• conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is one of the supposed benefits of the free market. If left alone, under normal conditions, what’s supposed to happen is that badly ran, uncompetitive firms end up showing themselves the door, making room for new market competitors who may not be so badly managed. Don’t fucking save them, especially don’t advocate for saving them if you claim to love free markets.

    • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      we dont have a free market. We have what i can only describe as Inverse Socialism

      its socialism for the wealthy and the corporations, and “free market” for everyone else

      this is part of the reason why theft of property from the rich, or violence against them, is not morally wrong.

      They get tax breaks that we all pay for, and they influence policies that help themselves while killing us.

      You cant steal what you already paid for, and its not murder when its self defense

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It is, afaik, the literal, actual, unironic definition of the fascist economic model. Basically, the public sector only really exists in the form of “private” companies that are tightly coupled to the government.

        • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          thats what they taught us about communist Russia when i was in highschool

          Our economics class learned that their “public” sector was a mix of private companies acting as both private citizens AND government agencies.

          And my teacher was like “imagine if all the roads and utilities and infrastructure for the country was run by private, FOR PROFIT businesses that benefit from laws written for citizens, AND from laws written for corporations but are not bound by either”

          20 years later i realize thats how its been here the whole time

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Historically I don’t think that’s what the term “free market” was referring to, although some people do use it that way now. As always, we need to remember that there are no normal conditions, and free markets aren’t free. If you don’t have anti-monopoly legislation, if you don’t have anti-corruption legislation, then large corporations will win.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Agreed, but the big players have their hands tied up in Congress and the military so much that it’s not gonna happen.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Then they should be nationalized, because they’ve already got the benefits, but none of the downsides, while the public get none of the benefits, and all of the downsides… At this point “too big to fail” are essentially critical government infrastructure setup by wealthy criminals to steal directly from tax payers.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nationalizing industries? In America? We don’t do that here, friend. We give corporations massive bailouts and forgive all felonies.

          • satanmat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Ya know… I was going to say “You dropped this /s”

            But then sadly, I realized you didn’t :-(

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I mean the US came shocking close after the Penn Central collapse, even operating Conrail for several years as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Federal Government for several years

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think you could make the argument it is already nationalized if the government bails them out to protect it’s military industry sector.

    • Rookwood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      The problem with free markets is they are incredibly unstable and create booms and busts and people don’t like this so we get the worst of all worlds which is unfettered capitalism and no competition or failure weeding out poorly managed companies. Maybe free markets are just a shitty ideal?

      • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Maybe free markets are just a shitty ideal?

        Yes. The answer to that question is yes. Free market capitalism encourages cutthroat competition in which the only factor in any decision-making process is maximizing profits. Safety isn’t a factor. Employee well-being isn’t a factor. National security isn’t a factor. The economy at large isn’t a factor. Long term investments aren’t even a factor. Line go up this quarter equals good quarter. Regulations ensure mandatory minimums for societal prosperity.

        • JoJo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Until corporations realise they can cheat and change the game by bribing politicians to tip the scales in their favour.

          Business exists only for one thing; exploiting systems, even if that means meta-exploitation, since that’s the highest form of exploitation, and the inevitable endgame.