Economic inequality being one of the biggest drivers of democratic back sliding.
Shitty part is that authoritarian doesn’t really offer anything better.
Hey! Let’s solve “economic inequality” with more statism! That’s not authoritarian at all!
Obviously, wanting to reduce the monopolical privileges of politicians, public spending and taxes (robbery), erradicating the central bank, increasing work flexibility and advocating for individual rights and liberty is fascist af. Believe me, guys!
It doesn’t matter. That is an issue with the politicians not taxation. If you were to abolish taxes you’d also have to figure out a way to run your society without money because you won’t be paying for shit without them.
Taxes are mostly to control the flow of money and to give a currency legitimacy (if you need dollars to pay taxes, you likely will want to earn in dollars).
Governments that control their own supply of money can print and use money freely.
They don’t use the money from taxes to fund anything, that wouldn’t make sense.
Programs and agencies are funded NOW, while taxes are collected later.
If there is inflation, the state can just raise taxes. If there is no economic activity (deflation), just increase spending.
Orthodox economists, classical liberals, are fucking dumb and live in dreamland.
Case in point, there are countries that collect very little to no taxes. Like Saudi Arabia, formerly Libya, North Korea etc. They still have/had extensive government programs.
Business taxes – including corporate income tax and self-employed income tax at a standard rate of 20% on business profits; VAT-registered businesses also pay VAT at a standard rate of 15%
Withholding taxes (WHT) – payable by non-residents on income made in Saudi Arabia, at a rate of between 5% and 20%
Real estate transaction tax (RETT) – effective from October 2020, this is payable on property transactions at a rate of 5%
White land tax (WLT) – payable by owners of urban vacant land designated for commercial or residential use at an annual rate of 2.5% of market value.
Social security contributions – paid by Saudi employees at the rate of up to 10% of their salary, with the employer also contributing up to 12%
Zakat – a kind of charitable tax that is linked to the Islamic faith and contributes towards those in need, charged at 2.5% on the net worth of all Saudi nationals and businesses.
Ok I was wrong in one of the examples. It’s indeed very hard to find countries that don’t tax at all, as it’s an important tool to control and maintain currency legitimacy.
But that doesn’t invalidate what I said at all.
Taxes are not used to fund the government. The government literally prints money. They are the ones that do it. They can do it whenever they want. They can also borrow almost infinitely unlike regular people. The government doesn’t need to “earn” money to spend it like people.
They own and control money, the currency as a whole.
Just read on the origins of money (“Debt the first 5000 years” for example) if you want to understand this more. I’m not a professional explainer so I might fuck things up.
But yeah, if a government spends too much but has no revenue (from national companies, taxes etc.) their currency can lose legitimacy. But if a country like the US has their whole currency backed by all countries in the world needing to hold huge reserves of it for international trade, the spending can reach astronomical levels before the currency starts to lose legitimacy.
It’s easier to be replaced by the Yen than to spend too much… Which is why politicians keep raising spending by hundreds of billions every year. But they never need to raise more taxes… Just complaint about the debt when they’re the opposition. Which keeps rising without any negative effect.
Idk man, like I said I’m not a professional explainer. You can read more on this or see some videos. Like it’s not such a fringe topic, I’m not being an edgy contrarian.
Let’s solve “economic inequality” with more statism!
I can vote the State, I can’t vote the CEO.
Obviously, wanting to reduce the monopolical privileges of politicians
That’s the citizens job, not his. Milei just wants to reduce the privileges of those disagreeing, at no point would Milei want to reduce the privileges that allows him to unilaterally reduce the political privileges of those opposed to him. Let him actually put forward something that actually indicates that HE wants less power and we’ll talk about this aspect.
public spending and taxes
Again it’s the citizens that dictate that. I can vote for people wanting to build something in the State, not a CEO that wants to build a highway for the goodwill of mankind.
erradicating the central bank
Nobody wants to be the “bad guy”. Many nations are suffering the fate of too long supportive monetary policy without fiscal policy to follow. Same can be said about the USA. They rode too high and too far on quantitative easing at some point the party ends and nobody likes being “that guy”. Again, that’s mostly on the backs of the capricious voters who don’t like mild inconveniences so they hold out for major ramifications. And why? There’s way less disposable income in the hands of the many. So literally any inconvenience is a massive blow to their way of life. And it shouldn’t be a hard guess for you to figure out why so many in the public have so little.
increasing work flexibility and advocating for individual rights and liberty
Every “work flexibility” I’ve ever seen pitched is just code for turning people into wage slaves. Sort of how like the UK got a lot of “trade flexibility” with Brexit. Once I’ve seen a working example that didn’t actually fuck everyday citizens over, we’ll talk.
