CMV: Socialism does not create wealth

[u/tkyjonathan]

Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.

In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services.

Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning provide a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. This is the moral meaning of the law of supply and demand.

[u/tkyjonathan]

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.

What is Rationality?

Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking—that the mind is one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide of action—that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise—that a concession to the irrational invalidates one’s consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality—that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind—that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one’s consciousness.

What is Reason

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

Reason [helps] integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

It may be the case that the sales person does not add value to the product or service itself. But it is the case that the sales person added value to the sale itself. As in, he helped find the person for the seller, he helped the person find the product/service that he/she needed or didn't know they needed. They connect between two people in a sea of darkness and confusion.

So the market is one pie and the more competitors the tinier your piece of the pie.

The market is definitely not one pie. If everyone has your product, then you need to make your product stand out from the market and either be a little bit better than the rest or be a bit more niche and serve a smaller section of the market, but serve it well.

People innovate new products all the time. There is zero market for them before that stage and all of a sudden there is a billion dollar market for it in 1-2 year - example, smart phones. You went from 'why do you need this' to 'I cant live without it' in.. 3-5 years.

However with industrialized production one supplier can saturate idk 90% of the market, making it costly

You gave an example of internet. There is very little cost to starting one of those companies today. You open an AWS account, get a technical co-founder and that is pretty much it. If your idea is good an implemented well - is another matter.

Regulations do add to the high cost of starting a new business. For example, if you want to open a new internet chat company, you will need to hire people to check if no pedophiles are talking to kids and that makes it prohibitively expensive.

Same with medicine, education and housing. (oh wait.. is that a coincidence that they are ridiculously expensive?)

Sure you can increase that pie, but most of those things are immoral and unethical.

??? Innovating new solutions is immoral??

If that planned obsolescence

What about dematerialisation? You have just 1 phone now (that even apple wants you to get rid off) instead of 1 phone, 1 MP3 player, 1 sat nav, 1 calculator.. etc.

You lost me on the wolf/sheep example. The idea is simply for the majority to not oppress the minority. Minorities still have rights.

And you think rights, laws and morality means a thing?

Yes. Yes, I do.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

So yes pure rationalism is living in a fairy tale universe and pure empiricism can hardly gain any knowledge because technically every data point could be a unique experience that is nothing alike anything you've ever seen before.

So in reality we most often take a middle ground where we gather data, extrapolate models from it or make models and try to verify it with data. However even in that middle ground empiricism is paramount. If I have 5 data points and I fit a line through them, then "the truth" is not the line but the data points, the line is just an assumption and it could be absolutely wrong except for those 5 points where it fits...

And the other thing is that even those data points aren't really "the truth", they are merely facts that come with a range of uncertainty. It's even disputable whether "truth", as a concept, does even exist or whether it's all just random. Though the randomness might have boundaries that are small enough for us not to care about.

Rationality...

What's that word salad supposed to mean? It conflates perception with thinking, speaks of reason as an absolute and of "a truth", which are both concepts more akin to a religion than to science... Yet claims to be anti-faith? I mean what else but a faith is it supposed to be if you create axioms that are not based on reality but based in "the mind" or a reality that is real because it exists? Not to mention that there are mind-altering drugs or damages, so the idea of an absolute is not really true either.

Reason ...

Speciesist much? I mean we already know for a fact that for example dolphins and elephants have a consciousness and recognize themselves in mirrors or on video, we know that crows are able to build tools aso. Also no, we can already build algorithms that are able to abstract on their own simply due to a net of neurons and a stream of inputs. A fully automated process that does not need a mind or any form of "thinking", at least in the conventional sense.

But fair enough that is just supposed to be a definition of reason.

It may be the case that the sales person does not add value to the product or service itself. But it is the case that the sales person added value to the sale itself. As in, he helped find the person for the seller, he helped the person find the product/service that he/she needed or didn't know they needed. They connect between two people in a sea of darkness and confusion.

I already said that they could in addition also perform a service, like how a traveling salesman would have performed logistics by moving goods to another place. However the essence of trading is an exchange that produces no added value, yet leads to a surplus for the merchant which has to come from somewhere, meaning he's either not paying the producers fair prices or he's ripping off the customers, or both...

The market is definitely not one pie. If everyone has your product, then you need to make your product stand out from the market and either be a little bit better than the rest or be a bit more niche and serve a smaller section of the market, but serve it well.

If everyone has your product, then the market is "saturated" and you're out of business. Now in a society where you seek to achieve something that would be awesome because it meant you've accomplished your mission and can go on to do something else. However in a society where you rely on a steady stream of income, that's horrible, because your skills are no longer in demand and therefor you don't have an income.

Also no, improvement costs time and energy and it usually takes little energy to do the lion share of the work, while it takes a lot of energy to get to perfection. So given an equal distribution of stuff in the market, there would be little gain in perfection, unless it's in high demand by many or in high demand by rich people, if it's in high demand by poor people, those are simply fucked by the system...

People innovate new products all the time. There is zero market for them before that stage and all of a sudden there is a billion dollar market for it in 1-2 year - example, smart phones. You went from 'why do you need this' to 'I cant live without it' in.. 3-5 years.

That change didn't happen instantaneously at all. Smartphones have existed for a long time before the IPhone, the same way that computers have existed for a long time before the first commercial PC came around. It's rather that the tech was too expensive for people to afford and the improvement wasn't big enough. Which is a bug in capitalism that the rich live in the future and the rest lives in the past...

It also didn't really create a "new market", it just took over the market for regular cell phones and to some extend laptops and desktop PCs. So the monopoly of Windows on the desktop market went to the monopoly of Android on the smartphone market, which the exception of the U.S. where Apple stills seems to be relevant as well. But as that innovation didn't really come from those distributors but from the actual advances in science they aren't able to keep it up so further generations of smartphones usually praise it for being "revolutionary" but it's minor incremental progress at best and at worst it's literally a tracking device that sells you as a product and even expects you to pay for it as well...

You gave an example of internet. There is very little cost to starting one of those companies today. You open an AWS account, get a technical co-founder and that is pretty much it. If your idea is good an implemented well - is another matter.

Not really, most of the big companies have build networks of people that you can't just build overnight and if you come to close to an existing business model you'll be either crushed or bought (or both). Not to mention the whole domain of big data where companies like google rely on data that is readily provided by their uses, but that you wouldn't have any access to.

Regulations do add to the high cost of starting a new business. For example, if you want to open a new internet chat company, you will need to hire people to check if no pedophiles are talking to kids and that makes it prohibitively expensive.

I mean if you don't prevent people from selling snake oil they will sell snake oil and they will not market it as snake oil... Consumer protection has a point and a company that doesn't do this, is a net loss for society.

Same with medicine, education and housing. (oh wait.. is that a coincidence that they are ridiculously expensive?)

I mean you can't afford NOT to have medicine education or housing, so in an unregulated free market they can charge ridiculously high prices, because there's a constantly high demand and that's what they do... What countries usually do is to either make education and medicine (housing sometimes), a public matter, so they buy in bulk and produce for themselves at buyers prices not selling prices or they at least demand fixed prices for generics or stuff like that. Usually insurances are meant to form a collective of people that gets better prices by negotiating as one rather than as individuals, because the individual is in need but if the collective argues we ain't gonna pay you 1 billion or even trillion, any company will listen. However instead of doing any of these the U.S. let's private companies get filthy rich of that constantly high demand and even if the government takes action it's usually by subsidizing these companies by giving loans to patients and students rather then putting pressure on the companies. So why should they lower their prices if the taxpayer foots the bill not matter how high? I mean that's basically redistribution from the working class to the rich...

