Message from @Ipod
Discord ID: 473805178899005450
I was wondering what the man Peter Thiel was up to and I found out that earlier this month he was voicing his support for Trump. This is almost like Kanye:black america::Peter Thiel:Tech. A cultural leader signalling paradigm shift. Elon Musk next? https://youtu.be/FDkhfm6CYjE?t=43m35s
Funny enough, he even talks about the swinging pendulum of ideas in his opening statement.
You mean the same Peter Thiel who lets his chief mathematician Eric Weinstein name drop him on a regular basis? lol
Honestly why should we care what Elon Musk thinks anyway?
Guy's a moron.
TRUE
But he has money, which means he do capitalism good
Or very very bad
That interviewer is such a fucking ideologue, it was hard to listen to. It was like he was trying to coax Thiel into making some kind of anti-capitalist statement
also might I remind everyone that Monopolies are a government creation
@AiarUther For the most part, yes, monopolies are a government creation. Monopolies in of themselves are not inherently evil, but most monopolies that come to mind are evil. What is the differentiation between an evil monopoly and a good monopoly? Simply by the means in which the monopoly is created. Most monopolies are created out of fraud and force, via regulations and such, these are evil monopolies. A good monopoly on the other hand is a monopoly that is created from natural means, meaning, natural market forces. A good monopoly comes to being because it provides the best quality product or service in its particular market and its competition cannot provide better. Also in the case of evil monopolies competition is barred from entry, while for a good monopoly competition can attempt to enter and defeat the monopoly if it so pleased.
well I define a monopoly as a company that owns the majority market share of a service or product.
one that, in doing so, can set the price artificially
the problem is that this will almost never happen naturally
not without government or violent enforcement
Well I would agree with your definition for the most part, however, not necessarily majority, but rather overwhelming majority is probably a better way to put it. 51% market share does not make a monopoly is why I would state overwhelming, but that's mere semantics. As to artificially setting prices, every company does this, it just depends on the consumer as to whether or not they wish to adhere to that artificially set price.
And yes, that is indeed the case. It almost never happens unless through force or coercion by government and the like.
But the thing is even if they have 100% of the market share
they are still at risk of competition
yes, if they arise naturally
and oligrachies don't work either
you only need one company not to comply or an upstart company who wants to take all their customers
no they don't, oligarchies don't arise much at all naturally. In the flooring industry it very much is an oligarchy and then we had Beaulieu come in and wreck the place. Their branch here went under recently and fell into the hands of another competitor. There's 2 major flooring manufacturers, Mohawk and Shaw. They kind of run it together and then butt heads.
but again, they can't artificially raise prices
Eh, they can, if consumers like the product and think the new price is still worth it, but usually in most cases, consumers stop purchasing goods when prices are raised too high. It's a matter of balancing supply/demand/price.
And of course competition enters to make prices lower
yes
capitalism is beautiful
I agree wholeheartedly.
I'm almost an Ancap, minus the an
lol
I'm a minarchist
Which was that again?
I'm honestly thinking it's the fancy way of saying "libertarian"
I think that the goovernment should reduced to the minimum size possible
I'm anarcho-agnostic for the most part
ah, well that's what I'm closest too, Libertarian, although not a Libertarian per se. I think government more as a mediator rather than a regulator.