3 ms·

If only Republicans actually stood up to market principles and they didn't just use them as an excuse to help their big corporation buddies, and then that's it.

by mtgx 10y ago

If only Republicans actually stood up to market principles and they didn't just use them as an excuse to help their big corporation buddies, and then that's it. I actually believe a free market full of competition would work way better than most regulations would in trying to restrict a few monopolies from doing harm. Although I don't think a free market should be free of any regulations. A baseline of regulations is needed to ensure that competitors play fair. We actually have proof of this with Google Fiber. Wherever Google Fiber would land, previous local monopolies would trip over themselves to drastically increase the value of their offerings (but still being significantly behind Google Fiber). As soon as Google announced it would kill Fiber, all of that stopped, and they even reduced the value in their offers in some places. I get it that cable companies need to be somehow rewarded for digging ditches to lay cable, but that doesn't necessarily mean they ought to be given a legal monopoly in that state or city. If you must, just pass a law that would force that cable provider to license its cables at a fair price. Then you'd have some competition, but it would also get to recover the cost of digging (the more competitors/clients the faster it can do that).

clarkmoody 10y ago
You want Republicans to be Libertarians, which they are not. I think the cable companies probably waited for government-granted monopolies before they invested in the last-mile infrastructure, because they wanted to be sure it would be worth it. So on a free market, the investment in infrastructure would have been slower (probably), but competition would be better long-term. Although any infrastructure discussion must include the phenomenon of suburban sprawl fueled by government's over-investment in roads.
- mtgx 10y ago
  I know they aren't. But they pretend to be for the most part (except the social issues and religious issues). Also, I disagree with "pure libertarianism" myself. I think fair baseline standards are needed to establish a level playing field. But what the U.S. has now is far from a "free market" anymore. It's much closer to a "pay to play" market.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > You want Republicans to be Libertarians, which they are not. To be fair, that desire is likely based on over three decades of Republicans pretending to be Libertarians in the rhetoric directed at building opposition to programs they don't like.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  I would be with libertarians if they didn't go to the extreme of wanting no regulations. There should be regulations for the environment and for creating fair market conditions. Healthbcare should be regulated in some way to ensure accessibility. Whatever I hear from libertarians will lead to people with money accumulating all power in the same way we see now.
  - clarkmoody 10y ago
    Libertarians oppose crony capitalism and the use of state power for special interests in general. The libertarian theory on regulation is that the market punishes bad behavior way more effectively than the government, which can always be swayed by political forces. During the Industrial Revolution, for instance, judges sided with corporations in pollution cases, thinking, "We can't hinder industrial progress for the sake of a few people's lungs." So the government granted monopoly pollution privileges to industry. Under a free market property rights scenario, any damage done to another person via pollution would be grounds for a suit against the polluter, no special government protection. Edit: take a closer look at libertarian writings on environmentalism and pollution
    - maxxxxx 10y ago
      In the libertarian world you just sue when you are being wronged and justice will be done. In reality if you sue a big company you have to go against an army of lawyers, expert witnesses they can buy and media campaigns. You simply can't win that unless you have a lot of money. We still would have lead paint if the EPA hadn't banned it. How can a single family prove to a court that whatever problems their children have is caused by lead paint? Fund a clinical study for a few million dollars?
- inetsee 10y ago
  "You want Republicans to be Libertarians..." I want politicians (be they Republican, Democrat, etc.) to act in the best interest of all the people in the nation, and not just the small fraction that benefit from large corporations making inordinate profits.
maxxxxx 10y ago
People should stop glorifying "capitalism" and instead be for "competitive market economy". We see more and more that capitalism just leads to incumbents accumulating mote and more power and trying to suppress competition. Unfortunately the Republicans talk a good game but in the end they will almost never do anything that offends their capitalists.
Someone1234 10y ago
"Capitalism" is just a way of the powerful to manipulate the powerless in the US. To give a specific example, residential waste collection used to be public, meaning you'd pay a tax and your garbage would be taken away. Then, in the name of "capitalism," the business was sold to a private company who could jack up the prices, lower the qualty, and make profit for itself. But "wait!" I hear you yell. Capitalism is at its core about competition! If we take a public service and privatise it shouldn't private citizens have a choice? You'd think. But in the US that isn't how it works. They will happily take a public service, privatise it, consumer costs skyrocket, and you have no competitive choice still. This kind of thing is then protected via regulation so that even if competition did want to compete with an entity that was just handed tons of formerly public business, they wouldn't be able to. Naturally there's often rumours or proven kickbacks to the politicians from the private entities who received the public business... Capitalism without competition isn't capitalism, it is fascism.