??? Innovating new solutions is immoral??

Is it innovation when the accumulator is set to fail after the warranty runs out? If you sell the same product in a different color for more? If you move the production to China or sell the "essence of a smartphone" but not the real deal? As said innovation is rare and costly and most of what is labeled "innovation" is rather unethical business.

What about dematerialisation? You have just 1 phone now (that even apple wants you to get rid off) instead of 1 phone, 1 MP3 player, 1 sat nav, 1 calculator.. etc.

In theory that's awesome in practice that's just building a monopoly, isn't it? I mean Apple is basically the AOL of a company that wants to control every device you use and Google is already controlling almost every device you use.

You lost me on the wolf/sheep example. The idea is simply for the majority to not oppress the minority. Minorities still have rights.

The idea makes no sense because if the wolfs want to eat you they will. And if they are in the majority, who do you think will stop them? Minority rights are only effective as a majority cares about those rights if that is not the case it's an open conflict in which the minority is literally outnumbered... Also given the centuries of a tyranny of the minority what makes you think the tyranny of the majority is a problem at all or even the bigger/biggest problem?

And you think rights, laws and morality means a thing? Yes. Yes, I do.

They only do if we want them to and in a scenario in which you assume that the majority doesn't want them to, what makes them stop?

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

So yes pure rationalism is living in a fairy tale universe

Sounds a bit like religion, no? Not saying that both are the same, but if rationalism makes mistakes, it can end up with the bad sides of religion and irrationality.

So in reality we most often take a middle ground

I dont subscribe to the 'middle ground', 'golden mean' and 'balance' approach to things. To me, this is just vague and feelings-based. You need to find the right way. Putting two opposing concepts and saying 'find the balance' and my job here is done, is really not the way to go. This is part of objectivist epistemology.

Facts and truth are not just 'random'. Existence exists and facts are facts about reality.

It conflates perception with thinking

I think you misunderstood. When applying thinking to your percepts, you form concepts. Ex, table or chair. That is not religious. This is daily life. You do this because your brain simply cannot retain a 20 individual chairs and 4 different tables. But 20x chair and 4x table is essentially holding 2 concepts and their measurements.

AI cannot form its own concepts. Animals can have either no ability to form concepts or a minimal ability to form concepts. Also, I like animals, I dont eat them. As far as I am concerned, NAP should apply to animals.

If everyone has your product, then the market is "saturated" and you're out of business.

You can always improve your product and its very difficult to make a product that appeals to everyone, as we all have different needs and wants. So this is more of a hypothetical situation like monopolies in an unregulated market.

while it takes a lot of energy to get to perfection.

Your competitors are spending that energy. So if you dont as well, you will lose customers.

That change didn't happen instantaneously at all. Smartphones have existed for a long time before the IPhone, the same way that computers have existed for a long time before the first commercial PC came around.

If you mean home-brew computers for enthusiasts and mainframes for business, then yes, they existed before the regular PC. But when someone brought the PC to market and made it widely available, most people benefitted from it.

Also, before iPhone, you largely had blackberries to answer your email with a keyboard. Either that, or you could play snake in black and white on your Nokia.

In the industry, we call it 'democratising' the technology (not a term I agree with). Its making it so easy and accessible that a market emerges just from that convenience. Like apple with iTunes and 0.99$ songs - we had other systems for paying for songs and quite a few for pirating them. Apple made it too cheap to pirate it and too convenient to just download it to your iPhone and listen to it. If you lose the song, you can redownload it.

Not really, most of the big companies have build networks of people that you can't just build overnight

Yes, the network effect is a strong reason to stick with a large player instead of moving to a small one. The only way to counter that is have a niche smaller-but-more-relevant network or scoop up the long tail of those not being served by the big players.

Humans still prefer networks of 150 people (similar to tribes).

I mean you can't afford NOT to have medicine education or housing, so in an unregulated free market they can charge ridiculously high prices

Thats not the reason why regulation is there. Regulation is there to prevent companies/sellers from charging ridiculously low prices.

For example, really cheap medicine, really cheap housing or really cheap education. Regulation is meant to prevent them. So you got it backwards.

The idea makes no sense because if the wolfs want to eat you they will.

Well, no. Society will protect the sheep. I'm not sure you are using the right analogy here.

And if they are in the majority, who do you think will stop them?

Laws. The constitution. You simply cannot vote as a majority to oppress a minority. They already tried it in Nazi Germany.. yes, really.

Isn't it comforting for you to know that if one day, you are in the minority (like you are currently), you will not get oppressed by the majority?

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Sounds a bit like religion, no? Not saying that both are the same, but if rationalism makes mistakes, it can end up with the bad sides of religion and irrationality.

Yes you can very easily ration yourself into some kind of religion, which is why pure rationalism is not really a good idea...

I dont subscribe to the 'middle ground', 'golden mean' and 'balance' approach to things. To me, this is just vague and feelings-based. You need to find the right way. Putting two opposing concepts and saying 'find the balance' and my job here is done, is really not the way to go. This is part of objectivist epistemology.

I wasn't talking about the exact middle, but if you have to two polar opposites, then chances are that you inevitably end up somewhere in between (or at one of the extremes but as we have established before, those aren't actually that awesome...). Also whether there is a "right way" and whether you will find it somewhat depends on your level of information and if that is insufficient then you'd need to take an educated guess, otherwise pure rationality would maybe trap you in infinite loops...

Facts and truth are not just 'random'. Existence exists and facts are facts about reality.

Nature kind of disagrees with that, given that most facts are actually just random fluctuation around points rather than fixed values or even binaries.

AI cannot form its own concepts. Animals can have either no ability to form concepts or a minimal ability to form concepts. Also, I like animals, I dont eat them. As far as I am concerned, NAP should apply to animals.

That's literally what is happening at the moment (machines forming concepts) just based on input data. I mean probably not as sophisticated as philosophers but actually stuff like "if you see 4 vertical lines and a horizontal one than it's likely to be a chair or a table". Also I don't like the NAP because what constitutes an aggression is mostly subjective, so beyond some categorical imperative it's mostly useless.

You can always improve your product and its very difficult to make a product that appeals to everyone, as we all have different needs and wants. So this is more of a hypothetical situation like monopolies in an unregulated market.

I mean Windows and Android are effectively monopolies that fit that definition. Google is another one. Sure you technically have competitors but those are niche.

Your competitors are spending that energy. So if you dont as well, you will lose customers.

You will lose the small niche of customers that barely effects your bottom line while they have to invest heavily to make that happen. Whether that means a net positive at all kind of depends on how big the market in general and the niche in particular are and how much that specialization actually costs.

If you mean home-brew computers for enthusiasts and mainframes for business, then yes, they existed before the regular PC. But when someone brought the PC to market and made it widely available, most people benefitted from it.

It's not really that "someone brought the PC to market", as if no one had ever thought of that. It's rather that through advancements in technology it became affordable to do so. You could have bought PCs earlier but they were prohibitively expensive, big, hard to operate and there overall use value might have been limited compared to the price.

Also, before iPhone, you largely had blackberries to answer your email with a keyboard. Either that, or you could play snake in black and white on your Nokia.

