Government intervention tends to create barriers to entry, and restricts competition.. creating monopolies.. It is only through ignorant indoctrination of our school system and the adoption of keysian style economics that people think otherwise.. Governments adopt and teach the style of economics that best suit their motives.. Large Government is in direct competition with free market forces.. AS the government grows and subsidizes more and more dependents it sterilizes and stifles free market competition and incurs more and more public debt.. Through astronomical taxation and aggressive money printing they steal away the money from the working class while the autocrats and governing classes get richer.. There is no way around these facts.. Inflation is the hidden tax on the fixed income and wage earners.. they are the last receivers of the inflated dollars. They get diluted by inflation and have to pay higher prices with their diluted earnings..
Thomas Piketty Debates Bain Capital's Edward Conard
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
that is not true.. Monopolies are granted as a special privilege by government.. Government is the ultimate Monopoly.. I'm very well read in economics.. just not in the interventionist economics you were taught. Free market capitalism raises the standard of living. only throught intervention are monopolies able to persist... IE Microsoft was a so call monopoly in the eyes of many interventionists.. yet they got knocked out by competition in the FREE MARKET.. Government intervention tends to create barriers to entry, and restricts competition.. creating monopolies.. It is only through ignorant indoctrination of our school system and the adoption of keysian style economics that people think otherwise.. Governments adopt and teach the style of economics that best suit their motives.. Large Government is in direct competition with free market forces.. AS the government grows and subsidizes more and more dependents it sterilizes and stifles free market competition and incurs more and more public debt.. Through astronomical taxation and aggressive money printing they steal away the money from the working class while the autocrats and governing classes get richer.. There is no way around these facts.. Inflation is the hidden tax on the fixed income and wage earners.. they are the last receivers of the inflated dollars. They get diluted by inflation and have to pay higher prices with their diluted earnings..
well, you can argue theories back and forth all day long, real life contradicts you. Europe is heavily regulated on average and most every telecom and utility/energy monopoly was broken up which existed before more European integration. What do we have today? A completely competitive market more competitive than anywhere in the world, certainly way more competitive than the crusty, out-dated, technologically behind American utilities, telecom, and mobile market. In most Central European countries you can choose from 5-10 different gas, and electricity suppliers, choose from 3-6 different top notch mobile phone companies, and get great choices regarding other telecom services. America is incredibly behind in that regards.
Microsoft held a quasi monopoly because there was simply no other player in the market. Not because the government was involved. So this example is completely irrelevant in this context. Later on new technologies evolved and Microsoft places some very poor bets and lost on most of them. Hence you have Google, Apple, and Facebook today. Has nothing to do with monopolies or government intervention.
Big government is sometimes good if it works and serves its actual intended audience, the people. Most in Germany, I would reckon, for example, favor big government and understand that in exchange for slightly higher taxes they get subsidized health care, education, and welfare services. It is a choice a culture and its people make. But arguing that it does not work and all social market economics is to be bedeviled only proves that you need to start looking beyond your little backyard and forest.
Microsoft held a quasi monopoly because there was simply no other player in the market. Not because the government was involved. So this example is completely irrelevant in this context. Later on new technologies evolved and Microsoft places some very poor bets and lost on most of them. Hence you have Google, Apple, and Facebook today. Has nothing to do with monopolies or government intervention.
Big government is sometimes good if it works and serves its actual intended audience, the people. Most in Germany, I would reckon, for example, favor big government and understand that in exchange for slightly higher taxes they get subsidized health care, education, and welfare services. It is a choice a culture and its people make. But arguing that it does not work and all social market economics is to be bedeviled only proves that you need to start looking beyond your little backyard and forest.
And of course Germany's history is related to its current social market economy. Goodness.
Which country is that? Name me a country which employed completely free market principles and lets compare metrics with countries that employ social market economic principles.
On the free market economy side HK and Singapore come to mind though even there Singapore is anything but free. And both are city states, so, hard to compare those with full fledged nations
On the free market economy side HK and Singapore come to mind though even there Singapore is anything but free. And both are city states, so, hard to compare those with full fledged nations
why argue with you.. i was just saying.. the more a country adopts free market capitalism the more their standard of living increases.. All you call for is more of a shift to interventionism and socialism... the Brits are realizing they want no part of your euro fantasy of the EU... Soros himself said early on the EU was a mistake ... Socialism leads to centralization and fragility.. You are the central planner type that would like to decide what is good for other people.. A collectivist... Social market economic principles is just another way of saying socialism.. Moving more and more to state control.. Either through extremely high rents, and tributes payed to the goverment or from monetary policy.. At what point are you renting when your property tax is through the roof.. At what point are you a state owned operation when you literally split all your profits with the government.. The mob wasn't that greedy.. Chicago city sales tax is 11%... the Mob only took 10%.. And don't tell me the government isn't violent.. They have a monopoly on coercion and violence... period
