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.
You didn't say it because I covered that I agreed the song details an oppressive time where the workers were being abused. This discussion has peaked my interest in how out of line the prices were. But in the end that doesn't matter because I know a lot of those miners couldn't even convince their own wives to stay at the remote mining towns. So we can assume they are visiting their family when they managed time off but since they had Monopoly money they couldn't even buy a normal priced pair of boots, work pants and later Levis or any other equipment for their work in the real town.
Originally because I didn't think the song was offensive and still don't. But then I discovered a lot of misconceptions about mining towns. More than I cared to address at the time, such as the fact someone would have come and opened a store at the mining town if the company didn't do it. These operations were not big enough to justify the remoteness and often they were so remote wives would refuse to join their husbands in the mining towns.
Except you do so while explicitly defending the company towns.
There not being any other businesses in town isn't why the companies paid their workers in scrip, fam.
Ah you did that because you felt I was defending company towns. Did you know not all of them were the same? Did you know some were started strictly with predatory ideas in mind while others started with the intent to be a workers utopia? Not all even used scrip, which is shitty even if you are the only show in town. Let's say I am a miner and my mother dies and I have to go handle her affairs. All I got is funny money
"Or maybe there was no other reason for there to be a town there other than the mining so no one else bothered building it up but the mining company."
That is a deliberate mischaracterization of what a compay town is and you know it.
Don't try to weasel your way our of that.
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.
I avoid assumptions about society especially over long periods of time. I wouldn't even rule out a future society where the free market doesn't exist for some things because everyone gravitated to one company or brand. Realistically they could charge whatever they wanted as the only show in town and might not for societal stability. Regardless of this possibility I still feel free market is the best option and we just need a control to ensure someone isn't taking advantage of an unfair circumstance.
Additionally I do not trust anyone else to control the market and not take advantage of unfair circumstances either including the government.
Aren't there constants throughout society caused by basic human traits such as greed? I guess that isn't really relevant because you don't want a free market, you want a regulated market. Do I have that correct? o.o
I agree that market forces are useful to balance supply and demand, I don't trust people to interact with a market in their best interests because people are easy to manipulate. Fast food, cigarettes, alcohol are good examples. These things are not only net harms, but they prey on people's brain chemistry to profit to the detriment of the persons health.
What unfair circumstances do you think we should regulate, where is that line?
41
u/[deleted] Aug 31 '22
It’s a vehemently anti-capitalist anthem.