lol oaky

bump for facts

>Why don't you idiots want a 2 day work week, why don't you want rapid advancements in technology? Why don't you want things to be extremely cheap?
None of those things will happen ever.

>Why do you only want a few megabanks and megacorporations to rule our lives?
the only thing that can stop this from continuing (because it already is going on) is violent uprise against them, basically French Revolution style.

OP thinks he's figured something out.

lol

Surrrrrrrrre....

>>1087981
>None of those things will happen ever.
Yes they will you pessimistic child with no imagination.

>the only thing that can stop this from continuing (because it already is going on) is violent uprise against them, basically French Revolution style.
Yeah, LOL let's attack the result of the problem instead of the problem, makes perfect sense.

Blade Runner- libertarian society.

>>1088009
>>1087987
>no argument

Oh gosh, Libertarians have now gone Scientology retard.

>>1087876
And you will do that by removing all immigration laws allowing everyone to swarm the more developed countries and further aggregate already strained ethnic tensions?

If that's true, then why have we been progressing for 10,000 years without libertarianism? Seems like we're doing better without it.

>>1088064
>And you will do that by removing all immigration laws allowing everyone to swarm the more developed countries and further aggregate already strained ethnic tensions?
The point is they would have their own advanced or semi advanced societies and wouldn't

>>1088072
>10000 years
>just to get to THIS level
lol really? Most of the advancements happened in america and europe when they freed the shit out of their economies.
need to go to other countries to look for work.

okay i'll bite. how exactly will a libertarian society create a 2 day work week?

hard free market countrys have a unequal distribution of income, and so the wealth accumulates with the rich instead of being injected back into the circular flow of money.

Libertarian, as in Johnson, where the government actively protects rights?

Or Paul, where there is no protection and businesses can do whatever they want, and states and locales can be as ruthlessly totalitarian as they like, without any protection from the Bill of Rights?

LIBERALS:
>BAWWWWW ECONOMIC PRODUCTION IS BAD WE SHOULD HAVE LESS THINGS FOR PEOPLE

FACT: OP is a faggot.

>>1088093
>Most of the advancements happened in america and europe when they freed the shit out of their economies.

That's not even close to what actually happened. You need to open a history book. The Renaissance happened as a direct result of two things: One, the reintroduction of classic Greek works on philosophy, science and rationality. Two, the black plague. After so many people were killed, the competition for resources was lessened.

Free markets didn't exist and libertarianism wasn't even a dream yet.

>>1088093
Yeah no. Development does not precede equally. It has never happened like that in history. What would happen is more or less people flocking to a area with the most prosperous economy leaving their original areas in worst conditions and fucking things up here.

>>1088097
Imagine if america was filled with manufacturing again and we increased production so much that many things were available to many people at really low prices. Why would we have to work more than 2 days?

Also there would be a lot more jobs available because tons of jobs would be shared.

>>1088148
because we'll work for 5 cents an hour

>>1088104
>businesses can do whatever they wan

Except they wouldn't be able to. Please stop using this strawman, you sound like a child.

>>1088148

That is the most naive thing I've ever heard. Do you know what life is like for workers in manufacturing plants? Both in the US historically and in foreign nations today? They live in abject poverty in the most horrible conditions imaginable. Working up to 80 hours a week just to get enough food to not starve for another month.

>>1088130
Well, then this whole thread is dildos.

>>1088148

first of all what do you mean by tons of jobs would be shared? second of all, how will we bring manufacturing jobs back in such levels?

>>1088157
>because we'll work for 5 cents an hour
Lol how do you figure that?

We only got a 5 day work week in the first place because we produced so much. What do you think the industrial revolution was? People were far better off after it than before it.

>>1088163
>Except they wouldn't be able to.

Why not? There would be no laws to stop them. No regulations to prevent abuses of workers. Nothing to stop them from dumping chemicals into rivers. It's what they did before the regulations that banned those things. It's what they would do again if the regulations were taken away.

