What's the best argue against those cunts who says Capitalism tends do monopoly ?

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Just let it happen. If they are being a "good monopoly" (ie selling the best product for the lowest cost) then it doesn't matter since they are the best person for the job.

There are only 2 things a "bad monopoly" can do 1. Charge exorbitant prices which will result in another company coming in to take profits and no longer being a monopoly. If they buy out all competition to maintain monopoly then they will end up fucking themselves in the long run. 2. Discriminate against certain people. I believe in the freedom of association and should be allowed to discriminate anyone for any reason as a business person. It often doesn't make sense from a business perspective to discriminate because extra money. However, at times discrimination can increase profits, besides if I don't want you in my house I should be allowed to say no. The same goes for my store.

Try and force someone to bake a cake and now nobody gets a cake. Leave the market alone. It solves itself in the long run.

Also ask those people what we should do about unions such as the teachers union and the doctors association. These are both government forced monopolies that should be split up.

Pretty much every monopoly is spawned because of a government there doesn't exist much of a tendancy towards monopolies by default.

cumulative advantage is a law of nature. if you dont see that you are a preteen-brained libertarian.

The market does not "balance itself out" if left alone. The market is not a fairy tale happy ending machine. It would be nice if there was a clean solution to the problem of distribution of resources but there is not. Not free market. Not planed economy. Only a unsatisfying mess that has to be constantly rebalanced by the disgusting process with call politics. This is what every functioning modern society has done.

monopolies are a natural and inevitable occurrence, OP, just think about it for a minute. if you're a capitalist owner, why wouldn't you do everything in your power to monopolize profits into your pocket and shut down the potential for any competition? the purpose of capitalism is to accumulate as much profit into as few hands as possible. if you do anything less than that, you would be dooming yourself to failure from a competitor who will. your only limit is what the law allows and if the state is even enforcing that law against you. that's why corporations and big money guys can get away with running child pedophile rings and dumping toxic waste into the poor people's land. the state (politicians) don't have any incentive to enforce the law or regulate them.

it's not a meme that marxists are right about everything, it's the truth. it doesn't help that white supremacy sells so well to the middle class since it's the last line of defense the capitalist owners have.

>unions are the government

are you stupid? governments fight unions tooth and nail. hell, they're nonexistent in the US. the union gets their income from the workers, not the government. the interest of the union and the government's are diametrically opposed, you dumb ass. the only reason you see unions in government jobs more often is because the majority of the workers are still white and have more leverage against the government than everyone else working for private corporations

And you can see how states that turn to union busting go to shit.

That if you don't like the monopoly you can refrain from using their service.

From capitalism (which really kinda is a mix of anarchy and tyranny) to nationalism, socialism, communism or any other -isms, there is no system in the world for which resources or power will always be redistributed from the powerfull to the powerless consistently.

Every proposed system so far relies on a benevolent authority that has the citizens best interest. Everyone's fighting for the same product just packaged differently

Attached: 1551830032798-1.webm (720x404, 1.15M)

>governments fight unions tooth and nail. hell, they're nonexistent in the US.
No they don't. I live in Brasil and up until recently you had a compulsory contribution to the union deducted from your salary.

>the only reason you see unions in government jobs more often is because the majority of the workers are still white and have more leverage against the government than everyone else working for private corporations
No it's because gov't workers are usually leechers. Leechers have a natural tendency to organize in unions.

Why do folks keep thinking that some arbitary system is all powerful? Everything comes down to the strength and competency of the individuals. No system can save a nation of retards, and no system can enslave a nation of bright souls

The truth is NOBODY wants real change, mobs just want to feel part of something or whatever twisted satisfaction that comes with it. If real change were truly desired, politics and social discourse would be VERY different today.

>and no system can enslave a nation of bright souls
Russia and China would disagree.

>muh meme ideologies
die in a fire pretend-smart brainlet

sorry went off topic. To answer your question OP monopolies are inevitable in all systems so that is an invalid argument

This. It could possibly be done with a benevolent AGI dictator, but we would never trust it.

They’re right. You need some regulation to prevent monopolies. Most economists agree on that.

I don’t think you understand the argument against monopolies. Monopolies decrease the welfare and productivity of society because of market failure.

youtube.com/watch?v=zI7hbEuopLI

oh sure, the people actually doing the work are the leechers and not the middle-top management class that "works" from their desks. fuck off, retard.

>Implying I find negroes ugly because of the capitalists

I was just wondering this the other day

I think the better question to ask though is:
>Is it really true that monopolies have only been made in the help of governments, or that a monopoly can only be achieved under protection of the law?

