Why not make the rich compete?

T

Thycidides

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
805
Reaction score
0
This article makes a good case for eliminating rent seeking and monopolies that constrain the market. But what stands out to me is that it was published in a left wing magazine. None of it is radical at all or really controversial even from a market perspective. I don't see anything even a Chicago boy would object to this really.

Thttps://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/12/teles-lindsey-financial-transactions-tax-copyright

Is there something I'm missing here? It seems to me thee Right wing no longer believes in competitive markets if they ever did to begin with.
 
Last edited:
We do have anti-monopoly laws. This article is then giving reason for making them far more restrictive and blocking more mergers and such?

I could get behind that

Article Ian rather horrible from my skin through though and doesn’t touch on any ways to actually do that. Just blames the right, and then says rich people should buy proprietary companies and then release the information so we can have more generic (cheap) things
 
HockeyBjj said:
We do have anti-monopoly laws. This article is then giving reason for making them far more restrictive and blocking more mergers and such?

I could get behind that

Article Ian rather horrible from my skin through though and doesn’t touch on any ways to actually do that. Just blames the right, and then says rich people should buy proprietary companies and then release the information so we can have more generic (cheap) things
Click to expand...

That was a joke, because Bill Gates is supposed to be a great Philanthropist and yet doesn't put his money to good use to make medicine affordable.

Lots of easy things to be done like eliminate medical patents and increase taxes on rent seeking behavior.

More aggressive solutions like expanding Medicare won't actually lower costs if these monopolies are in place.
 
The us is ran by oligarchs so good luck getting them to self sabatoge at this point
 
Aw man, I was hoping you were talking about some Hunger Games shit.
 
Because look at the Amazon vs Google fight right now. It affects technology and consumers.

But when they work together we get amazing products. So there are pros and cons. We see 2 big giant companies working together all the time and those products are usually the best. If only there's a way for everyone to work with each other without screwing the smaller people.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kepler-mission-nasa-reveal-ai-110329816.html

Look at this. Nasa and Google making huge progress
 
Last edited:
so none of the monopolistic orgs contribute to Democratic candidates?

oh wait
 
freaky said:
Because look at the Amazon vs Google fight right now. It affects technology and consumers.

But when they work together we get amazing products. So there are pros and cons. We see 2 big giant companies working together all the time and those products are usually the best. If only there's a way for everyone to work with each other without screwing the smaller people.
Click to expand...


Huh? I don't see how that legitimatizes rent seeking or patent protection for medicine etc.


HunterSdVa29 said:
so none of the monopolistic orgs contribute to Democratic candidates?

oh wait
Click to expand...

Thast the point of the article, these monopolies have clout in both USA political parties and it has led to bad outcomes.
 
Thycidides said:
Huh? I don't see how that legitimatizes rent seeking or patent protection for medicine etc.




Thast the point of the article, these monopolies have clout in both USA political parties and it has led to bad outcomes.
Click to expand...
and how is that going to change, realistically, w/o campaign finance reform?

I don't think it is, politicians are out for themselves, not us...
 
HunterSdVa29 said:
and how is that going to change, realistically, w/o campaign finance reform?

I don't think it is, politicians are out for themselves, not us...
Click to expand...


Last election we had a candidate with ideas very similar to what was mentioned in the article have a very realistic chance at becoming president:




ap_871644491072.jpg





But a combination of Democratic party bullshit, and not enough support for him because he let some uppity negresses yell at him or something, did him in.

The good news: We can try again in 2020.
 
Possum Jenkins said:
Last election we had a candidate with ideas very similar to what was mentioned in the article have a very realistic chance at becoming president:




ap_871644491072.jpg





But a combination of Democratic party bullshit, and not enough support for him because he let some uppity negresses yell at him or something, did him in.

The good news: We can try again in 2020.
Click to expand...
perhaps, although I think it would be have to be a more moderate person to actually get elected

once you simply looked at his policies and how'd they cost and be funded.....it became much harder to vote for him

Same w/ Ron Paul prior, if he wasn't sooooooo anti war (which in the GOP is pretty much a F U to everyone else) I think he would've stood a greater chance of getting the nod due to his other views. I mean Bill Maher supported him just three elections ago ffs
 
HunterSdVa29 said:
perhaps, although I think it would be have to be a more moderate person to actually get elected

once you simply looked at his policies and how'd they cost and be funded.....it became much harder to vote for him

Same w/ Ron Paul prior, if he wasn't sooooooo anti war (which in the GOP is pretty much a F U to everyone else) I think he would've stood a greater chance of getting the nod due to his other views. I mean Bill Maher supported him just three elections ago ffs
Click to expand...

I think you unintentionally nailed it.

Absolutely EVERYONE complains that politicians are too beholden to the rich and big business interests. But the time we finally get one that truly isn't... he's too scary for a lot of people.

A lot of Americans seem to have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to politics. We want someone to be for the people and not follow the big money in the abstract. The moment it looks like it could actually come true, we get scared and embrace the captors again. But the truth is, Bernie is what it'd look like if we had politicians that are for the people and not for big business.

<{hughesimpress}>
 
Thycidides said:
This article makes a good case for eliminating rent seeking and monopolies that constrain the market. But what stands out to me is that it was published in a left wing magazine. None of it is radical at all or really controversial even from a market perspective. I don't see anything even a Chicago boy would object to this really.

Thttps://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/12/teles-lindsey-financial-transactions-tax-copyright

Is there something I'm missing here? It seems to me thee Right wing no longer believes in competitive markets if they ever did to begin with.
Click to expand...

They don't believe in competitive markets. They believe in rigged markets which prop up oligarchies.
 
The article makes solid points with the exception of aiming for a more egalitarian outcome. A more egalitarian playing field is a very different goal and supportable. Egalitarian outcomes aren't.

We should shrink patent protections because it opens the market to more competition. We shouldn't use government to set up walled gardens in the economy.
 
Saw the thread title and thought it was going to be rich people doing something like Steve Austins Broken Skull Ranch..

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,886
Messages
55,451,269
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top