>>1087876
>libertarian
>free
>not leaning towards the interests of megabanks and megacorporations

>>1088179
Exactly.

/thread

>>1088200
>Why not? There would be no laws to stop them. No regulations to prevent abuses of workers. Nothing to stop them from dumping chemicals into rivers. It's what they did before the regulations that banned those things. It's what they would do again if the regulations were taken away.

facepalm.jpg

You don't even know what libertarianism is.

Libertarianism; Acknowledging the coercive power of the state while ignoring the coercive power of private business since 1971.

>>1088171
And that's how *I* will be able to work 2 days a week.

It's time to value what people's time and effort is truly worth. No more king's ransoms for people who push a broom. I can get a monkey to do that for peanuts.

>>1088204
>>not leaning towards the interests of megabanks and megacorporations

Sure is a brainwashed liberal not realizing his entire party is made up of corporate fasicsts.

Scumbag.

Hahaha Libertarians have become as delusional as Randroids.

>>1088228

Ha. Its like you literally have some orwellian wet dream in your mind

>>1088234
This. Fucking hell TARP BAILOUTS WERE ONLY A COUPLE YEARS AGO.

>>1088223
>while ignoring the coercive power of private business since 1971.
Except that we don't. They aren't allowed to force you to do anything against your will. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Worker's safety was increasing rapidly long before any "workers protection" laws were put into place. If you provide your workers with safety measures you can pay them less.

>>1088251
>Hahaha Libertarians have become as delusional as Randroids.

Lol keep laughing faggot, Can't wait to see you scumbags starve to death very soon when we said WE FUCKING TOLD YOU SO

>>1088261
>Tarp

Tap was passed under Bush

>libertarian state:
>99% of population works in coal mines 674 hours a week, 1% of the population has spas, blowjobs, and two day work weeks whipping children in the mines

>>1088276

Lol, bullshit. Train companies didnt adopt the current locking system for almost 20 years after it was invented, because it was cheaper to just hire a new breakman when the old ones fingers got chopped off in the current system

>>1088171
This is fucking bullshit and I wish you liberal revisionists would stop parroting this shit.

The simple fact is life for a factory worker was, and is, far better than the alternative that most of these workers came from. Sustenance farming.

>OH NOEZ DEY WORKZ LONG HOURZ!

Back on the farm they worked from sun up until sundown, every day. Their one break was going to church once a week.

>POOR KIDZ FORCED TO SLAVEZ IN FACTORIES!

You think these kids didn't do much harder and more dangerous work on the farms? Working is just what was expected of you.

>POOR WORKERZ WEREN'T PAID NOTHING, AND DEY STARVED!

If this were true, why do you think they flocked from the farms to the cities in the first place? The fact is they made a lot of money relative to what they were used to, and their lives were easier. On the farms one bad crop, livestock sickness, or drought could literally mean starvation for the entire family.

>>1088292

it could be argued that obama continued it but bush started the fire

>>1088186
>first of all what do you mean by tons of jobs would be shared?
At the same manufacturing job, I would work 2 days on a certain job then you would work 2 days, then someone else etc etc.

>second of all, how will we bring manufacturing jobs back in such levels?
Change monetary and fiscal policy for starters. It's the very reason why everything is made in china now.

>>1088309
Yeah but its your choice, you can quite and starve because there are no social safety nets

FREEDOM AND LIBERTY

A little bit of devils advocate here, but hey free market libertarians.. what will your society do to protect the animals of the world from being hunted to extinction?

The American bison almost went extinct because of this free market idea.. pic related, it is the only part of the bison people wanted leaving millions of dead carcases all across north america

>>1088328
and they would pay you shit as a part time worker with no benefits just like they do now. Stop being retarded

>>1088323
>it could be argued that obama continued it but bush started the fire

As if he had a choice? Once a law is passed, even the president has to follow it. Even if hypothetically Obama had opposed it, he would still have no choice in the matter.

>>1088344
Because animals are no longer a source of viable resources thanks to synthetics?