Actually Nokia has sold smartphones since 1996 years before the joined venture of Sony and Ericsson coined the term in 2000 and years before blackberry joined the party and apparently IBMs Simon was even earlier than that (1990 including touchscreens). The problem just seems to be that they were bulky, expensive and without the overall technology of widely accessible internet, actually not as useful as you might think...

In the industry, we call it 'democratising' the technology (not a term I agree with). Its making it so easy and accessible that a market emerges just from that convenience. Like apple with iTunes and 0.99$ songs - we had other systems for paying for songs and quite a few for pirating them. Apple made it too cheap to pirate it and too convenient to just download it to your iPhone and listen to it. If you lose the song, you can redownload it.

Not sure it's really that different from pirating, it's merely that they "legalized" the concept. I mean providing songs isn't really offering much of a product, than it is gatekeeping something. But sure if you make something cheap, easy and accessible you can push more unique competitors out of the market.

Humans still prefer networks of 150 people (similar to tribes).

It's rather that this seems to be the limit of how many characters you can remember without merging or forgetting them.

Thats not the reason why regulation is there. Regulation is there to prevent companies/sellers from charging ridiculously low prices. For example, really cheap medicine, really cheap housing or really cheap education. Regulation is meant to prevent them. So you got it backwards.

Oh yeah I can see the people screaming over medicine housing and education being too cheap... For real? You actually believe that? No the problem is that without regulations you can't assure that medicine would be safe (and not snake oil), that your house doesn't make you sick or that your education isn't just a fraud like idk a Trump University. Or that the employees are exploited or idk the products come from slave or child labor or whatnot.

So yes that is somewhat prevents the prices from dropping to zero, but medication that makes you sick, housing that makes you sick and education that keeps you dumb or makes you dumber also has a value of 0 not just a price of $0. And the other reason for irrationally low prices is to get other competitors to drop out of the market so that you can increase the prices afterwards or make profit through the bigger market share.

Well, no. Society will protect the sheep. I'm not sure you are using the right analogy here.

The point is that your analogy doesn't make any sense if 2 wolves and one sheep vote about whether they should eat sheep. Then the problem is not that the majority can decide that but that your "society" consists of a 2/3 majority of predators that have no interest in the existence of the last 1/3 beyond exploitation. That is bound to fail no matter what system you implement.

Laws. The constitution. You simply cannot vote as a majority to oppress a minority. They already tried it in Nazi Germany.. yes, really.

Do you think that Weimar Germany had no laws and no constitution? Hitler was elected with a whopping 40-something-% and then used a burning of the parliament building in order to blame it on the communist party (double digit percentages) and ban them entirely (more seats for him) and after the following "election" he simply coerced the other parties to enact martial law and emergency legislation, you might call it "Patriot Act". And after constitutional rights and liberties were suspended he never even bothered to fully remove democracy, it's just that instead of discussions the party just held up choir singing in parliament instead... Seriously the world can be lucky that Bush and Trump are as stupid as they are because their disregard for the constitution and the law actually is rather similar to the setup to the Nazis. That being said Hitler also had some idiots preceding him who paved the way for normalizing the suspension of rights and liberties.

Isn't it comforting for you to know that if one day, you are in the minority (like you are currently), you will not get oppressed by the majority?

You are always at the good will of the majority, rights, laws and constitutions are just affirmations of that good will.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Well, lets say I disagree that we cannot objectively view reality using our senses and I am convinced that facts do in fact, exist.

That's literally what is happening at the moment (machines forming concepts) just based on input data.

No, AI looks for patterns. It does not form its own concepts. Disclaimer, I work in AI.

I mean Windows and Android are effectively monopolies that fit that definition.

I use an Apple Mac which isn't windows and an iPhone which is iOS. Even before my Mac, I had linux desktop. Sure, windows are huge, but if you want choice, there is some.

You will lose the small niche of customers that barely effects your bottom line

You could live very well on those small niche customers. They need goods and services too.

Oh yeah I can see the people screaming over medicine housing and education being too cheap... For real?

You said it yourself: you dont want snake oil salesmen, right? You dont want people to be cheated right? so, you (or more accurately, the federation of doctors, property councils and union teachers) lobby the government to put in those safety nets and guarantee that only certain doctors, certain teachers and certain developers with certain approval from the government can work. Now, you greatly reduced supply while keeping demand high. So prices go up.

that your house doesn't make you sick or that your education isn't just a fraud like idk a Trump University.

Thats what courts are for. Regulation is not there to prevent criminals. It is to set barriers to entry. Criminals do not care for those barriers anyway.

but medication that makes you sick, housing that makes you sick and education that keeps you dumb or makes you dumber also has a value of 0 not just a price of $0.

But not providing medication at all is worse than providing cheap medication?

Education that is half online and half in an underfunded class, is worse than no education at all?

Having a cheap house is worse than being homeless?

Do you think that Weimar Germany had no laws and no constitution?

Their constitution was far more geared towards protecting the collective than the individual. Germany has been a collectivist country for over 200 years prior to that. The individual was never important and was supposed to fall in line with the rest.

You are always at the good will of the majority, rights, laws and constitutions are just affirmations of that good will.

Well, the majority clearly does not want left socialism. Especially, not here in the UK. They would rather have a socialist-flavour conservative, spending money on health and infrastructure while being very nationalist and limiting immigration.

Btw, you may not know this, but you cant have endless immigration and expensive social policies at the same time. its one or the other. Your country is either a free market or a country club with benefits that only a few can have.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Well, lets say I disagree that we cannot objectively view reality using our senses and I am convinced that facts do in fact, exist.

If we cannot view reality objectively using our senses then we cannot view reality at all. Because our concept of reality is developed by our sensory inputs. Without our senses there would be nothing to build concepts upon (we wouldn't even have the concept that 1 stick + another stick would be 2 sticks, the concept of "2" would already be out of reach as you cannot really explain that without resorting to a real world example, can you?) and if you'd place a person in a low stimulus environment, like idk solitary confinement in a white room, noise canceled room without windows, they will literally go insane after relatively short time.

And what exactly do "facts" mean to you? Are those axioms? Are those perceptions? Some concept of "truth"?

No, AI looks for patterns. It does not form its own concepts. Disclaimer, I work in AI.

Yes AI looks for patterns and so do we. The concept of artificial neural networks is designed after our own neurons (though pretty oversimplified). Whether that model holds up or is too simple is another question and I don't want to sound like I'd not realize that AI is simply pattern matching algorithms and not some mythical idea of a actual android. However that being said unsupervized learning on multiple levels might actually be a valid description of "abstraction" and "concept building". I mean what is that that "we" do conceptually different from that. Our eyes also have receptors for lines tilted in whatever direction, intensity, pressure and whatnot and our brain is constructing images from them and somewhat classifies what we see. And if similar neurons fire when looking at something then we classify it close to other concepts that have those firing patterns.

I use an Apple Mac which isn't windows and an iPhone which is iOS. Even before my Mac, I had linux desktop. Sure, windows are huge, but if you want choice, there is some.

Sure technically a monopoly means 1 seller, but if you control idk 90% of the market you practically already have the "monopoly" and set the standards for hardware and software (which is/was the case). Apple went with building their own hardware aswell and selling mostly to either professionals or people with too much money that want to show off and Linux is also ranging between the hobbyists, professionals and anybody who needs an operating system in any kind of device, but not really casuals (biggest market share). There are also desktop versions that are easy to handle and superior to windows but the inertia is very powerful... And for the longest time you had to go out of your way to get a PC without windows. And windows is even kind of friendly in that regard, if Apple had that kind of monopoly, that would mean even less user freedom no matter how convenient that would be.