As for individual rights and selling organs. I’m actually cool with that. There’s quite a list of incredibly wealthy people I’d like to exercise those rights on.
fascist af
It’s just that every time I’ve seen someone purpose breaking the system to make it better, they just want to break the system so that they can profit. I literally expect nothing less from Milei. This is the age of grift, why should anyone believe any one who pitches “I swear, I’ll build something better, just first give me the power to destroy every protection you have first.” Sure buddy, sure you will.
You vote for certain politicians, other people vote for other politicians, and whoever wins, the tyranny of majority will emerge. The success of the CEO is dependent of supply and demand, if there are no monopolical privileges. (I discussed this in another reply).
That’s the citizens job, not his.
Following your logic, the citizens voting him is a perfect clue of this, am I right? Otherwise, I agree with you about what Milei will do with his powers. I don’t trust 100% any politician, even him, but he’s the only one who explicitly showed that, like donating each month his salary (funded by taxes) and not funding certain political campaigns.
Again it’s the citizens that dictate that. I can vote for people wanting to build something in the State, not a CEO that wants to build a highway for the goodwill of mankind.
Citizens has no direct influence in the process of decision politicians make. The CEO (at exception of lobbyists) wanting to build a highway is: using his own factors of production achieved by social-cooperation (capital, land, technology and workers) and his desire of providing it emerges by supply and demand, by competence in a free-market setting and the economic calculation of consumers in a system of prices.
Nobody wants to be the “bad guy”
Sorry, but I don’t get what you’re trying to tell me here. Read about the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Every “work flexibility” I’ve ever seen pitched is just code for turning people into wage slaves.
Leaving aside the exact policies of Milei about this (as I’d prefer no policy at all), any governmental intervention in labor markets will cause unemployment among less productive workers. The term “slave” is not valid because those workers voluntary agreed, in a contract, the amount of money they’d get to do certain job.
“Wages represent the discounted productivity of labor in satisfying consumer demand. Demand for consumer goods translates into demand for workers.”
It’s just that every time I’ve seen someone purpose breaking the system to make it better, they just want to break the system so that they can profit.
Fair enough. Distrust in politicians is perfectly logic and ethical, but accusing him of fascist? It does not make any sense.
Which is why in most democracies there are inalienable rights and due process.
The success of the CEO is dependent of supply and demand, if there are no monopolical privileges
Unless they are a monopoly. Which most societies have established rules to prevent. Outside of those rules, we’ve seen time and time again such form. Capitalism doesn’t have an inbuilt mechanism that prevents a single person owning everything, that tends to be the problem we run into often.
Following your logic, the citizens voting him is a perfect clue of this, am I right?
He’s allowed to follow the process to remove the process. That doesn’t mean that’s a good choice. But yeah, you can absolutely use that logic to follow to that end. That’s the nice thing about democracy it’s flexible enough to become a ship we built to wreck. And voters are empowered enough to sink themselves if they so wish. So I question what freedom is not present currently that you lament the lack of?
but he’s the only one who explicitly showed that, like donating each month his salary (funded by taxes) and not funding certain political campaigns
Yeah, that’s not the altruism that it looks like. He’s ultimately picking who is getting that money of his. He’s picking which campaigns to not find funding. That’s the point, not the money part the power part. The money part is one thing, the power part is something that one would be ill advised to lose sight of.
Citizens has no direct influence in the process of decision politicians make
They’re not made to. Citizens have oversight and challenge on the wisdom of representatives. It would be unwise to have 500,000 peoples’ hands on the steering wheel. There’s no one direction we would be going in then.
The term “slave” is not valid because those workers voluntary agreed, in a contract, the amount of money they’d get to do certain job
When the choice is “go hungry” or “work” that’s hardly voluntary. You will find it hard to convince me otherwise.
but accusing him of fascist? It does not make any sense.
If you read though my comments, at no point did I indicate him as fascist. Authoritarian, yes. He’s looking to consolidate power to himself to enact change unilaterally, that’s authoritarian. Not every authoritarian is fascist but it is important to understand the fertile ground such leaves for the future. Lenin didn’t invent Stalin but he sure opened the door. And that’s something to consider.
If taxes are robbery then using public infrastructure like roads without paying taxes is also theft.