>>1087876
Lol, under a libertarian scheme, Mega corporations would rule the world more so than they do now. They would create their own private systems of governance with private police protecting them from the starving masses.

>>1088329
>you can quite and starve because there are no social safety nets
BULLSHIT

Why do liberals fucking say this? Private charity would be abundant when prices are really low. We could fucking wipe out poverty in 10 fucking years if we had a free market.

Most people are generally good.

>>1088344

You're a heretic for using your brain to question the Free Market deities. You will be burned at the stake for mentioning the faults of the Free Market.

>>1088378
>Private charity would be abundant when prices are really low.

Complete bullshit. Never happened before the social safety nets. Wouldn't happen after.

>>1088344
the killed them because they were indian food. in a libertarian society, larges swaths of land would be privately owned. obviously the owners wouldn't want people killing all their fauna and harvesting all their flora.

>>1088378
>Private charity would be abundant

Proof of this is where? You want a society 100% based on greed and the belief that greed is good and you want people to assume that charity will magically appear out of thin air?

For real?

>>1088378
Even if that were remotely true, the idea of most people being good is irrelevant when only a few people control the money.

>>1088376
>Mega corporations would rule the world more so than they do now.
LOL No.

How would a corporation have any power if it's very cheap to compete with them? Retard?

How would they be big at all if they weren't supported by the state power democrats have given them?

>They would create their own private systems of governance with private police protecting them from the starving masses.
This is what extremely delusional, uneducated retards that went to a OWS protest actually believe.

>>1087876

I'd rather a libertarian state over a neo-conservative state.

A conservative libertarian state would be my preference.

>>1088353
>Once a law is passed, even the president has to follow it.

But it wasn't passed under Bush, it was proposed. Geithner set up the final draft.

>>1088352
They have no choice in what to pay me, why don't you understand this you fucking idiots? They don't control the cost of labour.

Everyone competes for labour.

That's like saying I could simply sell my car for a trillion dollars and someone would buy it.

>>1088404
>People are evil so the state needs to do it.

>>1088413
what mechanism would stop copropationd from using whatever means necessary from completely wiping out competition with a feeble and powerless government that is even more susceptible to money?

>>1088413

How would you compete with a megacorporation? They can just call their buddies at the bank and deny you a business loan, or pressure their suppliers to not do business with you. They have far more power than you ever will. You can't compete with that. It's like saying one man armed with a broom can defeat an army of 1 million soldiers.

>>1087876
Obvious Troll.
Don't feed the troll!

>>1088404
Charities have always existed and will continue to exist.

People can give more to charity if they have more disposable income.

Libertarianism will lead to more disposable income.

>>1088426
Thats wrong, It was set up and passed under Bush.

I missed where Tim Geithner was President

>>1088409
>when only a few people control the money.
But a libertarian society is the exact opposite of this.

Also on top of this as more and more businesses emerge bigger companies have to work more and more just to stay afloat. EVERYONE owns the money.

>>1088378

Oh wow! LOL! Never change /pol/.

>>1088375
sure they are, look at what is happening to the ocean population, its being fished almost to extinction by asians

the bluefin tuna is going to go the way of the buffalo if the panfaces have their way

>>1088473
What happens when the competing businesses merge?

>>1088465
>People can give more to charity if they have more disposable income.

If theory they COULD. In reality they won't. And we know this because no matter what the tax rate, people have never given enough to charity to cover the nation's needs.

>>1088328

okay. so instead of one person being paid $500 a week, 5 people are paid $100 a week, however both instances they're producing the same amount if we did this "job sharing" with those 5 people working 5 equal allotments of a week. how would this translate into farming though? you can't eat cars or my little pony dolls

also what exactly in terms of monetary and fiscal policies should be changed?