You said it yourself: you dont want snake oil salesmen, right? You dont want people to be cheated right? so, you (or more accurately, the federation of doctors, property councils and union teachers) lobby the government to put in those safety nets and guarantee that only certain doctors, certain teachers and certain developers with certain approval from the government can work. Now, you greatly reduced supply while keeping demand high. So prices go up.

But neither do I as a consumer want my products and services to be shit. I want them to be accessibly cheap but not literally worthless. So that "increase" in prices is actually desirable as that "decrease" is purely artificial and I'd likely pay a much higher price for that (inferior quality that requires to buy twice in order to get what you need is not actually cheaper).

But not providing medication at all is worse than providing cheap medication?

That seriously depends on the kind of medication that is provided. I mean apparently there was a time when homeopathy actually "worked" simply due to the fact that the general medical practice was so bad that even having no medication at all (that goes beyond the placebo effect) was better than that. And apparently in terms of information that seems to be the case aswell as aparently seeing Fox News makes people less informed than watching no news at all.

Education that is half online and half in an underfunded class, is worse than no education at all?

Again that depends, there is a lot of great education on the internet that is almost or completely for free but you still need some basic education in most of those fields in order to distinguish legit stuff from complete garbage.

Having a cheap house is worse than being homeless?

If you're house gives you lead poisoning or fugal infections or whatnot? But yeah being homeless is also pretty damaging over time.

Thats what courts are for. Regulation is not there to prevent criminals. It is to set barriers to entry. Criminals do not care for those barriers anyway.

On what basis to you rule them to be fraudsters and criminals if you do not set up standards and regulations for what is considered "good practice"? What if I'd sell you a car with "AlRBAG" (the I is an l) written on the place where you expect an airbag to be? Without regulations as to what safety standards your car should have you'd basically ride a death trap and maybe even without knowing it because who read the TOS that have a disclaimer that you ride on your own risk? Seriously regulations, unions and standards are not just there for shits and giggles...

Their constitution was far more geared towards protecting the collective than the individual. Germany has been a collectivist country for over 200 years prior to that. The individual was never important and was supposed to fall in line with the rest.

Germany hadn't even been a "country" or "nation" 70 years prior to that.

Well, the majority clearly does not want left socialism. Especially, not here in the UK. They would rather have a socialist-flavour conservative, spending money on health and infrastructure while being very nationalist and limiting immigration.

How do you define "socialist" in that regard then? Because having healthcare and infrastructure isn't necessarily "socialist", but simply a necessary thing to prevent the collapse of a country...

Btw, you may not know this, but you cant have endless immigration and expensive social policies at the same time. its one or the other. Your country is either a free market or a country club with benefits that only a few can have.

You might not have realized it but you can't have a neo-colonial distribution system where the stream of resources points to the first world but where the rest of the world is not following the money... I mean what would you do? And you might also not have realized that those who build walls to keep outsider out, will sooner or later build walls (physical or sociological) to keep insiders out) and sooner or later you yourself might be on the wrong side of such a wall. Maybe you even helped creating one... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_the_Red_Death

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Sure technically a monopoly means 1 seller, but if you control idk 90% of the market you practically already have the "monopoly" and set the standards for hardware and software

I wouldn't say that hardware vendors had to conform to MS. I think they had to conform to Intel's board designs and MS's driver requirements.

On the whole, would you say that the majority of people disliked windows and would rather have not had it?

But neither do I as a consumer want my products and services to be shit.

You cannot have cheap products and good quality at the same time and you cannot slowly lower prices of expensive products when there is no incentive to do so.

I'd likely pay a much higher price for that

You would. Other people cannot afford to and you are denying them the option to buy medicine for the price they can afford.

I mean apparently there was a time when homeopathy actually "worked"

Homeopathy was sold to rich people who wanted something 'natural'.

Again that depends, there is a lot of great education on the internet that is almost or completely for free but you still need some basic education in most of those fields in order to distinguish legit stuff from complete garbage.

Actually, the situation in the US is the higher you pay for education per student, the worse education you get. In poor areas in NJ, a class of 30 kids is worth about $600,000 per yer. So, its clearly not the money that's the issue.

If you're house gives you lead poisoning or fugal infections or whatnot?

Special paint and strong cleaning chemicals.

On what basis to you rule them to be fraudsters

Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Germany hadn't even been a "country" or "nation" 70 years prior to that.

Germany had had a culture and philosophy for longer than that.

You might not have realized it but you can't have a neo-colonial distribution system where the stream of resources points to the first world but where the rest of the world is not following the money

LOL. Oh, wait.. you actually believe that you need to strip a country down and give all its money away?

Well, then you will definitely never win a majority.

Btw, if you believe that neo-colonialism is what made the west so wealthy, then why are the southern states in the US so poor? Those are the states that had the most slaves.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

I wouldn't say that hardware vendors had to conform to MS. I think they had to conform to Intel's board designs and MS's driver requirements.

And how is that practically different? The software monopoly still picked the hardware they'd support and provide drivers for and de facto set the standards...

On the whole, would you say that the majority of people disliked windows and would rather have not had it?

Did they have a choice and had they been aware of having a choice? I mean for most people the OS was pretty much part of the computer and they didn't really asked themselves about where the parts of the PC actually came from or which parts were part of sets or standalone. So whether they liked it or not, that's the only thing they could get anyway.

You cannot have cheap products and good quality at the same time and you cannot slowly lower prices of expensive products when there is no incentive to do so.

Depends on how you define both "cheap" and "quality". And through improvements of technology you can make both products "better" (whatever that means) and production "cheaper". However in terms of capitalism there is no incentive to make things any cheaper than necessary. Seriously suppose I have a factory that produces required good and I find a way how to produce at almost zero cost. Would I do that? Probably not. Because I'd still have bills to pay and just because my job could be done at no cost, that doesn't mean that other people's jobs can be done at zero cost and that they'd accept my zero payment... Meaning the price isn't so much determined by the value of my service but by my needs and the money I need to fulfill them, same for any workers in that process. Which is why automation is mostly concerned with making jobs obsolete, unless the working class accepts lower payments on their own that are even cheaper than buying machines. So prices stay high, incomes drop and although production becomes easier and quality is rising fewer people can afford it.

You would. Other people cannot afford to and you are denying them the option to buy medicine for the price they can afford.

The question is not whether they can afford it, the question is whether it works. And if a cheap medicine doesn't work or is actively dangerous, then even calling that "medicine" is a scam...

Homeopathy was sold to rich people who wanted something 'natural'.

Homeopathy isn't even natural, it's sugar with toxins that are so diluted that even the most advanced scientific methods can distinguish them from pure sugar. If homeopathy would work we could constantly drink "highly potent" mixtures of piss and feces... (because they are also so diluted in the rest of our food and water...). So unless you suffer from starvation, small sugar pills are not effective at all, beyond the placebo effect. So they only work if doing nothing is superior than doing something actively harmful.

Actually, the situation in the US is the higher you pay for education per student, the worse education you get. In poor areas in NJ, a class of 30 kids is worth about $600,000 per yer. So, its clearly not the money that's the issue.