Taxes exist because public goods are actually good, and benefit everyone. The sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts. Your taxes pay for roads and public transit which are used to get people to work to create wealth for a community. It turns out the thing that makes humans great is community and banding together. Taxes are a formal way of doing that.
Now, we need equitable taxes, but that would involve taxing the rich proportionally. This is economically sound because wealth doesn’t trickle down and the mega wealthy are, well, mega wealthy because they hoard wealth. That money would be better spent creating better roads, better public transit, better education, or in short, a better community. The prospect of a better community only upsets those who are not members of the community, because their insane wealth puts them in a different class, and those who think defending that class will somehow get them privilege. The only privilege we need is a better community.
Taxes exist because public goods are actually good, and benefit everyone.
Taxes raise money for transfers to special interests and public employees. Why would you trust an oligarchy of politicians (the State) to decide which goods are useful “for a community” and which don’t?
In contrast to private businesses that supply the goods that consumers voluntarily want to buy, public officials lack of the capacity to pick data as to what people truly demand, much less how to go about meeting those demands economically. They don’t have direct feedback of what every individual in the community want; they don’t pass the test of economic rationality.
If the Monopoly of Violence can’t act economically, they have no other choice but respond to interest groups, so tax money will necessarily end up with narrow interest groups rather than the provision of “public goods”
The sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts.
The end does not justify the means. The mere existence of taxation is detrimental (and antithetical) to the very source of economic growth, that is, voluntary exchange.
Goods like education and roads, for example, are goods like any other: they can be supplied by markets and markets alone.
The only privilege we need is a better community.
A better community will be formed if it’s achieved by voluntary means. Moral obligation is not the same as legal obligation. How can individuals be virtuous? By letting them act freely.
Why would you trust an oligarchy of politicians (the State) to decide which goods are useful “for a community” and which don’t?
Because we voted for them. We didn’t vote for the board of directors of private companies. There’s plenty of waste and corruption in private enterprise. It’s not voluntary if they lie cheat and steal just like bad politicians.
The fraud of representative democracy. What about those who didn’t vote them (the tyranny of the majority)? We, the common citizens, have really any power if our vote is secret?
The rights and obligations of a contractual act are generated by explicit consent of both members. This does not happen when we our vote is completely secret, without our names and surnames. Politicians are free to impose their monopolical powers, even if we don’t choose them.
“Representative democracy is the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion."
We didn’t vote for the board of directors of private companies.
Because we shouldn’t. Except for the lobbyists, they are using their private propertyand their factors of production achieved by social-cooperation.
There’s plenty of waste and corruption in private enterprise. It’s not voluntary if they lie cheat and steal just like bad politicians.
The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn’t have any monopolical privileges to mantain their economical power and reputation in the market, as their permanence is dependent of supply and demand.
You cant have a free market without a government enforcing anti monopoly laws.
A free market is not free at all if the government is stepping in any voluntary exchange.
The existence of “anti-monopoly” laws has caused more harm than good by protecting particular competitors, not competition. In fact, monopolies can only survive through government-grant privileges, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free-market setting.
“A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas.”
In fact, monopolies can only survive through government-grant privileges
This is just false. You dont understand economics at all if you dont understand how all free markets naturally devolve into monopolies. Yes, governments can also grant monopolies by force, but without antitrust laws literally every market becomes a monopoly.
You dont understand economics at all if you dont understand how all free markets naturally devolve into monopolies.
I’m a “follower” of the Austrian School of Economics, although the idea that monopolies are government-grant privileges was first originated by the economists of the classical school (and they were right).
Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even this should be regretted since it benefits the consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function.
The definition of a monopoly by the idea of “monopoly price” has no effective meaning in free-market setting, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change.
I don’t believe that demand is solely driven by voluntary consumer choice. On the contrary, demand is manufactured by misleading and manipulative advertising and marketing. It’s driven by making cheap products that don’t last and encouraging a throwaway culture. It’s driven by planned obselesence.
Nor is buying essential items like food and utilities voluntary. People who live in food deserts don’t have choice.
If the thing you want is not popular with the masses then the capitalists have no incentive to make it. Endless growth and all that…
demand is manufactured by misleading and manipulative advertising and marketing.
It’s driven by planned obselesence.
Consumer products develop through experimentation. Consumer preferences also change and develop gradually through time. To meet them requires entrepreneurial judgment.
Nor is buying essential items like food and utilities voluntary.
Aside from a few innate demands concerning hunger and temperature, consumer preferences emerge as a result of interaction between many individuals.
