someone with some video talent should make a video on the subject.
Here is a good place to start:
central plans that kill innocent people are proof that central planning works
Knock yourselves out. I look forward to your thoughts:
“Before there were regulations against it companies often did collude on price fixing. That’s a known fact and was the reason behind the laws against it. A group of the largest companies in a single area (Apple and Microsoft) talk and decide that they are going to make the prices so low for their goods as to effectively price everybody else out and become the only remaining companies then they decide to charge the same higher amounts for their goods to make up for lost reveune.”
“Customers only have the power when it comes to price if there’s competition. In an area where there’s no competition or the prices are fixed then the companies decide on the price. Both of which are entirely possible when there’s no regulations covering such things.”
“yes that’s what i was saying. They won’t give these benefits out by choice so we have to force them to. If they DID give the benefits out by choice it’d hurt their profit and the shareholders would appoint someone else to run the company, sadly. That’s why we need government to regulate. I was only questioning the ‘happy worker = productive worker’ thing as productive workers lead to higher profits and if that was the case we wouldn’t need regulation (which clearly, we do).”
“The federal reserve controls the government. They could flood the market with so much money to effectively bankrupt the US by making the money worthless while they invest heavily in forgien currency to protect themselves. Or it could make interest rates so high that the government couldn’t afford to borrow money and would collapse. there is a government appointed chairman but he has no real power and can only act with permission.”
"forget CERN, who’d fund the highways? Like “who made god” libertarians respond with “oh that’s an old question" but it’s TRUE. No large scale highways are private, there’s good reason for this. They can’t “evolve,” no individual profits from them so a company building them would benefit his competitors more than himself. You don’t need to evoke CERN to get the stupidity of anti-statism out of the way.”
“But, according to testomony, Microsoft was saying that their browser MUST be included with their software even if the comapny didn’t wish to or they had their own browser that they wanted to include. Not all of them wanted it but were being told that they had to do it. Also microsoft was so large that they could underprice anybody else that tried to start a different company in the same field (software) and force them out of business in a couple of years.”
“Ironic how “Communist” China is a free market fundies wet dream…”
"Rothbard has a chapter on roads in “For a New Liberty”. His answer, as always with libertarians, is that private highway owners would have greater incentive to provide smoothly navigable and well maintained roads than does government. It always comes down to profit incentives with libertarians, and these incentives are of course a one way road running wholly in the direction of the public good.
There is no incentive for highway owners to collude…"
"…and charge outrageous rates along exclusive routes, or anyway incentive now is just some soft speculation when the shoe’s on the other foot, and the market would prevent trusts from forming, and even if it didn’t space for roads and the authorizations for competitors to construct them are obviously unlimited, and even if by some unholy miracle highway owners did successfully collude to fix outrageous prices, this would hurt their bottom line because people would just stop driving.
"there’s a reason the Austrians take every opportunity to bash empiricism and statistics…
profit incentives are cool, i just don’t see any time in history when a company has been driven by it’s profit incentive to build highways, and they always leave out externalities. We have an incentive to stop externalities (all of us) and if we’re not doing it by mob violence we need some more peaceful means I wonder what we’d use, some orderly grouping of people what’s it’s name?"
"As I’m sure you are aware, there are no ideal societies. Hong Kong is a excellent example of what happens when you protect property rights and otherwise keep your nose out of things, and it’s population of over 7 million (how many countries are there the size of America? Size wise, not much. Population wise, still not many larger than us, none as well off, and all more socialist than us) is nothing to sneeze at. "