4 ms·

It's a framework for analysis. If you can use it to promote or discuss free market ideas, please do. There's nothing "far left" about noticing that there are

by saulpw 11mo ago

It's a framework for analysis. If you can use it to promote or discuss free market ideas, please do. There's nothing "far left" about noticing that there are 10+ orders of magnitude difference between the assets of the richest and poorest people, and that people's lives are qualitatively different at different magnitudes. For the record, as the author, I generally believe in the virtues of a "free market". Unchecked capitalism, however, seems to devolve into quite the non-free market, captured and controlled by a small number of people. That much seems unsurprising and apolitical. What to do about it is where policy and politics comes in.

silexia 11mo ago
Patents and licenses, both forms of government granted monopolies, are the primary reason capitalism goes bad. A true free market would vastly reduce prices across the board especially in areas like medical care where supply has been strictly limited for decades.
- thrance 11mo ago
  "Government granted monopolies", as you call them, are the logical endpoint of a "free market". It always devolves into this, as capital accumulates into fewer and fewer hands until some people are able to wrangle the state into doing their bidding.
- tavavex 11mo ago
  Monopolies don't need to be granted by someone, they're innate to a system that targets endless growth and centralization. Governments, despite being partially corrupted by undue influence that lets monopolism seep back into our society, are the only entities standing in between full monopolization and the world we live in now. In the total absence of a government, the wealthiest entities would repeatedly buy out smaller competitors and use their near-endless power to inhibit any new players from joining the scene (if not legally, then militarily). At that level of wealth, there is nothing that would be able to hold them back from further growth. The biggest company would become a de facto totalitarian government after a certain point. If you had an urgent emergency that had to be treated now, your nearest hospital in free-market-land might as well charge you a million dollars. If there's any sort of urgency that prevents you from going elsewhere, what are you gonna do? Die?

by saulpw 11mo ago

silexia 11mo ago

Patents and licenses, both forms of government granted monopolies, are the primary reason capitalism goes bad. A true free market would vastly reduce prices across the board especially in areas like medical care where supply has been strictly limited for decades.

thrance 11mo ago
"Government granted monopolies", as you call them, are the logical endpoint of a "free market". It always devolves into this, as capital accumulates into fewer and fewer hands until some people are able to wrangle the state into doing their bidding.
tavavex 11mo ago
Monopolies don't need to be granted by someone, they're innate to a system that targets endless growth and centralization. Governments, despite being partially corrupted by undue influence that lets monopolism seep back into our society, are the only entities standing in between full monopolization and the world we live in now. In the total absence of a government, the wealthiest entities would repeatedly buy out smaller competitors and use their near-endless power to inhibit any new players from joining the scene (if not legally, then militarily). At that level of wealth, there is nothing that would be able to hold them back from further growth. The biggest company would become a de facto totalitarian government after a certain point. If you had an urgent emergency that had to be treated now, your nearest hospital in free-market-land might as well charge you a million dollars. If there's any sort of urgency that prevents you from going elsewhere, what are you gonna do? Die?