Whats one of your unpopular opinions

[The Don]

because it makes more sense (economically and otherwise) to keep people in their jobs and homes. mass unemployment would be careless imo!

From whose perspective, the corporations or the governments? How does it make economical sense to keep more expensive and less efficient sources of labour?

[A4R0N]

voting yes

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah because corporations will not possibly collude with each other without government interference.

Oh of course they could, but the more free a market the less likely that is to happen as you have less monopolies existing and more of a chance of that monopoly being undercut by a new competitor. The free market, like any system though, is of course open to price-fixing which is why one function of the state I would keep would be it's ability to investigate and prevent any price-fixing.

I'm not for anarchy, i'm a libertarian. Minimal state, but state action in some cases (courts, legal, defence etc).

'more choice on what to pay' but we cant afford anything ?

Why not?

[The Don]

Oh of course they could, but the more free a market the less likely that is to happen as you have less monopolies existing and more of a chance of that monopoly being undercut by a new competitor. The free market, like any system though, is of course open to price-fixing which is why one function of the state I would keep would be it's ability to investigate and prevent any price-fixing.

I'm not for anarchy, i'm a libertarian. Minimal state, but state action in some cases (courts, legal, defence etc).



Why not?

Non intervention from the government is more likely to lead to monopolies, not the opposite. How on earth do you think Standard Oil got so big before it was eventually broken up by the government?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Non intervention from the government is more likely to lead to monopolies, not the opposite.

Untrue, government regulation/taxation and government monopolies themselves lead to monopolies in the market.

How on earth do you think Standard Oil got so big before it was eventually broken up by the government?

The likes of energy companies along with mineral and even bus companies are so monopolised because the state is the one which forbids any oil extraction/exploration without the state itself signing off that such a thing can be allowed. My favourite example is the bus companies, where by we only have a few bus companies in each city because the power to grant bus service contracts is with local government. If it were up to me, I would remove the need of local government to be involved in bus services so that you would be able to buy an older bus with me, and we'd be able to challenge Arriva along the local school route and charge the kids 70p each rather than £1.80.

The Thatcher Ministry was right to privatise bus companies, it just didn't go far enough so we now have a corporate monopoly system.

[buttons]

Why not?

because we're poor so how are we going to afford life long treatment without the nhs

[The Don]

Untrue, government regulation/taxation and government monopolies themselves lead to monopolies in the market.

A monopoly ran by the government is favourable to a monopoly ran by a corporation.

The likes of energy companies along with mineral and even bus companies are so monopolised because the state is the one which forbids any oil extraction/exploration without the state itself signing off that such a thing can be allowed. My favourite example is the bus companies, where by we only have a few bus companies in each city because the power to grant bus service contracts is with local government. If it were up to me, I would remove the need of local government to be involved in bus services so that you would be able to buy an older bus with me, and we'd be able to challenge Arriva along the local school route and charge the kids 70p each rather than £1.80.

The Thatcher Ministry was right to privatise bus companies, it just didn't go far enough so we now have a corporate monopoly system.

False. Maybe now, but that's not how Rockefeller created his fortune. Collusion with the (PRIVATE) railway companies allowed him to implement predatory pricing whereby his competitors ran bust (due to a lack of government interference and corporate collusion, funny that you said it wouldn't happen though...) and he simply bought up the multiple rivalling companies (which there were a ton of). But no, according to you this wouldn't possibly happen and in a free market the corporations would all lower their prices due to market pressures rather than the much more likely scenario of a few large corporations colluding together and fixing prices and buying up any smaller rivalling companies that attempt to compete with them.

[Inseriousity.]

From whose perspective, the corporations or the governments? How does it make economical sense to keep more expensive and less efficient sources of labour?

technology is highly overrated lol in terms of efficiency. it can only ever be as good as the people who use it. i know you're talking bout the future here when technology will supposedly get good enough to replace humans but i just don't see it.

[=Lizzy]

people who get drunk during the day and then shout abuse when there are small children around.i don't like these people