Each consumer regulates the consumer products he consumes by spending money. There is no good substitute for the market process concerning the development and dissemination of consumer goods.
The problem is when crooks privatize these things they steal billions of dollars worth of taxpayer money. Yes Argentina is messed up, but it’s because of corruption. Privatization or socialization, both will fail because of corruption.
Like, private school or public school, they both fail if the principal is stealing money, this isn’t a leftist/rightist issue.
I cant believe an actually informed comment exists on this thread, everytime Milei pops on here its an Article calling him fascist and everyone on the comments agreeing to it
Hey! Let’s solve “economic inequality” with more statism! That’s not authoritarian at all!
Obviously, wanting to reduce the monopolical privileges of politicians, public spending and taxes (robbery), erradicating the central bank, increasing work flexibility and advocating for individual rights and liberty is fascist af. Believe me, guys!
Saying taxes are theft has to be the most brain dead take. Even if your government is corrupt, its not the fault of taxation.
With the levels of corruption in Argentina taxes are pretty much just a way to give money to politicians.
It doesn’t matter. That is an issue with the politicians not taxation. If you were to abolish taxes you’d also have to figure out a way to run your society without money because you won’t be paying for shit without them.
Taxes are mostly to control the flow of money and to give a currency legitimacy (if you need dollars to pay taxes, you likely will want to earn in dollars).
Governments that control their own supply of money can print and use money freely.
They don’t use the money from taxes to fund anything, that wouldn’t make sense.
Programs and agencies are funded NOW, while taxes are collected later.
If there is inflation, the state can just raise taxes. If there is no economic activity (deflation), just increase spending.
Orthodox economists, classical liberals, are fucking dumb and live in dreamland.
Case in point, there are countries that collect very little to no taxes. Like Saudi Arabia, formerly Libya, North Korea etc. They still have/had extensive government programs.
Business taxes – including corporate income tax and self-employed income tax at a standard rate of 20% on business profits; VAT-registered businesses also pay VAT at a standard rate of 15%
Withholding taxes (WHT) – payable by non-residents on income made in Saudi Arabia, at a rate of between 5% and 20%
Real estate transaction tax (RETT) – effective from October 2020, this is payable on property transactions at a rate of 5%
White land tax (WLT) – payable by owners of urban vacant land designated for commercial or residential use at an annual rate of 2.5% of market value.
Social security contributions – paid by Saudi employees at the rate of up to 10% of their salary, with the employer also contributing up to 12%
Zakat – a kind of charitable tax that is linked to the Islamic faith and contributes towards those in need, charged at 2.5% on the net worth of all Saudi nationals and businesses.
There are a shit ton of taxes in Saudi Arabia. Because they need it to pay for shit.
Ok I was wrong in one of the examples. It’s indeed very hard to find countries that don’t tax at all, as it’s an important tool to control and maintain currency legitimacy.
But that doesn’t invalidate what I said at all.
Taxes are not used to fund the government. The government literally prints money. They are the ones that do it. They can do it whenever they want. They can also borrow almost infinitely unlike regular people. The government doesn’t need to “earn” money to spend it like people.
They own and control money, the currency as a whole.
Just read on the origins of money (“Debt the first 5000 years” for example) if you want to understand this more. I’m not a professional explainer so I might fuck things up.
But yeah, if a government spends too much but has no revenue (from national companies, taxes etc.) their currency can lose legitimacy. But if a country like the US has their whole currency backed by all countries in the world needing to hold huge reserves of it for international trade, the spending can reach astronomical levels before the currency starts to lose legitimacy.
It’s easier to be replaced by the Yen than to spend too much… Which is why politicians keep raising spending by hundreds of billions every year. But they never need to raise more taxes… Just complaint about the debt when they’re the opposition. Which keeps rising without any negative effect.
Idk man, like I said I’m not a professional explainer. You can read more on this or see some videos. Like it’s not such a fringe topic, I’m not being an edgy contrarian.
I can vote the State, I can’t vote the CEO.
That’s the citizens job, not his. Milei just wants to reduce the privileges of those disagreeing, at no point would Milei want to reduce the privileges that allows him to unilaterally reduce the political privileges of those opposed to him. Let him actually put forward something that actually indicates that HE wants less power and we’ll talk about this aspect.
Again it’s the citizens that dictate that. I can vote for people wanting to build something in the State, not a CEO that wants to build a highway for the goodwill of mankind.
