8 ms·

Leaving aside the introduction that reads like it was was written by a stoned middle school marxist and thefefore is difficult to get beyond, some simple critiq

Leaving aside the introduction that reads like it was was written by a stoned middle school marxist and thefefore is difficult to get beyond, some simple critiques: Divided wealth is inherent in the nature of the tool of money. Divided power is inherent in the tool of democracy. However, the nature of the power divide is different than is widely percieved. Like businesses, governments also are successful due to monopoly secrets. Functioning democratic republics are what prevent massive genocides, sometimes if not most often attempted in the name of wealth redistribution and with subtextual ethnic cleansing goals. Monopoly is the bedrock of business. Business is the bedrock of preventing populations from being enslaved and killed by foreign governments, as global businesses fund militaries in a zero sum global wealth environment. That is, if you choose to impoverish your society, this means a vacuum for another government to economically fill and dominate. Strongly consider that anyone who wants you to be poorer hates you with a murderous passion. In a global business environment, monopolies are essential to national security for a variety of reasons. As discussed, one of the most important being the ability to compete globally. There is no moral logic that can argue that it is moral to dismantle a monopoly for the benefit of competing governments. The article's logic and conclusions are both childish and insane. The time for railing against monopolies was prior to when the same types also wanted to create an economically globalist society.

Alpha3031 3y ago
That's a reach, but if the primary purpose of monopolies in your view is to fund the military, then there's no issue with taxing them more or even nationalising them, is there?
- mrangle 3y ago
  It's not a reach, but a basic fact of the tax base. I stated that global competition is "one of the most important" justifications for monopoly. You adding the phrase "primary purpose" and attaching it to "fund the military, and then answering your own statement with a rhetorical question, is barely worth responding to. >then there's no issue with taxing them more or even nationalising them, is there? If you are so sure of you're reasoning, then why the rhetorical framing? I don't agree that you've made a rhetorical point, at all. There are figuratively a dozen reasons not to nationalize nor overtax them. Perhaps the best of which, to start, is that I haven't seen presented logic that it makes sense.
  - Alpha3031 3y ago
    Tax base is based on total income, or total production (, monopolies extract economic profit (contrast, accounting profit) by artificially constraining quantity supplied such that the price is higher than the marginal cost of production. In no world does this increase production in the domestic market. If you want to price fix on only the export market, well, you can encourage cartelisation for export only, sure. Only way to turn that into revenue is to tax it, and politicians don't tend to like putting tariffs on their countries exports, I can't imagine why at all. (There are both good reasons and bad reasons). > If you are so sure of you're reasoning, then why the rhetorical framing? Because I'm not putting in more effort if my counterpart refuses to. I'm not going to dignify the "economically globalist society" part with a response unless I'm forced to, I'm still not sure you sincerely believe that, but I can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.
    - mrangle 3y ago
      >monopolies extract economic profit (contrast, accounting profit) by artificially constraining quantity supplied such that the price is higher than the marginal cost of production. Market warping commodity monopolies are rare, due to regulation. Proving them takes a lot more than a neo-communist rant. Modern monopolies are most often predicated on IP. Protecting them is protection of the global market for their goods, which in turn protects the all-important trade-balance as well as GDP. IP protection is not cartelization / price fixing. >Because I'm not putting in more effort if my counterpart refuses to You responded to me by inventing a strawman argument and then basing a rhetorical question on it that, in turn, justifies itself by assuming the strawman. I'm not your counterpart nor did I ask you to participate. Your particiaption should be self-evidently valuable if you want to be considered a participant in a debate. Your mode of response was not valid. Ie: if you respond to a statement with a false strawman and a question that assumes that it is correct, then expect that to be called out. > I'm not going to dignify the "economically globalist society" part with a response No one asked you for a response. I could care less if you respond, but will point out the flaws in your response if you do. Incresing internal wealth is always predicated on importation of foreign currency. This is why sanctions work to impoverish nations, in spite of possession of valuable items like oil. Nations can sell their production internally all they like. They'll remain third world hellholes without an export market.

Alpha3031 3y ago

That's a reach, but if the primary purpose of monopolies in your view is to fund the military, then there's no issue with taxing them more or even nationalising them, is there?

mrangle 3y ago
It's not a reach, but a basic fact of the tax base. I stated that global competition is "one of the most important" justifications for monopoly. You adding the phrase "primary purpose" and attaching it to "fund the military, and then answering your own statement with a rhetorical question, is barely worth responding to. >then there's no issue with taxing them more or even nationalising them, is there? If you are so sure of you're reasoning, then why the rhetorical framing? I don't agree that you've made a rhetorical point, at all. There are figuratively a dozen reasons not to nationalize nor overtax them. Perhaps the best of which, to start, is that I haven't seen presented logic that it makes sense.
- Alpha3031 3y ago
  Tax base is based on total income, or total production (, monopolies extract economic profit (contrast, accounting profit) by artificially constraining quantity supplied such that the price is higher than the marginal cost of production. In no world does this increase production in the domestic market. If you want to price fix on only the export market, well, you can encourage cartelisation for export only, sure. Only way to turn that into revenue is to tax it, and politicians don't tend to like putting tariffs on their countries exports, I can't imagine why at all. (There are both good reasons and bad reasons). > If you are so sure of you're reasoning, then why the rhetorical framing? Because I'm not putting in more effort if my counterpart refuses to. I'm not going to dignify the "economically globalist society" part with a response unless I'm forced to, I'm still not sure you sincerely believe that, but I can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    >monopolies extract economic profit (contrast, accounting profit) by artificially constraining quantity supplied such that the price is higher than the marginal cost of production. Market warping commodity monopolies are rare, due to regulation. Proving them takes a lot more than a neo-communist rant. Modern monopolies are most often predicated on IP. Protecting them is protection of the global market for their goods, which in turn protects the all-important trade-balance as well as GDP. IP protection is not cartelization / price fixing. >Because I'm not putting in more effort if my counterpart refuses to You responded to me by inventing a strawman argument and then basing a rhetorical question on it that, in turn, justifies itself by assuming the strawman. I'm not your counterpart nor did I ask you to participate. Your particiaption should be self-evidently valuable if you want to be considered a participant in a debate. Your mode of response was not valid. Ie: if you respond to a statement with a false strawman and a question that assumes that it is correct, then expect that to be called out. > I'm not going to dignify the "economically globalist society" part with a response No one asked you for a response. I could care less if you respond, but will point out the flaws in your response if you do. Incresing internal wealth is always predicated on importation of foreign currency. This is why sanctions work to impoverish nations, in spite of possession of valuable items like oil. Nations can sell their production internally all they like. They'll remain third world hellholes without an export market.