DB RELATED: Department of Justice is concerned about the Sony acquisition of Crunchyroll

[kemuri07]

Monopolies require a government preventing competitors from entering a market. That's not a feature of Capitalism.

It absolutely is a feature of unfettered capitalism.
Contrary to your statement, it is the lack of effective legislation that leads to corporations merging and gaining power. Big corporations are able to keep legislators down with lobbying groups.

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

I know I'm necroing this post. But nah?

It's unfettered when you allow Corporations and CEOs to pay pennies on taxes, or to make most of their fortune on the stock market. The law is just a bunch of words that don't mean anything if the people enforcing aren't doing the right thing. Because the law isn't for them--it's for us.

And no it really isn't as simple as "less government power." What you mean is to give corporations and billionairs less political power." This is major fault of our system: Too much influence by dark money means that a collection of politicians answer solely to lobbyists rather than their own constituents

[kemuri07]

Yup, there was tons of violence involved, typically instigated by the owner class. Workers will turn to strikes first and those are typically met with retaliation that escalates into violence.

Remember, there wouldn't be violence if the workers got what they wanted: living wages, safe worl conditions and short work hours. Those things have historically needed to be acquired with what the wealthy and corporations deem is 'violence', whether that means stopping/delaying work (and thus hurting the profits of the owner) or fucking shit up.

What's the success rate for violent protest compared to peaceful protests and strikes? I ask because I've read the results vary and I don't know if they've been more successful. In some cases, it leads to the company changing their policies but it can also lead to layoffs or the company shutting down that factory/location or going out of business completely.

Peaceful protests are difficult to maintain if your government makes it easy for companies to ignore it. When Jeff Bezos could easily fire everyone who strikes, there's not much power given to workers. And remember:

https://twitter.com/TheKingCenter/statu ... -years-ago

[Anonymous Friend]

It has been approved. Sadly, more power is being consolidated in fewer hands.

Fewer people to screw me over. Less subs I have to pay for to get what I want.

When was the last time a monopoly actually cost consumers more money? 100 years ago?

There's probably plenty of monopolies you benefit from.

Monopolies aren't inherently bad. People just think of the worst case scenerio right off the bat.

[Anonymous Friend]

It absolutely is a feature of unfettered capitalism.
Contrary to your statement, it is the lack of effective legislation that leads to corporations merging and gaining power. Big corporations are able to keep legislators down with lobbying groups.

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

I know I'm necroing this post. But nah?

It's unfettered when you allow Corporations and CEOs to pay pennies on taxes, or to make most of their fortune on the stock market. The law is just a bunch of words that don't mean anything if the people enforcing aren't doing the right thing. Because the law isn't for them--it's for us.

And no it really isn't as simple as "less government power." What you mean is to give corporations and billionairs less political power." This is major fault of our system: Too much influence by dark money means that a collection of politicians answer solely to lobbyists rather than their own constituents

Companies and business enterprises are what built the United States. It was the government who ventured out into the unknown. Sometimes a government person tagged along, but it was most people trying to build lives for themsleves and most of them grew and grew. Notice how town live or die based off whether they have jobs and not whether they have government.

[ABED]

It absolutely is a feature of unfettered capitalism.
Contrary to your statement, it is the lack of effective legislation that leads to corporations merging and gaining power. Big corporations are able to keep legislators down with lobbying groups.

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

I know I'm necroing this post. But nah?

It's unfettered when you allow Corporations and CEOs to pay pennies on taxes, or to make most of their fortune on the stock market. The law is just a bunch of words that don't mean anything if the people enforcing aren't doing the right thing. Because the law isn't for them--it's for us.

And no it really isn't as simple as "less government power." What you mean is to give corporations and billionairs less political power." This is major fault of our system: Too much influence by dark money means that a collection of politicians answer solely to lobbyists rather than their own constituents

This is mostly empty platitudes

[kemuri07]

How is what we have unfettered? There are mountains of regulations and taxes, often contradictory and arbitrary. But sure, it's unfettered. What we have isn't capitalism. We have a mixed economy with elements of Socialism and Capitalism. You want less pressure group warfare? Easy, give the government less political power.

I know I'm necroing this post. But nah?

It's unfettered when you allow Corporations and CEOs to pay pennies on taxes, or to make most of their fortune on the stock market. The law is just a bunch of words that don't mean anything if the people enforcing aren't doing the right thing. Because the law isn't for them--it's for us.

And no it really isn't as simple as "less government power." What you mean is to give corporations and billionairs less political power." This is major fault of our system: Too much influence by dark money means that a collection of politicians answer solely to lobbyists rather than their own constituents

Companies and business enterprises are what built the United States. It was the government who ventured out into the unknown. Sometimes a government person tagged along, but it was most people trying to build lives for themsleves and most of them grew and grew. Notice how town live or die based off whether they have jobs and not whether they have government.

