All this ignores that the free market naturally converges on monopolies and that these monopolies will pay off the government to continue being a monopoly in their respective industry or industries. If the government had less control then even better since they wouldn’t have to pay off as many people.
You’re saying it’s not capitalist because of government involvement, but the government has to be involved in order to enforce capitalism. A private entity can claim ownership over something, but what enforces that claim? I said “the less government control the better” as in better for the monopolistic companies who wouldn’t have regulators threatening to break up their monopoly or having to pay them off.
I didn’t say anything regarding what you advocate, I’m just pointing out that capitalism requires statement enforcement, so pretending that government involvement is not capitalist is wrong. I’m also pointing out that the situation would be worse without certain regulations such as anti-trust laws because capitalism naturally converges on monopolies.
The example you gave doesn’t make sense. First off you confused public trading (company shares are available to the general public) with public ownership (owned by the government i.e. “the public” at large). Johnson and Johnson is publicly traded but the shares are held by private entities. If I buy a share of Johnson and Johnson’s stock, I privately own a piece of Johnson and Johnson.
As for drug patents (and patents in general), the idea is to secure timed exclusivity to sell in the market in exchange for public disclosure of method of invention. If we didn’t have patents, companies would instead treat drug formulations as trade secrets and so they’d hold onto that exclusivity as long as they can keep the formulation a secret or until another entity reinvents the same thing. There are issues with the patent process and especially with private companies benefiting from publicly-funded research while locking up exclusivity and jacking up prices, but those are still problems with capitalism, and they’re still better than just letting the free market completely monopolize the process.
Do you not understand what the point of a public offering is? It’s to offer up shares of your company to others in order to raise funds so you can expand more rapidly. You throwing in the word “collective” is a poor game of word association. Are you trying to argue that publicly-traded companies are communist? You should really hit the books and straighten out your terminology because you’re using it all wrong and you’re only misleading others who don’t know any better.
I never said public corporations are private companies. You’re confused and don’t seem to have a point to make. Do you think publicly-traded companies are not capitalist?
Technology is deflationary, but you don’t see the tech industry crashing as people wait for steep discounts far exceeding 1% over a couple years or so. Deflation is made out to be a boogeyman because it means the peasants get a pay increase if they keep the same wage unlike the pay cuts they currently receive through inflation.
The newer technology costs more than the old, but, barring ridiculous price pumps like the kind from nvidia, they’re priced around what the old technology was when it was new, thus it’s cheaper given the effect of inflation. Either way, it doesn’t negate the point that people don’t forego new technology purchases because they’ll be cheaper in a couple years or so. That goes against the argument that deflation-haters love to claim, that somehow people will wait because it’ll be cheaper. People don’t actually seem to operate like that in practice.
I know what the idea is, but is it actually true in practice? If the rate of deflation was, say, 2%, who would actually hoard cash just because it’d be supposedly worth 2% more? I highly doubt customers would, especially since it’s not like businesses would automatically cut prices by 2%. As for businesses, why would they hoard that cash when they can make investments that would increase the amount of cash they have? Surely, if a 2% increase in value was so worth hoarding cash, why aren’t they all just hoarding cash into interest-paying accounts that pay 4% in a 2% inflation environment? Constant inflation has been the prevailing theory, but it doesn’t mean it’s the optimal setup.
That’s assuming deflation was the cause of that instead of simply being a symptom of the collapse of the financial system. Also, in a deflationary environment, money sitting in a savings account wouldn’t necessarily collect interest, in fact the interest rate for a savings account could even be negative. Either way, a healthy investment environment would provide much greater returns than a 2% increase in value of money sitting in an account. Consumers continuing to buy things means there are clear business opportunities.
I assume the water here is doing the work. I didn’t say anything about a closed system, just passive. Maybe that doesn’t count as passive, I don’t know physics all that well.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but it's not happening (lemmy.world)
Its getting old. (lemmy.ml)
Chinese people are living two years longer thanks to 'war on pollution' (www.cnn.com)
U.S. inflation falls to 3%, lowest level in more than 2 years, as price pressures ease (www.politico.com)
Ancient Iran had air conditioning (lemmy.world)