Free Market vs Marxism

[DBTrek]

Yell at the sky all you like, but you will pay, one way or the other. The only difference is that Unca Sam gets your ducats, rather than Best Buy.

Ironic, given that Unca Sam did a lot more to crush retailers through COVID lockdown than Amazon ever did.
Point being, Jeff's success cost you nothing. But your whining about his success empowers the very organization that crushed retail jobs.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Yell at the sky all you like, but you will pay, one way or the other. The only difference is that Unca Sam gets your ducats, rather than Best Buy.

Ironic, given that Unca Sam did a lot more to crush retailers through COVID lockdown than Amazon ever did.
Point being, Jeff's success cost you nothing. But your whining about his success empowers the very organization that crushed retail jobs.

I sincerely doubt that anyone on the MHF is likely to topple capitalism.

But yeah, my argument relates to economic reality sans COVID.

[DBTrek]

I sincerely doubt that anyone on the MHF is likely to topple capitalism.

But yeah, my argument relates to economic reality sans COVID.

Your argument relates to no reality whatsoever, as professions, industries, and markets have developed and shifted focus since time immemorial. Retailers losing out to a better model is no different than horses and buggies losing out to the automobile. There was no need for wailing, panicking, and finger pointing back then, and no need for it now.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I sincerely doubt that anyone on the MHF is likely to topple capitalism.

But yeah, my argument relates to economic reality sans COVID.

Your argument relates to no reality whatsoever, as professions, industries, and markets have developed and shifted focus since time immemorial. Retailers losing out to a better model is no different than horses and buggies losing out to the automobile. There was no need for wailing, panicking, and finger pointing back then, and no need for it now.

So you would’ve been cool with railroad barons and financial monopolies going forward because capitalism?

[DBTrek]

I sincerely doubt that anyone on the MHF is likely to topple capitalism.

But yeah, my argument relates to economic reality sans COVID.

Your argument relates to no reality whatsoever, as professions, industries, and markets have developed and shifted focus since time immemorial. Retailers losing out to a better model is no different than horses and buggies losing out to the automobile. There was no need for wailing, panicking, and finger pointing back then, and no need for it now.

So you would’ve been cool with railroad barons and financial monopolies going forward because capitalism?

Who granted the railroad barons their exorbitant land rights again?
Awwwww yeah, I remember now.
Uncle Sam.

You gonna waste a lot of time trying to blame free market enterprises for the travesties that were 100% only achievable through the power of the government you want running everything.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Your argument relates to no reality whatsoever, as professions, industries, and markets have developed and shifted focus since time immemorial. Retailers losing out to a better model is no different than horses and buggies losing out to the automobile. There was no need for wailing, panicking, and finger pointing back then, and no need for it now.

So you would’ve been cool with railroad barons and financial monopolies going forward because capitalism?

Who granted the railroad barons their exorbitant land rights again?
Awwwww yeah, I remember now.
Uncle Sam.

You gonna waste a lot of time trying to blame free market enterprises for the travesties that were 100% only achievable through the power of the government you want running everything.

Your counter is that government did NOT restrict the land rights, therefore they’re responsible for railroad barons, but they were wrong to chop those railroad barons into pieces when they took over government?

Looks like a direct shot to the foot.

[DBTrek]

Your counter is that government did NOT restrict the land rights, therefore they’re responsible for railroad barons, but they were wrong to chop those railroad barons into pieces when they took over government?

Looks like a direct shot to the foot.

You clearly have no grasp of history:

Between 1850 and 1871 the United States government used a portion of the public domain (federally owned land) to assist and encourage the building of railroads. In all, during that twenty-one year period approximately 1.31 million acres of land were transferred to private ownership. This represented 9.5 percent of the public domain as it stood in 1850 (1.39 billion acres). The land was located in twenty-seven states, but the largest grants were made in California (11.5 million acres), Kansas (8.2 million acres), Minnesota (9.9 million acres), Montana (14.7 million acres), North Dakota (10.6 million acres), and Washington (9.5 million acres). Although the program began in 1850, most of the grants were made under the terms of the Pacific Railway Act of 1862. This law was in effect from 1862 to 1871 and its purpose was to encourage the construction of the transcontinental railroads.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/en ... ants-issue

How do you even begin to classify governments "giving away 9.5% of public domain land" as "did NOT restrict land rights"?
Learn some history, bro.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Your counter is that government did NOT restrict the land rights, therefore they’re responsible for railroad barons, but they were wrong to chop those railroad barons into pieces when they took over government?

Looks like a direct shot to the foot.

You clearly have no grasp of history:

Between 1850 and 1871 the United States government used a portion of the public domain (federally owned land) to assist and encourage the building of railroads. In all, during that twenty-one year period approximately 1.31 million acres of land were transferred to private ownership. This represented 9.5 percent of the public domain as it stood in 1850 (1.39 billion acres). The land was located in twenty-seven states, but the largest grants were made in California (11.5 million acres), Kansas (8.2 million acres), Minnesota (9.9 million acres), Montana (14.7 million acres), North Dakota (10.6 million acres), and Washington (9.5 million acres). Although the program began in 1850, most of the grants were made under the terms of the Pacific Railway Act of 1862. This law was in effect from 1862 to 1871 and its purpose was to encourage the construction of the transcontinental railroads.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/en ... ants-issue

How do you even begin to classify governments "giving away 9.5% of public domain land" as "did NOT restrict land rights"?
Learn some history, bro.

So then we’re saying that the purchase price of that land would have stopped the debauchery to follow. Railroad barons would have grown slower and not taken over the US government because.... capitalism?

[DBTrek]

So then we’re saying that the purchase price of that land would have stopped the debauchery to follow. Railroad barons would have grown slower and not taken over the US government because.... capitalism?

Government granted the land monopoly to the Barons.
Without the monopoly, they aren't Barons, they're competitors who must win every inch of land.
Derp.

[SuburbanFarmer]

So then we’re saying that the purchase price of that land would have stopped the debauchery to follow. Railroad barons would have grown slower and not taken over the US government because.... capitalism?

Government granted the land monopoly to the Barons.
Without the monopoly, they aren't Barons, they're competitors who must win every inch of land.
Derp.

Competitors with whom??? Were the land grants exclusive to a fledgling railroad?