Your political views

[Light of Truth]

On monopolies - http://mises.org/daily/621

An interesting read, if founded on a number of false assumptions, like competition being able to not get quashed by someone who doesn't want competition.
The entire paper seems to be based (if not explicitly) on the same premise that power only corrupts when government is involved. But the kind of bought-and-sold power that being filthy rich gives you? You're a goddamn saint of Capitalism.

When discussing economics, one must always keep in mind the broken window fallacy. You have to take into consideration what is unseen. This is how it goes - a hooligan throws a brick through a baker's window and runs off. People gather by the broken window and state that it is actually a good thing for the economy because the baker will have to purchase a new window, which will boost the glass maker's business. This helps the economy. This is false because the glass maker's gain is merely the baker's loss. The baker had to spend $100 dollars on the new window and because of that he couldn't spend that money on a new coat he wanted, so the glass maker's gain is only the coat maker's loss. There is no gain in the overall economy. You have to take into consideration these unseen factors.

If a company doesn't pay its employees fairly, they will just leave to find a better job. The company will either fail because its production will go down significantly because of a lack of workers, or it will increase the amount it pays its employees, so that it remains viable as a company.

You ever hear of company-owned towns? What about being in debt to that company, allowing them to essentially keep you employed by law in a perpetual debt to them?
And that's just the nice ways that companies can essentially enslave their own employees, leaving things out like physical threats and intimidation in a world where public awareness and law enforcement can be purchased or controlled.

If a company puts out shitty products people will not buy those products. The company will fail or change their products.

Or, they can make you purchase their products because it's a necessary product (like gasoline and pharmaceuticals in the US) or they can control what information you have about their products beforehand or by eliminating their competition.

What's always fun in a world of no government regulation is the game of 'guess what's in tonights dinner' without the courtesy of intervention from the food and drug administration.
Have you heard about the US meat packing Industry in the 1900s? According to your logic, those employees should have just walked out and the meat packing industry should have failed, but thanks to a combination of the book "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, Unionization (which is something the government helped with thanks to other events during the mid-20th century), the Civil Rights Movement, and numerous safety, food standard, and sanitation rules, the entire industry managed to improve.
Also: the steel industry, railroads, car manufacturing, and many more.

If a company's efficiency cannot be matched, that's a good thing. Production costs go down, which allows higher wages, or better products, or both. Monopolies are more prevalent when they are given an edge by the government. Governments set high regulation standards that raise the cost for competitors and end up giving the said business a higher market share. More monopolies exist when the government intervenes than when a free market exists.

You cannot enslave someone whether they owe you money or not. It is possible to become indebted to your boss, but you can default on your loan and force them to take the loss for their bad use of credit. Enslaving debtors is not a part of a free market.

The government's role in the economy is to enforce contracts and to protect against fraud. If a consumer is hurt or becomes sick due to the consumption of a company's product, they can hold them liable. A free market provides courts. Instead of holding producers responsible to the consumers, they have been made responsible to the government.


A free market allows consumers to set the standards based on cost and quality.