>>1088491
>implying it would even get to that point

They would be either brought out or destroyed. The belief that complete deregulation will lead to business playing nice is ron Paul level retarded

>>1088413
You are the one that is extremely retarded and uneducated faggot. You are naive to think that corporations would suddenly not have any power if the state withered away. You Utopian faggots think that as soon as the state dies that people will automatically start cooperating within a libertarian scheme. Dumb faggot, you don't know shit. Sure is community college in here today.

>>1088402
no they killed them because buffalo hide was a good source of making money.. they used it for clothing and all shit

>>1088387
truth be told I'm a pretty free market person, but I can see the evils of man and the free market can not always fix greed

>>1088521
Either way it creates a monopoly which was the point I was getting at.

>>1088457
>They can just call their buddies at the bank and deny you a business loan

LOL What?

Before I even respond to this, WHY THE FUCK do liberals have such strong opinions on things they have no idea about. It's such an assholish thing to do. You don't understand economics.

Lol why would banks do that? They'd MAKE MONEY loaning money out to smaller businesses. That's their job. If they don't do this then they LOSE money. If they don't do this someone else will. Why would they listen to some company saying "Hey you know that competitor of mine, don't make money off of him by giving him a loan, just continue to not make money so I can be rich lol kay?"
Are you actually saying that all businesses are friends and work together to screw over everyday people? No, and it's impossible if they did.

>or pressure their suppliers to not do business with you.
Again, it would ruin their suppliers. This simply does not happen in reality.


>They have far more power than you ever will.
They only have power because they provided value to society. You know this right?

>>1088031
Yes they will you pessimistic child with no imagination.
>>> pessimistic child with no imagination
>>> child with no imagination
>>> no imagination

Anyone else see the multiple derps in that statement? Sums up liberals really. BUT I IMAGINE IT IN MY HEAD THEREFORE IS TRUE!

>>1088466
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_administration#Legislation_and_executive_orders

Read the first sentence.

And Fuck Obama for this failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act

>>1088570
Wikipedia: stopped reading right there.

>>1088493
> In reality they won't. And we know this because no matter what the tax rate, people have never given enough to charity to cover the nation's needs.

Wrong.

Private charity was much more abundant before this corporatist inflationary state we live with today.

Also if people have countless amounts of money there's no reason why they wouldn't give some of their money to charity.

It simply will happen. It's inevitable in this kind of society.

Also with jobs being incredibly abundant. Most lazy as fuck homeless people WILL work again so the charity burden will be a lot less.

>>1088552
When I said child I should have said angry, self hating child.

>>1087876

by libertarian you mean the original meaning of the term, that is anarchist (left-libertarian), right? because what you've said doesn't equate to libertardianism at all

As long as humans have diversity, we will bitch and moan and not accomplish shit. The only way that a society could be as ideal as you've described is if everyone in the world had common sense and an equal set of morals. Keep dreaming, OP.

>>1088570
>The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

You retarded bro? Did Obama use his tiem machine to sign it into law?

>>1088584

As part of the 2010 budget proposal, the Obama administration has proposed additional measures to attempt to stabilize the economy, including a $2–3 trillion measure aimed at stabilizing the financial system and freeing up credit. The program includes up to $1 trillion to buy toxic bank assets, an additional $1 trillion to expand a federal consumer loan program, and the $350 billion left in the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The plan also includes $50 billion intended to slow the wave of mortgage foreclosures.

>n a July 2009 interview with ABC News, Biden was asked about the sustained increase of the U.S. unemployment rate from May 2007 to October 2009 despite the administration's multi-year economic stimulus package passed five months earlier. He responded "The truth is, we and everyone else, misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there .

>>1088585

>Private charity was much more abundant before this corporatist inflationary state we live with today.

That doesn't mean charities were better at addressing the problems of the needing than a social welfare net. They weren't

>>1088646
>The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

>>1088344
The Bison - that's a great example! We stopped just in time so there are a few herds roaming around in confined areas that millions of nature starved drooling idiots from the city drive thousands of miles every year to go look at and think - wow - we really saved those Bison! Just look at 'em!
Shit is all over man, the whole energy thing, this is just the Jevons paradox phase where people awaken and attempt fixes for awhile.
We are all going back to the far, some I am sure to be slaughtered.

