There are no good arguments against the free market and free trade

When the markets are free in the sense that we can exclude non whites from privately owned spaces, then I'll be interested.
Until then give me a hard hitting authoritarian who will legally remove them from the country as a whole.

>monopoly
Monopoly only occurs in the presence of anti-competitive regulation. The solution to monopoly is not to dictate the conditions of the market but to remove all regulation which inhibits entrance to a monopolized market.

china

It works as long as you put a huge effort in keeping it free.
Sorry, joomers, no OPEC, banking monopoly, kike mafia and other typical shit for you.

I don't even think Sowell thinks free market is even good in some all encompassing sense. He looks thu everything as a matter of trade off, and from his perspective the pile of negatives produced from free markets is less than the pile produced from other economic systems. That's it. If another system comes along with a better trade-off like central planning using AGI, Sowell would drop free markets in an instant.

>"There is no solution to anybodies problems. Just trade-offs" - Thomas Sowell.

>Giving niggers more than 3/5ths of anything

You superstitious retards think the government is a magical demonic entity who brings evil into our world.
Regulations, tax gibs, lobbying... aren't the only reason for monopolies and other kosher bullshit.

Monopolise are inevitable whether there is regulations or not. Competition leads to Internationalism which what were seeing nowadays with multi national corporations and NGO's.

EU-sponsored education folks, the pride and joy of one Eric Arthur Blair.

In a simple world, your point would in general make sense. We do not live in a simple world.

- Cross continent trains required government approval. A railroad can't just build rail lines where ever. The need for government approval results in monopoly profit.

- Drug producers want protection for their intellectual property. Cures for serious diseases do not get created without government protection of the patent. The patent results in monopoly profit.

- Search engines and other Big Tech giants used their excess gains to purchase up all other suppliers, and then used their money to lobby congress for Section 230 protection. Both factors resulted in monopoly profit.

Simply doing away with all anti-competitive regulation is no simple task. And it is unlikely to occur in the real world.

Attached: Picard thinking.jpg (729x410, 24.4K)

Yes, even as a hardcore libertarian and free trader, I think free trade hits a wall when it comes to basic national security. For instance, intelligence systems should not have their computers made with Chinese chips. That might require protectionist manufacturing quotas.

It's a broken game that makes some people royalty because they accumulated a bunch of pieces of paper. Fuck your world, and fuck you.
No, not a Commie fuck. I just hate every last one of you.

>blames society for being a loser
lol

Ever thought of making an argument to what i said burger instead of sprouting opinionated nonsense?

Silk road incident.

>The need for government approval results in monopoly profit.
There is no reason railroads of any kind require government approval. Remove over-reach and you've removed monopoly profits.
>The patent results in monopoly profit.
There is no reason I should not be able to synthesize and sell any drug I like. Remove over-reach and you've removed monopoly profits.
>Both factors resulted in monopoly profit.
There is no reason for software companies to be granted any kind of government protection from competition what so ever. Remove over-reach and you've removed monopoly profits.
In each of these cases monopoly profit exists SOLELY because of government over-reach into private industry. It is a simple and direct cause and effect relationship, remove the regulation, and you've removed the monopoly.

>Simply doing away with all anti-competitive regulation is no simple task.
Doing away with all anti-competitive regulation requires bravery. People will fear the series of changes, but each and every change brought about to build a free market is a positive change for society.
No, your arguments are all commie strawmen, see this post for more details.

I don't follow your point. Competition is what wears monopoly away. Lack of competition (supply) results in higher prices because of the excess ratio of consumers (demand).

Not a fan of globalism, by the way. I think it has gotten out of hand, but monopolies only want globalism in order to expand their market share. If governments step in to break up monopolies and to encourage competition, that's a good thing. It decreases that monopolies ability to keep pushing for globalist policies that are harming Western societies.

Attached: picard 2.jpg (1280x720, 94.39K)

Nobody cares virgin

>Ecology is pseudoscience
Ecology is more of a science than economics.