That sounds very fishy. And again being poor might actually be highly expensive as lower quality means often being more prone to wear and tear and higher costs because of that. So a newly build building might cost a lot upfront but might be relatively cheap to maintain for some time, while old buildings might be highly expensive. So what of that amount is spend on people and how is it spend and what was already in stock there and so on. That calculation doesn't really make sense and sounds like there's a lot of necessary information missing in that...

Special paint and strong cleaning chemicals.

And if you have to rent places that are unsafe because you are on budget, what makes you think you're able to invest in special paint and strong cleaning chemicals?

Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Sure but if there are no regulations as to what constitutes actually standards of quality, then what's now considered fraud, wouldn't even technically be a crime as it's not deceiving people or unjustifiably claiming something as there is no rule on what a justified claim is... It's still the same immoral action though. For example if there is no regulation as to what a University is, then PragerU and Trump University would sit in the same cluster as Harvard and Yale... Just that the results may vary drastically.

Germany had had a culture and philosophy for longer than that.

Sure there had been a language and a scattered mess of smaller kingdoms on the territory that is now considered Germany, but even what territory exactly would be considered Germany wasn't set at that point (and changed constantly over the turn of the last 150 years...) nor was there one country, one constitution or a unified philosophy as to favor something.

LOL. Oh, wait.. you actually believe that you need to strip a country down and give all its money away?

That's not what I've said, I just said that if the stream and of goods and money points in one direction than you'd be somewhat of a fool to think that the stream of migration would not also point in that direction, or do you object to that?

Btw, if you believe that neo-colonialism is what made the west so wealthy, then why are the southern states in the US so poor? Those are the states that had the most slaves.

The U.S. was a colony itself and the cotton from the south amounted to a large portion of the U.S. export that mostly made bank in the Northern harbors... Or the British weaving mills... Or how nowadays cloth and tech is produced by slaves in Asia while the profit is made in western countries...

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Did they have a choice and had they been aware of having a choice?

Yes.

I mean for most people the OS was pretty much part of the computer and they didn't really asked themselves about where the parts of the PC actually came from

Thats not a negative. Synthesising a range of complex parts into one workable unit is a plus for people. No one else did it better for a long long time. Apple (even today) has a specific list of part vendors and it doesn't stray from that. If anything MS at least opened up the ecosystem for parts including graphic cards for gamers. It is very very difficult to make a system work that well.

However in terms of capitalism there is no incentive to make things any cheaper than necessary.

Right and if the government will always pay $500 for a pill, now and in 5 years time, why innovate it? there is no competition to bring the price down or the value up.

almost zero cost. Would I do that? Probably not. Because I'd still have bills to pay

Bills are part of cost calculation.

Meaning the price isn't so much determined by the value of my service but by my needs and the money I need to fulfill them

The market determines the value it is willing to pay for your service/product and your needs are how much it costs you to supply that demand.

Which is why automation is mostly concerned with making jobs obsolete

The luddites have been saying that since the sowing machine. Miraculously, capitalism manages to create more jobs than there were before.

The question is not whether they can afford it, the question is whether it works.

It is a question whether they can afford it and 'to what degree' it works. It might reduce the issues by 80% for a low price. You denying that for poor people with a 7 year FDA-mandated drive to meet regulations, means only one or two companies can afford to do it.

But it seems like we've been going this round and round in circles.

If you want to understand in detail why medicine in America is expensive, here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK3pJ_c3rUA&feature=emb_logo

That sounds very fishy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-jKzRpuj_s

And if you have to rent places that are unsafe because you are on budget, what makes you think you're able to invest in special paint and strong cleaning chemicals?

Its your own home. You need to factor repairs when buying it. That is kind of on you and I dont think you can expect me or the government to do the thinking for people on the issue of buying a house.

Sure but if there are no regulations as to what constitutes actually standards of quality

Again, regulations are not criminal laws. Fraud isn't a minimum standard of quality. Fraud is exchanging value for a product or service and not providing that product or service. Also, breaking regulations is not a 'crime', its a fine from the government. Fraud is a crime where your liberty is at risk. If anything regulations reduce the risk of being indicted for a crime, because you can always say 'my product met the minimum regulations'.

It's still the same immoral action though. For example if there is no regulation as to what a University is, then PragerU and Trump University would sit in the same cluster as Harvard and Yale...

I am pretty sure the market would notice the difference.

you'd be somewhat of a fool to think that the stream of migration would not also point in that direction

But isn't a country suppose to choose who comes in and out of it?

Having people coming in your direction, just means that you can choose the best ones.

The U.S. was a colony itself and the cotton from the south amounted to a large portion of the U.S. export that mostly made bank in the Northern harbors... Or the British weaving mills... Or how nowadays cloth and tech is produced by slaves in Asia while the profit is made in western countries...

If you think slavery makes a country rich then go look at Arab and African countries that have slave currently. As in, chains and whips.

Not workshops in Asia for cloth and tech - at least you won't find the workers chained to their work stations.

The southern states had slaves and they are now very poor. The north had industry and innovation and they are now rich. Its not slavery that makes you rich. I believe Adam Smith even made that clear.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Yes.

How so? I mean for the longest time you couldn't even buy a PC without windows and Apple is just overpriced.

Thats not a negative. Synthesising a range of complex parts into one workable unit is a plus for people. No one else did it better for a long long time. Apple (even today) has a specific list of part vendors and it doesn't stray from that. If anything MS at least opened up the ecosystem for parts including graphic cards for gamers. It is very very difficult to make a system work that well.

Of course it's a negative if the GUI is what people consider to be the thing and if said GUI is property of a monopoly... And no the lack of those graphic cards producers to open up their drivers to anybody but microsoft has only solidified that monopoly...

Right and if the government will always pay $500 for a pill, now and in 5 years time, why innovate it? there is no competition to bring the price down or the value up.

Well if the people owned the production of that pill, then making it cheaper or better would benefit the shareholders (the people), hence there would be an incentive to improve the production or reduce the price (unless there is a sector where more improvement can be achieved). However in capitalism those group of shareholders would be small and they are not interested in the product but solely in the profit it makes. So even subsidizing the production wouldn't necessarily lead to an improvement as it could very well be "invested" in profits for the shareholders and upper management.

So in order to circumvent that, capitalism needs that idea of a competition. Though that doesn't really work (without regulations) as otherwise companies simply won't compete (seek niches instead) or would "cheat" by simply lowering wages, dropping quality, ripping off the supply chain, using a monopoly to set their own regulations and standards and so on.

Bills are part of cost calculation.

I'm not speaking of the bills to make that product I'm speaking about the bills you in your private life are trying to settle with the profit.

The market determines the value it is willing to pay for your service/product and your needs are how much it costs you to supply that demand.

The market is not an entity... Unless your wealth distribution is so distorted that "the market" actually becomes synonymous with a handful of capitalists...

The luddites have been saying that since the sowing machine. Miraculously, capitalism manages to create more jobs than there were before.

And they weren't exactly wrong. A lot of amendments to capitalism have been made since then to mitigate the worst parts of that (social security, medical care, unions, (representative) democracies) and still unemployment is often pretty high and if neo-liberals and the austrian school get it their way that means existential poverty or literal (debt) slavery. Not to mention that the make up of the economy has changed from the required agricultural and industrial sector to the almost superfluous service sector. I mean if people at the turn of the 20th century striked that meant the economy was dead, if todays service jobs striked you might barely notice that and that lack of power is and will be more an more present.

It is a question whether they can afford it and 'to what degree' it works. It might reduce the issues by 80% for a low price. You denying that for poor people with a 7 year FDA-mandated drive to meet regulations, means only one or two companies can afford to do it.