>>1088655
Yes they were and healthcare and education was dramatically cheaper than it was today.

Also I'm talking about a society with tons of money and jobs. More and more disposable income goes to charity.

op, some people actually enjoy working

some people actually want to work at least 4 days a week on average

>>1088616
>by libertarian you mean the original meaning of the term, that is anarchist (left-libertarian), right? because what you've said doesn't equate to libertardianism at all

No I don't I mean classical liberalism and you know it.

>because what you've said doesn't equate to libertardianism at all
Objectively, you are dead wrong.

>>1088723
>Yes they were

There is not one instance of this being true in all of human history.

>>1088728
>>1088728
>some people actually want to work at least 4 days a week on average
Then they have the freedom to do so.

People will be able to save up enough money to retire at a younger and younger age.

>>1088688
Not really sure what you're trying to say in that rambling post, but I remember as a youngin, traveling to south dakota and seeing them, they make for good jerky

>>1088743

classical liberalism is in no way libertarianism. go and read smith and mill, fuckwit

>>1088778
Adam smith is pretty outdated and a lot of what he said was inaccurate.

>>1088670
Its called repealing and Executive Order.

>Within minutes of taking the Oath of Office on January 20, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued an order suspending last-minute federal regulations pushed through by outgoing President George W. Bush, planning to review everything still pending.

While not last minute, he could have issued an order to hold it.

>>1088797

he's 1776. of course he's fucking outdated. but he, mill, ricardo, etc were the classical liberals. especially Mill. libertarianism is a very recent 20th century ideology, and it doesn't share much with classical liberalism at all. it just stole some parts of it

>>1087876


Okay, there are some things I have issues with. First of all, in this thread you have mentioned that you would get a 2 day work week in manufacturing jobs, but you aren't taking into account that we have more technology taking over what was once the assembly line filled with workers. The fact is, we will continually have less and less jobs as more technology is being created to fill the position of an actual worker. So, how would we fix that?

Secondly, you are correct there would be fewer megabanks and corporations, but there would be LARGER of the two as well. If you take away monopoly regulations, etc. it would allow one company to buy out another and another and so on. So, for instance, the AT&T and T-Mobile merger would have been allowed to happen as well as AT&T buying out Sprint or Verizon if it wanted to. So, I think you are correct there would be fewer of those corporations, but that's because the ones that exist now would become larger imo. I'm just looking for a response because these are my issues.

>>1088911

the only way to prevent mega corporations is to restrict size via regulation. this isn't the time of Adam Smith. firms these days naturally tend to get bigger, to take advantage of economies of scale and scope. also many of our modern productive processes can only be done cost effectively by massive firms. this isn't necessarily a bad thing; the massive profits such corps make from avoiding perfect competition also allows them to pay much higher salaries to their workers

>>1088321
It irritates me the way Lolbertardians repeat the meme that farming was horrible work that people fled from.

It's a bald-faced lie and a misrepresentation of the fact that owning farmland meant freedom and class mobility for the people of the past.

Saving up enough money to buy a farm and become financially independent was the goal of every urban worker. What do you think fueled the spread of America across the continent? They certainly weren't looking for manufacturing jobs when they left the urban east for the undeveloped west.

Libertarians are the useful idiots of the banking and industrialist class that seek to enslave mankind. Why else would they spin the lie that independence is inferior to dependance upon a industrial employer?

"Yes, abandon your ability to fend for yourself! Become dependent upon my distribution network to the point that survival on your own is impossible! Buy ipads! download apps that tell us where you are! join networks that tell us who you are! Two day work-weeks (maybe) if you just surrender yourself utterly to our system!"

It's all a fucking scam and I'm shocked more people don't see it.

