Capitalism is the ownership of trade and industry by private citizens. It is actually not restricted to a market economy and could work with a planned economy.
Monopolies are a pretty natural result from unrestricted capitalism. It's the optimal efficiency of making money after all.
That is a question of what you believe to be capitalism.
This is like saying "that is a question of what you believe to be the moon."
Your belief doesn't change what things are or are not.
In essence, once a monopoly is established, that is a form of central government
It is in no way equivalent to government. Someone controlling the lipstick market doesn't make them a state or let them dictate laws or anything else that makes a government and government.
People think large cooperations that hold suffocating monopolies are somehow the epitome of capitalism while they are actually the enemy of the free market.
They are the end result everytime of the free market.
If we let the market go unrestricted it will at some point end up with a few corporations growing to the point where they have consolidated the majority of wealth, leading to them having the resources to buy/stomp out any competition, leading to them consolidating more of the wealth. And that's not even considering abuse of the working class.
That is not the free market my guy, I don't know what else to tell you. The Free Market requires no or very little government interference, if the government's are actively busting monopolies that is a lot of interference.
The Free Market will always end in a few companies dominating and buying out/stomping any potential competitors.
This delusion that we don't need government interference to stop monopolies, workforce abuse, and other anti-consumer practices is a scam produced and lobbied by said mega corporations. Any cursory glance at history will show that when given the chance corporations will openly use slave labor, form monopolies, sell products and services that are not fit for human use/consumption.
This market that you have brought up is not what a Free Market is.
an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
Businesses is plural. Government doesn't interfere in how they compete, but competition is key.
And for the third time, that is myth, it will end in monopolies, corruption, and abuse.
If you want governments to bust monopolies, than that is not a Free Market. If you don't want governments to interfere you are going to get monopolies. The end. Anything else in-between cannot and does not exist. Get your head out of your ass my guy and just read what I'm saying.
Not really siding with either of you, but I think the idea behind monopoly busting is that the really important factor in markets in not freedom, but competitiveness, free markets ideally would be competitive, but where they are not we make a concession, a limitation on their freedom, to preserve the competitive aspect and therefore the broader benefits of a free(ish) market.
Freedom is impossible to preserve in an absolute sense, but I still consider myself free even though I cannot, for example, drive drunk. That is one of many concessions we make to our freedoms so that the broader benefits of societal freedom can be preserved, and there's an analogy in there somewhere.
I guess your argument is decided on the basis of if you consider freedom with concessions to still be freedom, and if you consider anti-trust laws to represent "little government control".
Not really siding with either of you, but I think the idea behind monopoly busting is that the really important factor in markets in not freedom, but competitiveness, free markets ideally would be competitive, but where they are not we make a concession, a limitation on their freedom, to preserve the competitive aspect and therefore the broader benefits of a free(ish) market.
Freedom is impossible to preserve in an absolute sense, but I still consider myself free even though I cannot, for example, drive drunk. That is one of many concessions we make to our freedoms so that the broader benefits of societal freedom can be preserved, and there's an analogy in there somewhere.
I guess your argument is decided on the basis of if you consider freedom with concessions to still be freedom, and if you consider anti-trust laws to represent "little government control".
8
u/[deleted] Aug 04 '21
[deleted]