3 ms·
The main argument for Capitalism is the NAP and the removal of physical force or threat of it. As for cartels and monopolies, if you take a look at late 19th t
by oDot 7y ago
The main argument for Capitalism is the NAP and the removal of physical force or threat of it.
As for cartels and monopolies, if you take a look at late 19th to early 20th century USA, where business could in fact form cartels and monopolies -- they were formed, but didn't last. They were ruined by both new competition and by "price busters", the cartel equivalent of a "scab".
That is one of the origins of "progressive" legislation. It seemed that the most efficient way to preserve monopolies and cartels was to use government. Indeed, the original meaning of the word wasn't a "large share of the market", but "exclusivity given by government".
EDIT: Show yourselves, downvoters. Give a rebuttal.
- throwaway2048 7y agoCartels of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were busted up by the federal government by in large, you are making ahistorical statements.
- oDot 7y agoGovernment only got in late in the game, and if you take a look, a lot of the policies that look good on the surface actually hurt the same people they claim to help. For example, the minimum wage is clearly helping out skilled workers. Imagine an experienced railroad worked earning $5 an hour laying tracks. To match his productivity, you'd need at least 3 unskilled workers, which are worth it at $1 each. The railroad union, to guarantee long-term work for its members, lobbies for a minimum wage, and now when it's, say, $2 an hour, those 3 unskilled workers are too expensive and no one hires them.