>>1089000

Yes, but at the same time you are taking out competition. I mean think about it. If a company like AT&T or Verizon were to buy out the competition and become all 4 of the major carriers combined, it would take away competition. And while you could then say "Well then someone could start up a wireless company and compete with them..." that couldn't be possible because they would have to have billions of dollars to build up an infrastructure that large. Also, take a look at Walmart and how they drive out small businesses in areas that they are in. Small businesses can't compete with the low prices that large corporations offer.

Also, you didn't address the issue of more technology taking over manufacturing jobs. If you take a tour of a manufacturing plant, almost 80% of the job is done by machines. Which that number will climb when more advances happen, so how do we support more jobs when more are being taken away by technology?

Mega Corporations good? Pay people more? People working 2 days a week and having more disposable income? Don't tell me this is another one of them threads where people actually believe that china's population are 100x more well off then the rest of the world. You work less, you get paid less. More people have jobs, but the same amount of work is getting done as a person working a full week, therefore the same amount of pay is being handed out, just divided. Even if hourly pay was doubled, your overall individual pay would be more then halved. And your correct in that some company's work better as monopoly's, these are called natural monopoly's, and only work the way you believe they do in small local instances. (water company, local cable, etc.) The amount of holes in libertarian logic is just insane. Don't get me wrong, what you guys want is great, if it was at all achieveable by the means you propose. But most of your ideas are flawed. Just as free market has its flaws. Stop just screaming Libertarian! or Free-Market! You can't have a completely free market economey, and vice versa. It will be exploited

There's a libertarian state in my backyard. I seceded from the United States last year.
There's no central bank, no police state and no military industrial complex.
Come over and take a second wife, throw pills, trade in gold and silver, and dance like it's 1776

>>1089082

of course. i'm not saying mega-corps are necessarily good or bad. certainly, the bigger the firm concentration, the lower competition. as tech takes over manufacturing jobs, people will move to the service industry, like how they moved to manufacturing when tech took over agriculture. at least that's how it is supposed to happen. whether or not it will, who knows. I think our level of tech is just beginning to get so complex, that we will get to the point where the average citizen won't be complementary labour for our new capital, so a lot of people are gonna lose out (if you're complementary labour, that means you can work with the new tech, fix the computers, etc etc)

>>1089219
The idea of people wanting to give away more because they have more disposable income is also just plain ridiculous. Just look at the millionaires, the doctors, lawyers, basically anyone making more then 200k. They don't all say "hey i'm making more then I need, I'll just give some away". Your charitable donations have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of money you make, its the individual beliefs. Some do, most don't. Just because an asshole makes more money, doesn't mean he's gonna stop being an asshole.

>>1088413

You completely ignore the fact that with the current sizes of major corporations, they will stomp out any form of competition in a heartbeat if they had no regulatory restraint.

you libertarians are not crazy, you are SUPER crazy. Seriously.

I wont say anything, the "FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT" its a religion for you.

i am a centrist, nigger/abbo hating dude by the way.

sage

>>1089282

People are fallable. Theres nothing you can do. No certain economic system is going to change that.

ITT: People who have never been to China.

That's right folks, it's a fucking shit hole FULL of poverty. Thank you Liberalism. (No, China is not 'Communist', despite the label.)

>>1089322

Not true, there are plenty of libertarians who think shooting/bombing the fuck out of somebody solves problems too.

>>1089040
Kid doesn't understand that it is irrational to keep working and living on a farm when a machine called a tractor can do the work of 2000 people.
How much of a bonehead do you have to be to realize that nobody wants to keep shoveling shit around when there's a caterpillar around to do it for you.

>>1089348
>mfw the same peopel who point to how shitty China is because of socialism/communism/liberalism also point to chinas incredible growth as a sign of the free market

>Not true, there are plenty of libertarians who think shooting/bombing the fuck out of somebody solves problems too
Uh-Hu. Right. And there are plenty of virgins who love baking cookies for their grandkids.

>>1089382
>implying that china doesn't have capitalist elements, and that workers are allowed to keep CAPITAL and reinvest CAPITAL.
*rollseyes*

>>1088911
>The fact is, we will continually have less and less jobs as more technology is being created to fill the position of an actual worker.

