31–40 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's often monopolies enforced by violence and corruption.
Many people argue that's the inevitable result of fully free market capitalism too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people argue that's the inevitable result of fully free market capitalism too.
Exactly, assuming that we are operating in a non-lawful space would that not enable the most “pure” result of free market capitalism?
Gang tattoos to limit the mobility of their labor, duopolies to minimize conflict but maintain most of the benefits of a monopoly, squeezing upstream suppliers by playing them off each other, geographically-differentiated pricing and much more.
The violence is obviously the biggest difference, but even the rest serves as a warning not to drop regulation entirely.
Is this article seriously naming potential informants? Unbelievable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a great book called Gang Leader for a Day , about a UChicago sociologist that spends time inside a Southside drug crew. His research showed that the average low-level street dealer made less than minimum wage. Almost all the profit accrued to the guys high up in the supply chain or gang hierarchy.
Drug dealing is a facinating experiment of full-free-market capitalism. The experience certainly inspired me further on the path of entrepreneurship.
Enforcing legally binding contracts, for example.
In doing so, you no longer need to keep business within a tightly controlled group (family?) or enforce it with chainsaws.
Neither apply to selling heroin on the street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a great book called Gang Leader for a Day , about a UChicago sociologist that spends time inside a Southside drug crew. His research showed that the average low-level street dealer made less than minimum wage. Almost all the profit accrued to the guys high up in the supply chain or gang hierarchy.
Drug dealing is a facinating experiment of full-free-market capitalism. The experience certainly inspired me further on the path of entrepreneurship.
It's illegal, so it's hardly a free market.
I don’t understand how it’s even possible for the Bay Area to have non-homeless poor people.
Rent control and subsidized housing protects a few at the expense of the rest.
Rent control is literally about politicians absolving themselves of accountability. They "make" housing "cheap" again without direct consequences to the budget. The angry mob is gone, the money problem is gone and the social problems are now allowed to pile up over time until you have a dysfunctional community. It's like sticking your head into the sand.
Oh and please don't comment on how you can stick your head into the sand while simultaneously solving the actual problem as if sticking your head into the sand is a valid strategy.