Attached: 1547273796680.jpg (933x847, 69K)

>democracy fails when folks are spiritually famished and easily manipulated
>natsoc/communism relies on a benevolent authority

exactly, they all started out by overthrowing a feudalist society thinking that redistributing the power to common man would fix problems forever, but eventually it all goes back to the very principle that which nature operates on.

Too much irrationality, hypocrisy and prejudice in modern day discourse and so nothing ever gets accomplished. All the energy is directed at going in circles on the XY plane as opposed to upwards in Z direction.

It’s 100% not true. Google natural monopolies. Industries with huge economies of scale, very large barriers to entry (compared to market size) or significant network effects tend to lead to monopolies.

and that forms the basis of whatever that was said in the first post. If real change were truly desired there would be more emphasis on the spiritual and intellectual education of the youth.

There would be more rational non-prejudicial discourse as opposed to the battle-of-half-truths that we have now where nobody is neither right or wrong, so the mob is forced to resort to violence out of sheer incompetency

>I don’t think you understand the argument against monopolies. Monopolies decrease the welfare and productivity of society because of market failure.
I do understand. And all competition can take care of that. But of course, you do, indeed, need antitrust laws. So it all comes down to enforcing the antitrust laws, which means it comes down to corruption.
If you can't get rid of corruption, changing the system would not fix the problem. But capitalism and nationalism are the best paradigms to mitigate corruption.
If you had socialism instead, the problem wouldn't be the unfair competition. The problem would be subjugation and having to comply with it in order to feed yourself.

So let me get this straight. The people who create layers upon layers of bureaucracy, who can't be fired for doing shitty work, who have tons of beneftis that are not extended to the general population and who have no incentive to improve their performance since they get paid what they are paid not matter what. You believe these are the people who are actually doing work and not the executive who might be fired if he has a lackluster quarter.
You sound real smart user.

>The truck shows up

>identifying with the bourgeoise management class

good little bootlicker. is any of that laundry list supposed to disparage the concept of a union? an employer doesn't have any reason to give a worker any of those things you're complaining about, that's why unions became a thing. the state also doesn't have a reason to legislate any of those things because the power of the state is dependent on the power of the private money interests that fund their elections.

your idea of a worker is a corporate executive? don't fucking make me laugh. i bet you think the trumps are genius business moguls, too

>>Implying I find negroes ugly because of the capitalists
>implying you don't

you think people are born with a natural sense of what's attractive and what isn't? you can't even look at yourself without looking into a mirror. why do you think advertising is central to the system of capitalism?

>capitalism
>one of the best paradigms to mitigate corruption
You think you can just go on the internet and tell lies, m8? Do you not realize that financial benefit, i.e. the basis and endgame of capitalism is the single highest source of corruption worldwide?

>Why do folks keep thinking that some arbitary system is all powerful? Everything comes down to the strength and competency of the individuals.

>what is colonization and the exploitation of surplus labor in third world nations

Capitalism does create monopolies, it's inevitable. And when you try to regulate monopolies, sooner or later the people you're regulating get into the room where the regulating happens. And then they regulate their competition out of existence. Which is by the way why you shouldn't be rooting for Twitter and Facebook regulation. They want to be regulated because they already are in those rooms where regulation happens. When regulations drop, it'll be Twitter and Facebook regulating everyone else.
There's no way to fix this. Every economic system we've come up with so far has a built in expiration date.

>But capitalism and nationalism are the best paradigms to mitigate corruption.
>inherited wealth
>mitigate corruption

you do know the majority of profits made world wide today are from selling financial services and not commodities? that means the rich literally don't work for a living, they make their money from the debt the proletariats drown under. the only people born with a net zero or positive dollar value are the rich, you moron.

you're describing an entirely different class of 'rich' and they are too powerful to be defeated by the easily manipulated masses. Communism, nationalism or whatever -isms will not hurt them. They designed the -isms, the systems and orchestrated wars

>Russia
>bright souls

lol shut the fuck up. we are slaves and will forever be. our people have in over 1000 years have never once tasted democracy.

Attached: 751365_platinumfusi0n_doomer.png (3929x3753, 913K)

> is any of that laundry list supposed to disparage the concept of a union? an employer doesn't have any reason to give a worker any of those things you're complaining about, that's why unions became a thing.
No, an employer just have to do what he must to keep the people who aggregate value. And yes it is supposed to disparge the concept of unions, since employees can negotiate for themselves. Unions just add redtape in order to sell lenience.
>the state also doesn't have a reason to legislate any of those things because the power of the state is dependent on the power of the private money interests that fund their elections.
But they do. Because gov't workers are part of the gov't. When you understand that the gov't works as company it will all make sense. The gov't will always try to expand and maximize it's profits (increase number of gov' workers, their salaries, their prerrogatives and basically their power). This will create not only huge overhead, but also consolidate oligopolies and make it difficult for people outside the system to compete. You can see examples of that in the private malls for EU officials, the exemption of the individual mandate for gov't staff on Obamacare and the land grab attempt you had years ago on that Cliven Bundy case and so on.