Nobody wants to be the “bad guy”. Many nations are suffering the fate of too long supportive monetary policy without fiscal policy to follow. Same can be said about the USA. They rode too high and too far on quantitative easing at some point the party ends and nobody likes being “that guy”. Again, that’s mostly on the backs of the capricious voters who don’t like mild inconveniences so they hold out for major ramifications. And why? There’s way less disposable income in the hands of the many. So literally any inconvenience is a massive blow to their way of life. And it shouldn’t be a hard guess for you to figure out why so many in the public have so little.
Every “work flexibility” I’ve ever seen pitched is just code for turning people into wage slaves. Sort of how like the UK got a lot of “trade flexibility” with Brexit. Once I’ve seen a working example that didn’t actually fuck everyday citizens over, we’ll talk.
As for individual rights and selling organs. I’m actually cool with that. There’s quite a list of incredibly wealthy people I’d like to exercise those rights on.
It’s just that every time I’ve seen someone purpose breaking the system to make it better, they just want to break the system so that they can profit. I literally expect nothing less from Milei. This is the age of grift, why should anyone believe any one who pitches “I swear, I’ll build something better, just first give me the power to destroy every protection you have first.” Sure buddy, sure you will.
You vote for certain politicians, other people vote for other politicians, and whoever wins, the tyranny of majority will emerge. The success of the CEO is dependent of supply and demand, if there are no monopolical privileges. (I discussed this in another reply).
Following your logic, the citizens voting him is a perfect clue of this, am I right? Otherwise, I agree with you about what Milei will do with his powers. I don’t trust 100% any politician, even him, but he’s the only one who explicitly showed that, like donating each month his salary (funded by taxes) and not funding certain political campaigns.
Citizens has no direct influence in the process of decision politicians make. The CEO (at exception of lobbyists) wanting to build a highway is: using his own factors of production achieved by social-cooperation (capital, land, technology and workers) and his desire of providing it emerges by supply and demand, by competence in a free-market setting and the economic calculation of consumers in a system of prices.
Sorry, but I don’t get what you’re trying to tell me here. Read about the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Leaving aside the exact policies of Milei about this (as I’d prefer no policy at all), any governmental intervention in labor markets will cause unemployment among less productive workers. The term “slave” is not valid because those workers voluntary agreed, in a contract, the amount of money they’d get to do certain job.
“Wages represent the discounted productivity of labor in satisfying consumer demand. Demand for consumer goods translates into demand for workers.”
Fair enough. Distrust in politicians is perfectly logic and ethical, but accusing him of fascist? It does not make any sense.
Which is why in most democracies there are inalienable rights and due process.
Unless they are a monopoly. Which most societies have established rules to prevent. Outside of those rules, we’ve seen time and time again such form. Capitalism doesn’t have an inbuilt mechanism that prevents a single person owning everything, that tends to be the problem we run into often.
He’s allowed to follow the process to remove the process. That doesn’t mean that’s a good choice. But yeah, you can absolutely use that logic to follow to that end. That’s the nice thing about democracy it’s flexible enough to become a ship we built to wreck. And voters are empowered enough to sink themselves if they so wish. So I question what freedom is not present currently that you lament the lack of?
Yeah, that’s not the altruism that it looks like. He’s ultimately picking who is getting that money of his. He’s picking which campaigns to not find funding. That’s the point, not the money part the power part. The money part is one thing, the power part is something that one would be ill advised to lose sight of.
They’re not made to. Citizens have oversight and challenge on the wisdom of representatives. It would be unwise to have 500,000 peoples’ hands on the steering wheel. There’s no one direction we would be going in then.
When the choice is “go hungry” or “work” that’s hardly voluntary. You will find it hard to convince me otherwise.
If you read though my comments, at no point did I indicate him as fascist. Authoritarian, yes. He’s looking to consolidate power to himself to enact change unilaterally, that’s authoritarian. Not every authoritarian is fascist but it is important to understand the fertile ground such leaves for the future. Lenin didn’t invent Stalin but he sure opened the door. And that’s something to consider.
If taxes are robbery then using public infrastructure like roads without paying taxes is also theft.
Taxes exist because public goods are actually good, and benefit everyone. The sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts. Your taxes pay for roads and public transit which are used to get people to work to create wealth for a community. It turns out the thing that makes humans great is community and banding together. Taxes are a formal way of doing that.