>There is no reason for software companies to be granted any kind of government protection from competition what so ever.

Perhaps there is no moral reason, but there is a very practical reason for why the government protection actually occurred.

Big Tech was granted government protection because they used their windfall gains to buy up supply and then lobbied the government. It was their initiative. Not the government's.

>Doing away with all anti-competitive regulation requires bravery.

Plenty of brave people exist. Right now there are 50 attorney generals going after Alphabet. So far nothing is happening. Ask why.

Is it because of lack of bravery? Or is there another factor? Did they make a behind the scenes deal? If so, what was the deal? If not, why can't 50 attorney generals expedite the break-up?

Keep asking why.

Attached: Thomas Sowell 7.jpg (1920x1080, 174.33K)

>Ecology is more of a science than economics.
Not by enough to not completely dismiss Ecology as much more than what happens when you let women call themselves 'systems dynamicists'
Ecology kids get the headpat, but that's about all.

Breakup is the intended purpose of the tech companies, but they want to stall til the right people are back in power. Breakups can results in a giant government subsidies if you've blackmailed the right people.

I'll give you an example. Lest say 4 guys in a small town open up 4 of the same shops like food grocery store. One of the four owners is an extremely talented businessman man and out sources the other 3. He invests and expands forcing the other 3 too close. Thing's like this happen all the time. You're failing to remember that with competition there is winners and losers. The winner eventually take over the market and that's usually without government intervention. Then the winners usually pay government for what they want. The race to the top has ended in the ''free market''. The competition is over. Capital is now more powerful than government.
You say competition brings down prices? False. Cheap labour brings down prices. Thats why everything is made in china and sold in America. People need to evole with the times and realise that internationalism is replacing our identity for material wealth.
Changes need to done but, are impossible to implement.

>Expecting animals to flourish in a human society

>There is no reason railroads of any kind require government approval.

Private and federal property gets in the way. Costs become impractical when attempting to build railroads around these things. You want a simple answers. I get it. Instead look for basic principles. But be prepared for the resulting complexity.

>There is no reason I should not be able to synthesize and sell any drug I like.

What if it results in national decline? Wouldn't the national security exemption apply to free market economics in this case? Or are you okay with heroin being sold to children? Or do you have another free market solution to this such as free market police?

The problem I see with your arguments is that you want to expand the very real simple principles underlying economics and want to expand that out to a simple to understand world. It will not be forthcoming any time soon. Even Thomas Sowell teaches that those very simple principles result in enormous complexity.

There is no economy in the world that it is not mixed to some degree.

Attached: Thomas Sowell 3.jpg (2348x1326, 297.66K)

Correct.
He never said that they fully exist, he said there are no arguments against the structure and it's results.

>are you okay with heroin being sold to children?
Children are not my property, thus not my responsibility. The free market is a dangerous place and Parents must be relied upon to care for their children. Security of other people's offspring is none of the state's business The state's business is to create a state of general order purely for the purposes of voluntary (free) trade.

You're missing the point. Local business without regulations will always trump larger companies. It's the inverse with heavy regulations. period.

>There is no economy in the world that it is not mixed to some degree.
Mixed economies result from conversations where no one has successfully refuted proposals for regulation which are anti-competitive. It is the duty of, in this case, the American people to ensure that anti-competitive regulation is never allowed to stand as law.
This requires that professional and learned men take up legislation as a PART TIME job. Such men could easily replace the PROFESSIONAL and thus PURCHASED politicians of today.

How the fuck am i pulling a ''strawman''? Do you even know what a strawman is or do you just throw out that word when you don't want to discuss a topic. I don't what you're takking about to other people. Stick what i said and not other people. And by the way, the EU, as bad as it is, would put the American education system to shame. Bugerland depends on international students from Europe and Asia to keep their intellectual ideas going.

>but they want to stall til the right people are back in power.

Back in power at what level? The 50 attorney generals are a state coalition. Not a federal one. Are these 50 attorney generals waiting for new people to come into power at the state level? That would seem rather chaotic.

