I have a higher net worth than over 95% of democrats. And they are scheming to take it away and give it to those who they please. In the streets they call that 'a stick up'!

Most of the Stark Conservatives died at the battle for the Crag to be fair.

Controlled for education, rich counties were not more likely to vote Democratic; however, controlled for income, educated counties were more likely to vote Democratic.

Brad, if you're looking for a civilized society that doesn't have redistributive effects, you'll be looking a damn long time. If nothing else, those who most need public assistance are generally least equipped to fund it.

There is no evidence that hacking took place.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

Not to mention that if it doesn't have redistributive effects, then it cannot be a capitalist one. Capitalism by its very nature concentrates money and thus economic and political power in very very few hands, eventually leading to market failure when producers succeed not because they're better or more competitive, but because they're big enough to bully competitors out fo the market, leading to the same lack of competition and poor products you find in communism. Similarly, all the political power gets concentrated in the hands of very few, essentially eliminating democracy and leading to something that looks a lot like feudalism or communism. If you don't have a mixed economy, you don't have capitalism or democracy pretty much.

However, what I was going to post was that Jill Stein has raised over $3 million as of this morning which is enough to file for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Sadly not enough people are going to see that article, so a lot of people are going to think there's some truth to the hacking nonsense still.

Jill Stein's recount fund has surpassed $4 million...
All those poor people wasting their money on Jill Stein.

@Ogion

i hope you've unmuted me, but UNCORRUPTED capitalism actually forces the rich to continuously reinvest their capital, and keep up offering a better and better product.

you're talking about monopolies, but the only reason why monopolies aren't competed against, it because of super-regulation by gov't on smaller businesses wanting to aggressively compete

"because they're big enough to bully competitors out fo the market"

the only way this happens is with gov't intervention. otherwise, the better/cheaper product will win. if you have a problem with THAT, then your desires are AGAINST the consumer

@JamesYanik

but aren't there legitimate regulations that are necessary?

- yes there are, and it's a matter of checks and balances to make sure a line isn't crossed that is corruption.

@Yanik are you seriously saying that the only reason monopolies exist is because of government intervention? Like, yeah, that is possible. But under-regulation can also cause monopolies.

If you're large enough to just buy out or otherwise ruin any smaller competitor, or if there are so few competitors that you can just form a cartel, a monopoly is inevitable. Do you think we should abolish anti-trust laws?

Yanik is actually having arguments with himself.

Actually? Are you surprised?

@Condescension

I'm not sure whether or not you read my last comment, but yeah there are many dangers in horizontal and vertical integration.

The thing about monopolies, is that the only way they can beat a smaller company, is
A. having a cheaper product
B. having a better product
C. heavy gov't regulations that makes start ups impossible
D. influencing gov't regulations targeting other companies
E. merging with said smaller company
F. illegal methods not detected by gov't

I have no problem with A or B. that's the best for the consumer if they can do both. if they do E then it's a consensual business agreement.

if C occurs then it may be unfortunate, but sometimes it's necessary for gov't to protect consumers for health reasons or whatnot

D happens the most in the creation AND sustaining of a monopoly.

F is despicable and requires more oversight, which leads back to an unfortunate but necessary C

My main point to Ogion was that with a non-corrupt gov't, Monopolies can't be sustained without dong something illegal, whereas HE thinks capitalism must lead to this monopolist system

Look, there is an alternate explanation that doesn't involve hacking and one that does. The recount might show either

Stein is going to hit the $4.5 million mark for the 3 recounts she wants...

No surprise. A lot of people want a recount. There is no reason not to do it. Both sides should want it.

And she just got the mark. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are going to have recounts funded. Trump's going to have fun watching them flip red again.

Okay, apparently Michigan isn't funded yet.

Larger companies will generally be able to sell products at lower prices than small businesses while also making more profit due to economies of scale. Naturally every case has to be considered for its unique circumstances, but this is a general rule.

"The thing about monopolies, is that the only way they can beat a smaller company, is
A. having a cheaper product
B. having a better product
C. heavy gov't regulations that makes start ups impossible
D. influencing gov't regulations targeting other companies
E. merging with said smaller company
F. illegal methods not detected by gov't"

G. Underselling the product to grab market share while subsidizing the losses with the profits from other markets (or other products)
H. Being Bigger, part 1: economies of scale
I. Being Bigger, part 2: leveraging their size to bully the supply chain
J. Making their size the product (i.e. brand recognition)

Someone who isn't pulling shit off the top of their head could probably double down on this.

"G. Underselling the product to grab market share while subsidizing the losses with the profits from other markets (or other products)"

um... and in the period of underselling: THE CONSUMERS WIN

it is called... oh yeah step A. they'll raise their prices again, but as long as the barriers of entry are low, more competition will arise.

"H. Being Bigger, part 1: economies of scale"

being bigger, ALONE, does not guarantee success. you need some of my prior steps. be more specific with economies of scale

"Being Bigger, part 2: leveraging their size to bully the supply chain"

and HOW do they bully? lower prices to put others out of business: HELPING THE CONSUMER? merging companies: profitable for the smaller businesses than not.

An actual businessman know what bullying is. Filing court cases harassing smaller businesses, demanding more regulation that they can afford to take care of in bulk costs, cooperation with local gov't to make barriers of entry, illegal manipulation of several levels of the market.

"J. Making their size the product (i.e. brand recognition)"

brand recognition works three ways: you're remembered for a bad product, you're remembered for a good product, you're just familiar. the first two are FAIR, and the third only applies to the lazy consumer.

"Someone who isn't pulling shit off the top of their head could probably double down on this."

yeah, there are a shit ton of ways people with money can stay rich, but the ones you listed there (Except H, which I THINK might be something ia free with -margin of reinvestment-) i dispute.

nonetheless, the number one way is gov't collusion.

ok so Economies of scale you're talking about bulk buying i.e.?

that's good for the consumer. wal-mart: AMAZING for the consumer.

Saying that monopolies, once in power, can never fail, REALLY underestimates an uncorrupted market place.

but we DO have a corrupted marketplace, so I'm actually surprisingly liberal irl on this one

G-version 2 - Under selling to eliminate the competition and then drastically increasing the price as a monopoly to recover losses and make an increased profit.

Hurts the consumer in the long run because the average price is greater than the short term savings. Before the break up of Standard Oil, this was the company's practice that eliminated all competitors except Royal Dutch Shell that had its own low cost oil source so it could match price drops.

Modern example is China becoming the sole source of rare earth elements used in electronics manufacturing. US companies were forced out of the market because the costs of environmental regulations made it too expensive versus China's subsidies and lack of regulation.

I'm dubious about the singleminded focus on the consumer, but yes, as long as you subscribe to the EMH, big business is good for the consumer and the only monopoly is ownership of the supply. The real world happens not to follow EMH even before talking about government intervention, but I'm sure that's just a lot of insignificant detail.

@randomizer

that loses brand recognition though, and with new higher prices more competition will rise (in an uncorrupted market) and people won't trust the old monopoly

@randomizer

i'm in hypothetical uncorrupted pure market land btw, i agree with what you're saying otherwise