Now, we need equitable taxes, but that would involve taxing the rich proportionally. This is economically sound because wealth doesn’t trickle down and the mega wealthy are, well, mega wealthy because they hoard wealth. That money would be better spent creating better roads, better public transit, better education, or in short, a better community. The prospect of a better community only upsets those who are not members of the community, because their insane wealth puts them in a different class, and those who think defending that class will somehow get them privilege. The only privilege we need is a better community.
Taxes raise money for transfers to special interests and public employees. Why would you trust an oligarchy of politicians (the State) to decide which goods are useful “for a community” and which don’t?
In contrast to private businesses that supply the goods that consumers voluntarily want to buy, public officials lack of the capacity to pick data as to what people truly demand, much less how to go about meeting those demands economically. They don’t have direct feedback of what every individual in the community want; they don’t pass the test of economic rationality.
If the Monopoly of Violence can’t act economically, they have no other choice but respond to interest groups, so tax money will necessarily end up with narrow interest groups rather than the provision of “public goods”
The end does not justify the means. The mere existence of taxation is detrimental (and antithetical) to the very source of economic growth, that is, voluntary exchange.
Goods like education and roads, for example, are goods like any other: they can be supplied by markets and markets alone.
A better community will be formed if it’s achieved by voluntary means. Moral obligation is not the same as legal obligation. How can individuals be virtuous? By letting them act freely.
Because we voted for them. We didn’t vote for the board of directors of private companies. There’s plenty of waste and corruption in private enterprise. It’s not voluntary if they lie cheat and steal just like bad politicians.
The fraud of representative democracy. What about those who didn’t vote them (the tyranny of the majority)? We, the common citizens, have really any power if our vote is secret?
The rights and obligations of a contractual act are generated by explicit consent of both members. This does not happen when we our vote is completely secret, without our names and surnames. Politicians are free to impose their monopolical powers, even if we don’t choose them.
“Representative democracy is the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion."
Because we shouldn’t. Except for the lobbyists, they are using their private propertyand their factors of production achieved by social-cooperation.
The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn’t have any monopolical privileges to mantain their economical power and reputation in the market, as their permanence is dependent of supply and demand.
You cant have a free market without a government enforcing anti monopoly laws.
A free market is not free at all if the government is stepping in any voluntary exchange.
The existence of “anti-monopoly” laws has caused more harm than good by protecting particular competitors, not competition. In fact, monopolies can only survive through government-grant privileges, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free-market setting.
“A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas.”
This is just false. You dont understand economics at all if you dont understand how all free markets naturally devolve into monopolies. Yes, governments can also grant monopolies by force, but without antitrust laws literally every market becomes a monopoly.
I’m a “follower” of the Austrian School of Economics, although the idea that monopolies are government-grant privileges was first originated by the economists of the classical school (and they were right).
Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even this should be regretted since it benefits the consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function.
The definition of a monopoly by the idea of “monopoly price” has no effective meaning in free-market setting, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change.
Stop being so based.
1st-world leftists are going to downvote you.
I don’t believe that demand is solely driven by voluntary consumer choice. On the contrary, demand is manufactured by misleading and manipulative advertising and marketing. It’s driven by making cheap products that don’t last and encouraging a throwaway culture. It’s driven by planned obselesence.
Nor is buying essential items like food and utilities voluntary. People who live in food deserts don’t have choice.
If the thing you want is not popular with the masses then the capitalists have no incentive to make it. Endless growth and all that…
Consumer products develop through experimentation. Consumer preferences also change and develop gradually through time. To meet them requires entrepreneurial judgment.
Aside from a few innate demands concerning hunger and temperature, consumer preferences emerge as a result of interaction between many individuals.
Each consumer regulates the consumer products he consumes by spending money. There is no good substitute for the market process concerning the development and dissemination of consumer goods.
The problem is when crooks privatize these things they steal billions of dollars worth of taxpayer money. Yes Argentina is messed up, but it’s because of corruption. Privatization or socialization, both will fail because of corruption.
Like, private school or public school, they both fail if the principal is stealing money, this isn’t a leftist/rightist issue.
deleted by creator
Touch some grass, please.
deleted by creator
I’m really meant it. Saying an argumentum ad hominem is pretty childish for my taste.
💤
There are no borders, individual rights or liberties without taxes.
I cant believe an actually informed comment exists on this thread, everytime Milei pops on here its an Article calling him fascist and everyone on the comments agreeing to it
Get more of your friends on Lemmy and Kbin then lol
I… dont see how that’s related? Informed opinions dont have/dont need to be from my friends
But I have invited some friends to Lemmy, sure.