Are these 50 attorney generals waiting for the federal government to get out of the way? If so, why would men like Trump and Barr stall the AGs at the state level?

Would a Biden or Sanders presidency make things EASIER for the 50 AGs? I think even you would highly doubt that.

The reasons for the stall may go deeper than what is occurring to you at the moment. Keep asking why. Then test your hypothesis.

Attached: Thomas Sowell 9.jpg (480x360, 14.12K)

You posted a fart, go take a walk, think about all the economic activity you get up to, then think of how the government gets in the way of that activity.
Those are the things I want to remove and basically you're just shitting out of your hands. Take a lap.

minor procedural thing
aint it
>Attorneys General?

>There are no good arguments against free trade
Yes there is: theft, slavery, illegal activities abroad.

Imagine you have a used car dealership in which you buy and sell used cars, now imagine some Mexicans open up a competing used car dealership over the road - except they don't buy used cars, they steal them.
Would you be able to compete with them on price? No!
Would you go out of business? Probably.

Well the Mexicans over the road is China.

Further, by the time these goons modify the legal code to their liking a simple assembly of computer code can undermine all of their economic power. I have not considered this whole 230 nonsense to be much of a threat, you seem to know whats up.
Can i get a QRD?

I think you're the one missing the point. In areas where they have little regulations the same things happen. Smart businessmen out smart dumber businessmen. Why are you ignoring the fact that in competition there is winner and losers? How can a small business compete with a large one even without regulations? You're misinformed by a libertarian ideology.

100% not true. The Universities and other colleges profit from international students as they require higher fees. That is the only major reason for accepting foreign students. They do not even make up a majority of the student population. There is a reason everyone comes here for secondary education, we have the top secondary education system in the world. Wish it was improved, still.

>>are you okay with heroin being sold to children?

>The free market is a dangerous place and Parents must be relied upon to care for their children.

What if the parent is addicted to heroin?

>Security of other people's offspring is none of the state's business

What if offspring are orphans running around the streets? And no churches exist to take them in? Should we continue to apply simple principles to a complex world?

>The state's business is to create a state of general order purely for the purposes of voluntary (free) trade.
>There is no reason I should not be able to synthesize and sell any drug I like.

And the buying and selling of heroin would in no way interfere with voluntary (free) trade? How about uranium?

Lastly, at what point do you concede a point? How much more ridiculous do you want to get?

Simple economic principles exist. But they have to be applied to a complex world--not a simple one. Get used to it, son.

Attached: Thomas Sowell 2.jpg (932x761, 62.46K)

No one said that there aren't winners or losers, in fact in that scenario, the consumer always wins as they get goods and services at the lowest cost. However, what you are saying about regulations is factually false. Under a free market system, less government regulation leads to more competition, not less.

There really isn’t.

Answer my original question burger? How are monopolies with or without regulations not inevitable? By your logic, you're saying there is no winners or losers in competition and that the competition goes on forever which isn't true. The markets change but once they become monopolized then the race is over. There is plenty of countries like my own where people have alot of economic freedom yet, the same things were regulations do exist the same problems still happen.

>What if offspring are orphans running around the streets? And no churches exist to take them in? Should we continue to apply simple principles to a complex world?
If a community is not wise enough to work out free market solutions to it's problems, either someone finds actual use for these people, or they languish in obscurity. It is absolutely not the business of government or economy to ensure the survival of the unfit.
>Simple economic principles exist. But they have to be applied to a complex world--not a simple one.
I understand your phobias on the matter. You do not have faith in free market solutions to some of the scarier problems, but do you not see that perhaps trillions of dollars worth of self-interest is on the line when it comes to keeping the free market running? The simple un-coerced nature of a free market both applies and corrects the morality of its participants.

This 'complex' world you describe is precisely that from a freudian sense, you've applied a neurotic complex of ideas which indicate your fears about liberty, and not the complexities of a truly free market.
I did answer your question in the post I told you to read.