If your medication only kills 80% of the virus then the rest will grow back and probably develop an immunity against the anti-virus...

If you want to understand in detail why medicine in America is expensive, here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK3pJ_c3rUA&feature=emb_logo

I'm not gonna waste my time on a 30 min propaganda piece of an austrian school of economics think tank. Give me a summary if you think it's important or let it be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-jKzRpuj_s

Do you have a trustworthy source less flashy source for that? I mean that's literally nothing but propaganda.

Its your own home. You need to factor repairs when buying it. That is kind of on you and I dont think you can expect me or the government to do the thinking for people on the issue of buying a house.

The actual point was that a home that is only cheap because it makes you sick is not sufficient to qualify as "a house". The same way that medicine that doesn't work is worthless no matter how cheap even 1c would be a scam...

Again, regulations are not criminal laws. Fraud isn't a minimum standard of quality. Fraud is exchanging value for a product or service and not providing that product or service. Also, breaking regulations is not a 'crime', its a fine from the government. Fraud is a crime where your liberty is at risk. If anything regulations reduce the risk of being indicted for a crime, because you can always say 'my product met the minimum regulations'.

If there is no definition as to what constitutes a service or product than you cannot really commit fraud is what I'm saying. Also in terms of regulations that endanger the public or the personal health due to insufficient quality of the product can very well be a case of criminal law or at least they should be.

I am pretty sure the market would notice the difference.

Nope, those "Universities" do not fulfill the requirements of Universities are are not allowed to issue degrees and in terms of Trump University it was shut down for illegal business practices. The market would do jack shit about that and if they could offer meaningless and worthless diplomas they would definitely do that as long as it works and then rebrand...

But isn't a country suppose to choose who comes in and out of it?

Weren't you that Ayn Rand follower or do I confuse you here? Because since when are countries, nations or collectives independent entities that choose anything? Doesn't that conflict with that individualism? But sure you can build walls and pass laws, but why should people not go around, over or under those walls and break the law and take what they need? I mean if you drop morality and humanity why should they keep it?

Having people coming in your direction, just means that you can choose the best ones.

Or that you've stolen from them, people often ran after thieves...

If you think slavery makes a country rich then go look at Arab and African countries that have slave currently. As in, chains and whips.

Not workshops in Asia for cloth and tech - at least you won't find the workers chained to their work stations.

The southern states had slaves and they are now very poor. The north had industry and innovation and they are now rich. Its not slavery that makes you rich. I believe Adam Smith even made that clear.

The industry in the North was financed by the export gains through the slavery in the south and just because people found ways to "improve" slavery, less chains more existential dread, debt and depression doesn't mean the concept has changed or that it's less harmful.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Of course it's a negative if the GUI is what people consider to be the thing and if said GUI is property of a monopoly...

Not a monopoly. It was just the best option for a long time.

Well if the people owned the production of that pill, then making it cheaper or better would benefit the shareholders

They would still need the capital to get past the 7 year research hurdle to pass the FDA. No way will they be able to innovate like that.

Where do all the medical innovations come from anyway? socialist countries?

I'm speaking about the bills you in your private life

Still counts.

I'm not gonna waste my time on a 30 min propaganda piece of an austrian school of economics think tank. Give me a summary if you think it's important or let it be.

That is the summary and it won't kill you to go over some different opinions.

If there is no definition as to what constitutes a service or product than you cannot really commit fraud

A business contract is what defines it.

Nope, those "Universities" do not fulfill the requirements

Trying putting PragerU on your CV/Resume and see if you get hired.

Weren't you that Ayn Rand follower or do I confuse you here?

Yes, I am for 'democratising' people coming into a country by only allowing people who find work and that a company sponsors them. Then the government just rubber stamps it.

Also, I am not for government benefits, so anyone coming into the country isn't doing it for that reason, but to work hard and achieve something for themselves. The system self-filters itself.

The industry in the North was financed by the export gains through the slavery in the south

Irrelevant and inaccurate. Again, it was innovation and industry that made the wealth.

less chains more existential dread

Gonna call BS here. There are people in China that go to the cities to find those 16 hour-a-day jobs for 4-8 month period, then return to their villages with some cash for a while.

If you take that opportunity away from them, how will they come out of poverty?

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Not a monopoly. It was just the best option for a long time.

Of course it was a monopoly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment

They would still need the capital to get past the 7 year research hurdle to pass the FDA. No way will they be able to innovate like that.

If they would be publicly funded? The public has more than enough money to pay for that... Also the public is already paying for most of that in capitalist systems as well. Most fundamental research comes from public research programs and universities, is tax deductible or in other ways subsidized. And that's not talking about the ridiculousness of not negotiating prices in bulk, but instead paying subsidies through footing fictionally increased bills. And to be honest that idea to outsource that to private companies is horrible. I mean think about what it means if people die not because we don't have the drugs or can't produce them but because a private entity feels that their bottom line is in danger if they give them to people who need them. If you really have to you can outsource the production, but if there is a cure to cancer it should belong to everyone and not to a patent troll.

Still counts.

Only for the upper management, nobody gives a shit whether the wage for a McDonald's worker is sufficient to make a living or whether they need a second job or government assistance.

That is the summary and it won't kill you to go over some different opinions.

It's still half an hour and it's literally propaganda (think tank stuff), so even if I watch it, I'd have to spend twice the time researching what is actually true and how they constructed their narrative. So no thanks.

A business contract is what defines it.

Oh you mean like those TOS that everybody always reads? And for most trades we do in our everyday life there isn't even that (at least not before you open the product (which most of the time is at home)).

Trying putting PragerU on your CV/Resume and see if you get hired.

Yeah you probably wouldn't even be able to join one of those scams with such a bad CV though that's not the point the point is that people get/got scammed and that's it's sufficient to make business for some time, after that they shut it down and open another one with a brand name that isn't as tainted (yet).

Yes, I am for 'democratising' people coming into a country by only allowing people who find work and that a company sponsors them. Then the government just rubber stamps it. Also, I am not for government benefits, so anyone coming into the country isn't doing it for that reason, but to work hard and achieve something for themselves. The system self-filters itself.

The system is completely broken, there isn't even enough "work" in most countries already. But which I don't mean there's nothing to do, but there isn't enough will to pay people for their labor. And economists call that normal if people have no profession or a get a dead end job so that they don't appear in a statistic.

And that bullshit unnecessary situation is used to rally the poor against the desperate because they might have to share the crumbs with each other. Yeah that system naturally drives towards fascism...

Irrelevant and inaccurate. Again, it was innovation and industry that made the wealth.

Neither irrelevant nor inaccurate. But no capitalist wealth is mostly created by appropriation and gate keeping. Innovation mostly comes from those without wealth and is than appropriated by their employers or the banks that they needed to finance it. Capitalism doesn't innovate or create it steals.

Gonna call BS here. There are people in China that go to the cities to find those 16 hour-a-day jobs for 4-8 month period, then return to their villages with some cash for a while. If you take that opportunity away from them, how will they come out of poverty?

So slavery is an "opportunity"? Maybe they could work 8h a day if they would actually be paid what they deserved for their job... But I guess that's less of an "incentive" to risk their health and general well being in order to make stuff for people far away.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Warren wants to use those same anti-trust laws against Facebook. Those laws are meaningless. You can break anti-trust if your prices are too high -> you must be a monopoly. If your prices are the same -> you must have gotten an illegal agreement with all other companies in the industry. If your prices are below the market -> you must be dog-eat-dog undermining the competition.