by mtgx 10y ago

clarkmoody 10y ago

You want Republicans to be Libertarians, which they are not. I think the cable companies probably waited for government-granted monopolies before they invested in the last-mile infrastructure, because they wanted to be sure it would be worth it. So on a free market, the investment in infrastructure would have been slower (probably), but competition would be better long-term. Although any infrastructure discussion must include the phenomenon of suburban sprawl fueled by government's over-investment in roads.

mtgx 10y ago
I know they aren't. But they pretend to be for the most part (except the social issues and religious issues). Also, I disagree with "pure libertarianism" myself. I think fair baseline standards are needed to establish a level playing field. But what the U.S. has now is far from a "free market" anymore. It's much closer to a "pay to play" market.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> You want Republicans to be Libertarians, which they are not. To be fair, that desire is likely based on over three decades of Republicans pretending to be Libertarians in the rhetoric directed at building opposition to programs they don't like.
maxxxxx 10y ago
I would be with libertarians if they didn't go to the extreme of wanting no regulations. There should be regulations for the environment and for creating fair market conditions. Healthbcare should be regulated in some way to ensure accessibility. Whatever I hear from libertarians will lead to people with money accumulating all power in the same way we see now.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  Libertarians oppose crony capitalism and the use of state power for special interests in general. The libertarian theory on regulation is that the market punishes bad behavior way more effectively than the government, which can always be swayed by political forces. During the Industrial Revolution, for instance, judges sided with corporations in pollution cases, thinking, "We can't hinder industrial progress for the sake of a few people's lungs." So the government granted monopoly pollution privileges to industry. Under a free market property rights scenario, any damage done to another person via pollution would be grounds for a suit against the polluter, no special government protection. Edit: take a closer look at libertarian writings on environmentalism and pollution
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    In the libertarian world you just sue when you are being wronged and justice will be done. In reality if you sue a big company you have to go against an army of lawyers, expert witnesses they can buy and media campaigns. You simply can't win that unless you have a lot of money. We still would have lead paint if the EPA hadn't banned it. How can a single family prove to a court that whatever problems their children have is caused by lead paint? Fund a clinical study for a few million dollars?
inetsee 10y ago
"You want Republicans to be Libertarians..." I want politicians (be they Republican, Democrat, etc.) to act in the best interest of all the people in the nation, and not just the small fraction that benefit from large corporations making inordinate profits.

maxxxxx 10y ago

People should stop glorifying "capitalism" and instead be for "competitive market economy". We see more and more that capitalism just leads to incumbents accumulating mote and more power and trying to suppress competition. Unfortunately the Republicans talk a good game but in the end they will almost never do anything that offends their capitalists.

Someone1234 10y ago

"Capitalism" is just a way of the powerful to manipulate the powerless in the US. To give a specific example, residential waste collection used to be public, meaning you'd pay a tax and your garbage would be taken away. Then, in the name of "capitalism," the business was sold to a private company who could jack up the prices, lower the qualty, and make profit for itself. But "wait!" I hear you yell. Capitalism is at its core about competition! If we take a public service and privatise it shouldn't private citizens have a choice? You'd think. But in the US that isn't how it works. They will happily take a public service, privatise it, consumer costs skyrocket, and you have no competitive choice still. This kind of thing is then protected via regulation so that even if competition did want to compete with an entity that was just handed tons of formerly public business, they wouldn't be able to. Naturally there's often rumours or proven kickbacks to the politicians from the private entities who received the public business... Capitalism without competition isn't capitalism, it is fascism.