>You think you can just go on the internet and tell lies, m8? Do you not realize that financial benefit, i.e. the basis and endgame of capitalism is the single highest source of corruption worldwide?
No it isn't. The highest source of corruption in the world is the power process. In a capitalist system money just so happens to be what your surrogate activity is geared towards. In socialism it would be gov't ranking and influence, and also status.
In the former URSS being a nuclear physicist/engineer was one of the most prestigious jobs. Where did the prestige come from if they were paid the same as everybody else?

forgot to link you on the reply.]
Also
>your idea of a worker is a corporate executive?
That was your example when you mentioned the guy in a desk

lel americans are even more enslaved than the russians and chinese they've never even come close to having a gommie uprising. look how they squeal at the word socialism and kick and scream at the thought of taxing the rich

This user already answered but I'll give my take.
You said it yourself that they make their money from debt.
I don't support fractional reserve banking and I wouldn't advocate in favor of a debt based economy. That's precisely why I mentioned nationalism and not only capitalism. In a debt based economy you can't have a reduction in the size of your population without the system collapsing. The only way to prevent that collapse would then be importing immigrants which is in direct opposition with nationalism.
So none of what you said apply.

Relevant article on the incompetency/shortsightedness of the mob:
unqualified-reservations.org/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives/

>But none of them hates Washington as a whole. So they can never unite to destroy it, and the whole machine is stable. See how beautiful this is? By separating voters into two competing but cooperating parties, neither of which can destroy the other, the two-party system creates a government which will survive indefinitely, no matter how much happier its citizens might be without it.

Yarvin started the whole alt-right thing that originally seeked to target the truly root of cause. The irony is that it has now devolved into what it used to fight against

everything the mob touches turns to shit

Exactly, power is everything. Just like how a better guitar won't make you play better, no system will ever magically make things better. They're both tools

China is going to collapse and you think its better than communism. LMAO
The fed fucked up the global economy, what good is capitalism now.
KYS

The price you pay to become "the strongest nation"

Most people who argue about how bad monopolies are in Capitalism seem to be against competition in the governing models and taxation systems. If we understand monopolies lead to inefficient services/price hikes, why do they support the vast territorial monopolies of governments?

We should split government in millions of units competing against each other.

If they disagree point at their inconsistency, if they agree, tell them to vote for it and we'll have societies tending to anarcho capitalism.

>natural monopolies
Even natural monopolies have competition. Fossil fuels have the competition of renewable energy sources, the price of fossil fuels can never be above a certain threshold or it would lose it's dominant position in the energy sector.

>Industries with huge economies of scale
Entering a market with large barriers of entry would require building capital in a different sector, part of how difficult it is to enter a certain market depends vastly on the dominant company not abusing their position. There's nothing bad for consumers in having a company offering services that other people simply can't compete against.

This arguments always seem to end up in semantics, because a lot of people seem to confuse monopoly with oligopoly and ignore government intervention in the market producing dominant positions, including patents, which is a government enforced policy literally blocking competition.

At best socialist countries exist to pleasure me and the rest of my beautiful amerigoblin horde with 4K tvs while you fairies have 50% of your wages ripped from you your entire life just so you can go to school for two years to become a professional dunning-kruger poorfag. I could take out a $100,000 medical loan and still have more take home pay working minimum wage in a US car wash banging 8/10 latinas in the back of my El Camino every night than you could as a doctor esé

youtube.com/watch?v=UZ6eD9TbCAc

>imagine being so delusional that you think China is going anywhere

Nice cope comrade Cuck, the fact you think China being the nation of toothless illiterate coolies they were 40 years ago is superior to their current station wherein they're the second most powerful economy in the world and they're greedily gobbling up KFC and Marvel movies like you gobble cock speaks volumes; in reality the absolute worst thing that could happen to them is that they return to Mao the Dong levels of pitiful global and economic insignificance. It's funny that you should bring up our being the strongest nation though, it's precisely because of that we can bully China to the bargaining table (hence their supposedly inevitable-but easily reversible- "collapse" bbc.com/news/business-45899310) like we should have been doing multiple presidencies ago.

Attached: you-have-been-visited-by-le-56-face-of-racial-30938083.png (500x521, 141K)