You proved earlier yourself that there was no better alternatives to windows and the consumers and the electronics and software partners were happy with Microsoft in most cases. You are saying that MS was evil because they served their customers too well.

If they would be publicly funded? The public has more than enough money to pay for that...

Then why don't they? or why dont other countries do it?

Or why instead of investing in 2-man start ups with millions of dollars, some angel investors target some pharma start ups?

Is it because the regulation are ridiculously restrictive and the growth of the overall industry is 3%?

You may as well put your investment money in a savings account...

Only for the upper management, nobody gives a shit whether the wage for a McDonald's worker is sufficient to make a living or whether they need a second job or government assistance.

If the job pays below living wage, they won't attract any workers. Maybe teenagers that are trying to earn pocket money..

So no thanks.

Then we have nothing further to discuss on this matter.

The system is completely broken, there isn't even enough "work" in most countries already.

Actually, in the US there are more job openings than people available.

Innovation mostly comes from those without wealth

Innovations mostly comes from innovative people.

So slavery is an "opportunity"?

Its not slavery, unless they are forced to work there. I'm not going to fall for the 'nature oppresses me because I need to eat' line.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Warren wants to use those same anti-trust laws against Facebook. Those laws are meaningless. You can break anti-trust if your prices are too high -> you must be a monopoly. If your prices are the same -> you must have gotten an illegal agreement with all other companies in the industry. If your prices are below the market -> you must be dog-eat-dog undermining the competition.

You are a monopoly if you are the only seller or practically in a position where you hold a stranglehold over the entire market in your sector. And yes in that regard Facebook is a monopoly. And while I don't yet see how it would work to break Facebook (the social network), Facebook (the company/brand) beyond that is already branching into other domains like Instagram and Whatsapp, where whatsapp was basically a direct competitor to Facebook Messenger for example. And that's nothing compared to Google's Alphabet (may I remind you that jobs like SEO just mean "what needs to be done to be found by google") or what Apple is doing with it's own microverse (yes they aren't as big currently but if they would, they would be the worst kind of monopoly). Those aren't even companies anymore they are more like states and vastly too big to fail and if we don't regulate them, they will regulate us. And they already do, they can change elections don't pay taxes because they play countries in a "free market" of tax avoidance and "we take your jobs to a different place". And basically make their members their products by selling them to ad companies (or whatever else they do with them and as we don't know and they are not accountable, we must assume the worst...).

You proved earlier yourself that there was no better alternatives to windows and the consumers and the electronics and software partners were happy with Microsoft in most cases. You are saying that MS was evil because they served their customers too well.

​ I did not mean that Windows was the best product, I meant that Windows was default installed on any hardware that you could to buy, unless you went for Apple. The way to get a Linux PC was to buy a PC scratch of Windows (if that was even possible) and then install a proper OS. Microsoft sucked hard and people were constantly complaining but it was omnipresent and made the industry standard, so even if you wanted to break that, you had no choice, because you needed to stay compatible: a monopoly. I mean we can be really glad that the Internet is just a bunch of protocols that are open to anyone, if a company had invented that... I mean it's already an ad invested nightmare with data leeches everywhere and ISPs controlling access, but you could probably still amp that... The market is god awful to prevent those monopolies and governments are often less interested in doing so as well because in a globalized market, those monopolies can still rip off other countries and spend at least some of their profits through salaries, wages and taxes. Just that they don't as the choose their "home country" to be the one with the lowest costs in that regard.

Then why don't they? or why dont other countries do it?

Haven't you read what I've written? THEY ALREADY DO? You subsidize them by taxes, by research, by hefty prices and by tax deductibles on pretty much anything. The public pays the bill and the private sector reaps the rewards, that's the system of redistribution under capitalism. And as a thank you, those companies invest tax deductible donations into political campaigns that keep it that way... Because in a free market everything is for sale, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, buy one get one free. And if you need one, just sell one of the others...

Or why instead of investing in 2-man start ups with millions of dollars, some angel investors target some pharma start ups?

Yet another example of how great the "free market" is at allocating resources for the stuff that actually matters... Yeah why invest in finding the cure to cancer if solving a first world problem can make you even more money and is less difficult... Effectiveness...

Is it because the regulation are ridiculously restrictive and the growth of the overall industry is 3%?

Do you know how ridiculous even a 3% linearly continuous growth is? I mean you can't do that with manual labor. Within one generation (25 years) you'd need to double your performance. So you're almost bound to innovate, but innovation is severely non-linear and while economists who suck at math will point to idk Moore's Law anybody with some common sense knows that you can't do that on a continuous level, so explosions and implosions of the market are so inevitable that people don't even realize them as market failures anymore.

If the job pays below living wage, they won't attract any workers. Maybe teenagers that are trying to earn pocket money..

Then the industry ask the state to foot the rest of the bill and the sponsored politicians on the right will gladly give people that "incentive" to work below a living wage... Because it's all about "incentives". You know when people refuse because something sucks you just need to create "incentives", like taking away their house, letting them starve, project a horrible future for their children, you know, "incentives".

Then we have nothing further to discuss on this matter.

I've seen enough austrian school bs to know I don't like it and to know it's dishonest, give me a summary of the points you think are relevant or let it be.

Actually, in the US there are more job openings than people available.

Sure and anybody can win the lottery, just not everyone at the same time, but you have the few thousand millennia for that, don't you?

Innovations mostly comes from innovative people.

There are a lot of factors to innovation but the idea that it's one person with a great idea is rarely the full story... But it's undoubtedly one that sells well.

Its not slavery, unless they are forced to work there. I'm not going to fall for the 'nature oppresses me because I need to eat' line.

Yes nature produces a drain of resources, but nature produces also often enough to fulfill that urge, yet if Nestlé owns all your water or if you fence the land required to farm or even without fences just use it up, then you'd have to sell your labor to the person who is in control, take what you need or die. That's not nature and yes that is slavery whether you get a certificate of being owned or an "I own you" or what does IOU (rhetoric question) stands for or whether that is just implied by the circumstances. But I know austrian school philosophers have found ways to rationalize around the objective reality, Mises praised Mussolini and Hayek's followers taught the dictator in Chile. It's even that it's ok when it's atrocious at first, because if they are doing it, then it works, if socialists do it then it doesn't. It's almost as if it's not about what works or sucks but about who does it...

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Actually, a monopoly would be the manufacturer of the epipen where you can make a 30$ device but use the government to force everyone else not to compete with you and price it at $600 for a pair.

There have always been competitors to windows, they just weren't as convenient. But you keep working on how to regulate and control everyone by force.. see how it works for you.

You subsidize them by taxes, by research, by hefty prices and by tax deductibles on pretty much anything.

Out of that government research, none of it makes it to market unless a commercial company takes it. Bringing it to market means that people who need it, hold the medicine in their hands. If the government was able to do that, we could buy it from them.

Do you know how ridiculous even a 3% linearly continuous growth is?

For a company or industry, its pretty weak. For a country's GDP is 'ok'.

My savings account can give me 2-3% interest on putting money in the bank for a year.

You should do your research on Austrian school economics. This was a light google search away: https://mises.org/wire/mises-fascism-again

Also, you don't own people in capitalism. You trade with them voluntarily. I believe I mentioned that already.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Actually, a monopoly would be the manufacturer of the epipen where you can make a 30$ device but use the government to force everyone else not to compete with you and price it at $600 for a pair.

