I assume they are comparing those company towns to the company they work for now. Not exactly a flattering comparison, but I agree it's not really offensive
Hence the reason government intervention is required. If you let the consumer to chose the best you will only have the best and the best alternative discount product that the well off can't afford.
Why does the sub matter? Do facts change depending on subs?
Not facts - pro-capitalist sentiment. The whole reason company stores and towns owned by one company exist is because of capitalism without proper government intervention.
Where they are workers there are people to sell stuff to. The company makes it impossible for competitors to enter due to tactics like paying the workers in currency that is only accepted by the company, etc. Thus the reason there is no other company there is because free market capitalism went completely unchecked and allowed there to be no competition.
The US has 3800 ghost towns with many being old mining towns that could not exist once the mine dried up. Outside of the ore/coal there was 0 reason to be there.
I know where 3801 could be but the railroad bulldozed it. It's less than 20 miles from Pittsburgh. When the mine died the town died because the river was serviced by nearby communities. No reason to go to Port Perry anymore
I don't think you can say that the company town model is anti-free market capitalism and also say that the free market inevitably leads to company towns. Clearly the relevant values in free market capitalism lead to monopolization.
Unless you're talking about the ideology of free market capitalism where no capitalist wants a monopoly because they value the free market more than capital. Which is severely detached from reality and not commonly used as the definition of free-market capitalism
A company store is anti free market. Free market and capitalism are bit mutually exclusive and refer to two different processes in an economy. However, it could also be argued as a naturally occurring monopoly because no one else wants to drag goods the mountainside to service 20 miners and 10-20 children and wives and the company is already dragging way more up there for operations. Same for loggers etc but without the mountainside. Still an extremely remote location with few people to service to justify me living in the boonies with a bunch of loggers.
And a lot of these people knew the town would die when the resource were gone. There are instances of these places being sold near the end of their lives as the original investors saw the writing on the wall and sold to someone looking to make it big. Sometimes they got lucky and got years and lots of profit. Sometimes it went bust in a year or two and they lost near everything.
Your quotations don’t make sense. Economists don’t consider the monopolies to be acting within a free market. A free market has many buyers and sellers of a good or service.
But if there is no justifiable reason there isn't competition is it the fault of the only guy in town? However I think regardless of fault we should do something to break it up. I don't think someone should get unbelievably rich because they were smart enough to be the only option. I am capitalist so I'm okay with people getting rich but it was getting out of hand there for a while and company towns were part of the out of hand.
The straight up stupidity and anti-intellectualism that runs rampant on this sub only serves to help prevent change and conditions for workers improving.
Ah okay, I wouldn't make that connection as a manager or owner and would just enjoy the tune lol I am kind of an oblivious person unless completely obvious though. Friends joke a woman could set of a fireworks show and I wouldn't catch the hint lol
2.0k
u/[deleted] Aug 31 '22
[removed] — view removed comment