That is a very, very warm and fuzzy interpretation of imperialism. I mean what do you think we did when we found a location "to grow."?

Towns live and die because of political nonsense that give corporations near unlimited power. And it almost always hurts the very people it supposed to be helping. Jobs don't mean much of anything when it becomes harder and harder to find work with a livable wage. Add that to the focus of Privatization, in which what should be government funded utilities such as education or healthcare are passed off to individuals who have no reason to do anything other than make profit, and you have a society in which cost of living is absurdly high. Yes, America is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, but it almost means nothinig when a large percentage of that wealth is not going to its people.

Like everything else, there needs to be a balance.

[Anonymous Friend]

Companies and business enterprises are what built the United States. It wasn't the government who ventured out into the unknown. Sometimes a government person tagged along, but it was most people trying to build lives for themsleves and most of them grew and grew. Notice how town live or die based off whether they have jobs and not whether they have government.

That is a very, very warm and fuzzy interpretation of imperialism. I mean what do you think we did when we found a location "to grow."?

Towns live and die because of political nonsense that give corporations near unlimited power. And it almost always hurts the very people it supposed to be helping. Jobs don't mean much of anything when it becomes harder and harder to find work with a livable wage. Add that to the focus of Privatization, in which what should be government funded utilities such as education or healthcare are passed off to individuals who have no reason to do anything other than make profit, and you have a society in which cost of living is absurdly high. Yes, America is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, but it almost means nothinig when a large percentage of that wealth is not going to its people.

Like everything else, there needs to be a balance.

I fixed a typo from my post that that talked about who did the venturing. Looks like you still got the jist, though.

For most rulerships it's usually the government who did the expassions. All the big world power conquered and explored. The US is a pit different. Maybe because we were so new. A large majority of those going west were business related. The government had it's chance to be more agressive and wrangle them in, but at this point it's out of control. And it will never be fixed.

[Aim]

It’s insane to me how there’s people that think America is a mixture of both socialism and capitalism.

I also find it strange that some people think there’s nothing wrong with a corporation gaining more and more control by buying out other businesses eventually leading to a monopoly. This is the “variation” capitalism is meant to provide.

[Raki]

The US is a mixed economy. Bank bailouts wouldn't happen under a purely capitalist system.

With this merger I wonder if Sony will try to do Animax in North America.

[Aim]

The US is a mixed economy. Bank bailouts wouldn't happen under a purely capitalist system.

With this merger I wonder if Sony will try to do Animax in North America.

When your system depends heavily on certain entities to function, then they need bailouts or everything begins to collapse, hence the 2008 crisis. America is extremely capitalist, there’s little to no kind of socialism in there. Bank bailouts are consistent with capitalism, but not so much anarcho capitalism or laissez faire capitalism.

[Shaddy]

Bank bailouts are consistent with capitalism, but not so much anarcho capitalism or laissez faire capitalism.

Both of which are propagandist myths made to imply that the rich having an unfair advantage is somehow a flaw in liberalism, rather than the inherent intent of capitalism. State and capital are one power.

[kemuri07]

Bank bailouts are consistent with capitalism, but not so much anarcho capitalism or laissez faire capitalism.

Both of which are propagandist myths made to imply that the rich having an unfair advantage is somehow a flaw in liberalism, rather than the inherent intent of capitalism. State and capital are one power.

That's a bingo. Though I tend to see Capitalism as a system in which there are actors who react to said system, rather than some evil group like the illuminati who rules over everything. Mainly both sides need the other to survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean they move as one. More often, they're against each other.

America is largely a capitalist society with bits of socialism sprinkled in, aka: the welfare state. Although, when most people talk about socialism, they're really talking about democratic socialism.

[Shaddy]

That's a bingo. Though I tend to see Capitalism as a system in which there are actors who react to said system, rather than some evil group like the illuminati who rules over everything. Mainly both sides need the other to survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean they move as one. More often, they're against each other.

I should clarify that I'm not saying the 1% are some secret satanic cabal or anything. They're molded by a system that just happens to make being an evil piece of shit very beneficial to them. But that isn't an accident. You look at the architects of conservative philosophy like Burke or de Maistre and you find the sentiment that yes, the French aristocracy needed a system for preserving their power and status in spite of democracy, and the outsized weight that a wealthy person's ability holds under capitalism is that system.

[Aim]

Bank bailouts are consistent with capitalism, but not so much anarcho capitalism or laissez faire capitalism.

Both of which are propagandist myths made to imply that the rich having an unfair advantage is somehow a flaw in liberalism, rather than the inherent intent of capitalism. State and capital are one power.

Well, yeah, it really sucks. I remember being told as a child that the wealth trickles down onto the rest of us, I actually believed it until I started to think about it more.