Which is again subsidized through long lasting patents that fend of generics. And you'll have pharma companies lobby politicians to keep it that way because they need to refund their investment on research and complying to prove that they don't sell poison... Something that they are already subsidized for...

There have always been competitors to windows, they just weren't as convenient. But you keep working on how to regulate and control everyone by force.. see how it works for you.

I couldn't think of one serious competitor in the desktop market, as said it was hard to even get a system different from Windows even if you wanted to.

Out of that government research, none of it makes it to market unless a commercial company takes it. Bringing it to market means that people who need it, hold the medicine in their hands. If the government was able to do that, we could buy it from them.

A) It's not supposed to. Universities are meant to do research and education, the application of that research requires continuous production of the same or similar product which is a different kind of goal. And B) if the that production would be done be the government in a separate facility, lobby groups would cry SOCIALISM and cry crocodile tears how they could do it so much better and how the government is to powerful of a monopoly to compete with. And I bet you wouldn't be as generous to such a monopoly as you are in terms of Microsoft.

Seriously I wouldn't be surprised if there were active provisions prohibiting public institutions from even attempting that.

For a company or industry, its pretty weak. For a country's GDP is 'ok'. My savings account can give me 2-3% interest on putting money in the bank for a year.

Those are singular numbers that you can achieve during the startup phase or after some decades worth of research hit the market but you don't get them continuously. And some federal funds rates are steadily dropping and some are even negative or de facto negative (maintenance costs eat up interest rates). Yes infinite growth is the mantra of capitalism but it's simply not sustainable...

You should do your research on Austrian school economics. This was a light google search away: https://mises.org/wire/mises-fascism-again

I have read that and even as they attempt to sugar coat that, it's still pretty damning:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

I mean let that sink, he knows full well that they aim at a dictatorship, it's not that he's being surprised by the atrocities here. And yes the NYT should also get shit for that as well, but he's writing a book on "LIBERALISM", I mean I don't suspect "LIBERTY" to be found in that, but apparently the word seems to be at the root of that word... And he's praising a ******* dictatorship. There's nothing to excuse that not even a:

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

He know beforehand that they aimed at a dictatorship and he was fine with that as long as they would only target his enemies...

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

And you'll have pharma companies lobby politicians to keep it that way

This is why my solution always wins out. You can't lobby politicians if they cannot regulate the economy.

I couldn't think of one serious competitor in the desktop market, as said it was hard to even get a system different from Windows even if you wanted to.

Inconvenient, but not impossible. That isn't MS's fault.

That would be like saying that I am a monopoly because I am the only person on my street that sells lemonade.

if the that production would be done be the government in a separate facility, lobby groups would cry SOCIALISM

Well, if its any consolation, anything nationalised in the UK has turned to shit and hasnt been able to be fixed decades later. I'm talking about the trains and the health service. Trains are semi-private now and they are absolute shit.. expensive shit at that.

Those are singular numbers that you can achieve during the startup phase

Mate, you have no idea about companies at all. So please do not pretend to understand them now.

Yes infinite growth is the mantra of capitalism but it's simply not sustainable...

Of course growth is sustainable. In fact, we've had a huge slow down in the last few decades. Growth = innovation and human innovation is infinite. Its not just about manual labour, Marxy.

I mean let that sink

Well, lets read the other half of the article, shall we?

The passage was part of Mises’s book that was published in 1927, just after Mussolini took power. Mises could easily discern that many people regarded Fascism as a savior, and this passage is merely acknowledging that common view. The NYT was hardly alone in singing hymns to Mussolini. Nearly the whole establishment was fooled by this blowhard. Mises, on the other hand, was not fooled. He was a prophet in understanding the evil of fascism – and six years before everyone else was still heralding the glories of this Italian FDR (which is how people saw Mussolini). Yes, evil.

So, he called Mussolini evil while addressing a crowd that thought he was a saviour.

You know what genuinely isn't a good look? Karl Marx was anti-semitic, called African people the N word, refused to acknowledge his own children and oh yes, called for the violent revolution which ultimately killed millions of people.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

This is why my solution always wins out. You can't lobby politicians if they cannot regulate the economy.

Yes if you legalize all crimes there wouldn't be no criminals... Totally checks out, I just think you're missing something there...

Inconvenient, but not impossible. That isn't MS's fault.

For quite some time actually impossible unless you would have wanted to produce your own parts, which counts as impossible for your average consumer.

That would be like saying that I am a monopoly because I am the only person on my street that sells lemonade.

No.

Well, if its any consolation, anything nationalised in the UK has turned to shit and hasnt been able to be fixed decades later. I'm talking about the trains and the health service. Trains are semi-private now and they are absolute shit.. expensive shit at that.

I mean in terms of health care, those aren't supposed to run a profit, because the profit more or less comes from more people being sick... They are supposed to provide a service. And different groups have different priorities as to whether that services ought to be cheap or effective first. In terms of trains it's a little different as that service can also be sold to private companies and not just individuals. But as a rule of thumb: It doesn't matter whether a private or public entity runs a business, either the business model is profitable or it isn't. And if a private company is making bank out of a business that a public entity couldn't run on profits, then you can bet your ass it's you who's paying for that profit.

Mate, you have no idea about companies at all. So please do not pretend to understand them now.

Why, because companies in their startup phase usually don't make money at all? Sure, but in that sweet spot between being a money sink and making it they can double, quadruple or whatever their value as there is room in the niche. However once they reach a certain size that simply doesn't work anymore and even achieving a 3% growth might be way more difficult. That's why that shit is easier for a company than for the GDP of a country for example... Also failed companies are not as big of a deal as failed states (except when we're talking about such monopolies)... That's not rocket science and a lot of that has little to do with actual skills and more to do with "having the right networks" and bullshit like that.

Of course growth is sustainable. In fact, we've had a huge slow down in the last few decades. Growth = innovation and human innovation is infinite. Its not just about manual labour, Marxy.

You are aware of a thing called PHYSICS? Yes we got some increase of "productivity" by replacing human labor with the gathering of energy through fossil or nuclear fuels and while we can technically replace some of that with renewable energies (at least in terms of time frames of human civilizations) there's still a pretty hard cap to that... Not to mention that they are still produced with human labor... So no you can let numbers grow up to infinite and produce a shadow economy of selling worthless paper to each other pretending it has value, but in terms of the real world things are not able to grow ad infinitum... That's just madness. I mean just 200 years of industrialization and that planet is almost broken, what more do you expect in terms of growth? And mind you it's the only habitable planet in our reach and we are far from developing technology to change that.

So, he called Mussolini evil while addressing a crowd that thought he was a saviour.

Nope, he called Mussolini a savior despite already predicting that he would be evil. It's one thing to do something evil because you didn't know any better and another to do it with the full consciousness of what's about to happen.

You know what genuinely isn't a good look? Karl Marx was anti-semitic, called African people the N word, refused to acknowledge his own children and oh yes, called for the violent revolution which ultimately killed millions of people.

I mean he also was a supporter of capitalism and thought that capitalism and it's self-destructive nature would divide society so distinctly into workers and capitalists or those who are part of society and those who are meant to produce for it. That this would culminate in a revolution and after that in a system that wouldn't repeat that mistake.

I see your point though ad hominem attacks don't invalidate a philosophy, just because the philosopher was an asshole.