Just make it simple and stop harassing the man, name one monopoly that was created that didn't have the influence of government to create it. There is literally none, and milton friedman and thomas sowell have made this point many times. Moreover, government creates monopolies through economic interference, military force in cases of authoritarian regimes, etc.

You worship the free market but get awkward and scared when walking by a homeless person, a fallout of the free market

You're like commies who can't admit gulags were bad

Attached: 1581901762998.jpg (526x701, 48.28K)

>And by the way, the EU, as bad as it is, would put the American education system to shame. Bugerland depends on international students from Europe and Asia to keep their intellectual ideas going.
The vast majority of the most prestigious universities are non-EU (a lot of them American). The EU education system (even though, strictly speaking, doesn't really exist, since all EU countries structure their educational systems independently for the most part) is expensive and mediocre.

>[Lets] say 4 guys in a small town open up 4 of the same shops like food grocery store. One of the four owners is an extremely talented businessman man [...] He invests and expands forcing the other 3 too close. Thing's like this happen all the time. [...] The winner eventually take over the market and that's usually without government intervention. Then the winners usually pay government for what they want. The race to the top has ended in the ''free market''. The competition is over. Capital is now more powerful than government.

You absolutely have a point, and if you read through my posts on this thread you will see that I have already agreed with it. In general, economists don't define monopolies as existing at the town-level. We could. We just generally don't. Monopoly, as the term is commonly applied, is typically measured at the state and national level.

Most nations and states have regulations to step in at a certain point and bust up monopolies. Free markets and competition do indeed eventually result in monopolies here and there--just like life results in cancerous tumors here and there. The solution is to treat the monopoly or to treat the cancer. Not to eradicate everything good that these grow out of.

Command economies result in dead, starvation, and tyranny. Dealing with monopolies is far more preferable. Monopoly is not the norm, but they do happen. It's something that free markets have to deal with.

>You say competition brings down prices? False. Cheap labour brings down prices.

Son, take a look at any economics text book. What you just said is completely inaccurate. The scientific evidence is clear. Supply and demand determine prices. Prices are not just determined by labour. They are also determined by consumption.

Arguing with you on the internet as to whether prices are determined by labour or consumption is about as intelligent as debating whether it's the upper blade or under blade of scissors that cuts the paper.

Attached: supply and demand.png (679x588, 24.54K)

Consumers dont win? How is a corporations shipping their labour force to china to sell you cheap shit for profit a win for consumers? They make huge profits while people go out of a job. But hey, as long as you can buy cheap shit that you don't need then you're winning? So the only winners are corporations and the only losers are the unemployed and the people who buy stupid shit that they don't need. There has never been a ''free market''. There has always been regulations. Let's say we go by your theory and have minimum amount of regulations then monopolise will always still happen because it's a competition to the top. Only in a new market are things truly competitive and that doesn't last forever.

Humans are inherently able to sense potential danger. Homeless people commit more crime. That's a natural instinct. The free market has winners and it has losers, just like any system, however, it is the system that has brought more people out of poverty than any other. It's not even close in relation to other systems. Please make a better premise next time.

>corporations shipping their labour force to china to sell you cheap shit
Remove duties, tariffs, and de-regulate your labor markets and all of these cuck problems go away.

the fact that they don't exist haven't existed and can not exist is all the argument you need.

a strong government is required to impose "free markets" and "free trade"

>American
>questioning another country’s intellectual merit

Stupid nigger

Free markets erode wages and standards.

You just repeat the same things over and over and will never understand until you study economics and economic history. Products are relative to the consumer, yes, and cheap products are beneficial to the consumer, yes. However, you fail to realize that the liberty that comes with a free market system enables the consumer to freely choose what they want to purchase, goods or services. In congruence with free competition, monopolies cannot occur, or rather cannot persist over time. You have yet to say what monopolies have occurred without government interference. Truly sad.

>the problem is that people in the west have a better life than chinese communist peasants
Okay.