Okay, I come across this concern a lot so let me guide you in thought for a second.

A company hires many workers to assemble its products parts. All of the money spent on employing these workers is part of the cost of production which will be passed to whomever buys the product.

The company's R&D department invents a new machine that can replace all of the workers. Surely if it is the only one that has the technology, it will keep its price the same for a while. If our hypothetical factory is in a state with patents, then their monopoly on this technology will last until the patent runs out. As soon as the patent runs out, this money-saving technology will be used by every intelligent business in the industry. Suddenly, the price of the finished product goes down as workers are laid off and being replaced by machines. So people are losing jobs, but look at the other side of the coin: people are buying the same product for less money than before. Surely people will find something else to spend this extra money on. Perhaps last month they wanted a candy bar but were short the small amount of money to buy it. Now that one product they buy has become slightly cheaper, they can now afford whatever it was at the end of their list of desired products/services. This is where the laid off employee will find a job.

>>1089621

I understand how you could think technology will ruin the economy, but once you grasp the circular flow of money throughout our capitalist system, you'll find that it simply isn't an issue. Imagine a world where every necessity such as food, shelter, and clothing is magically provided free of charge by mother earth. Do you think it would be impossible to get a job in this world? Of course not, there will always be a demand for things people want and if they don't have to spend their hard-earned money on housing and food, they'll just spend it on beer and blowjobs. I hope I've explained it well.

>>1088911

I've explained why technology won't take away all our jobs and now I'll try to explain why monopolies dominating smaller companies aren't a concern in the free market.

>If you take away monopoly regulations, etc. it would allow one company to buy out another and another and so on.

Why would a mega-corporation ever have an incentive to buy out a company they are already much larger than? It seems like it would be a big waste of time for walmart to buy out shitty local grocery stores when it's providing the same service for a cheaper price already. (And I know one major reason is because they collaborate with rich governments in third world countries and play little to nothing for labor, but that is an entirely different story.) The fact is that walmart already puts other stores out of business. Buying up other stores they have no practical use for is simply a waste of money.

>>1089914
"Well," you could say, "what if they use their giant piles of money to buy out all of their main competitors?" Buying out a SUCCESSFUL business is even more expensive than buying out a failing business. And what would walmart have to gain from buying their stores? Many of the stores they buy will be clumped nearby already existing walmart stores, making them geographically inefficient, and they would probably have to update the entire place with their standard procedures (how their stock their merchandise, their employees, who manages it). So they would be paying top dollar for a booming business only to shut it down and replace it with their own business model? If they tried something like that on global scale, they'd be bankrupt almost immediately. And what is the goal anyway? To charge monopoly rate on all their products for a couple of weeks before someone opens a new business down the street and fucks everything up for them? Then of course they'd have to buy them out too, and what if anywhere in the process someone just decides not to sell their store to walmart?

The whole idea that monopolies would be rampant in the free market is completely baseless when you actually take the time to work it out logically.
It's a myth and nothing more.

>>1089381
are you trolling me?
You have to be trolling me.
No one is dumb enough to believe a labor saving device would make farmers want to give up farming to go work in a factory.

>>1089621
>invents a new machine that can replace all of the workers.
>people are losing jobs
>the patent runs out, the price of the finished product goes down

So what exactly are these unemployed people doing in the ten year period between them getting laid off and prices going down?

>>1089040
Bro, as someone who farms about a half-acre of land with minimal equipment, it is anything but easy.

I'm actually plan on planting less because of how much work it took to maintain what I grew this past season. A lot of my spinach, especially, was undernourished and yielded very little.

I can say for a fact that if it wasn't so much better than the produce at the supermarket, I would quit farming in a heartbeat because it would simply be easier to work my day job and buy the shit.

>>1090036
That's actually a good point.

Patents are probably just as damaging as any other state regulation imo.

I know for a fact they are delaying progress in the medical community decades and decades.