• ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          18 days ago

          There might not BE a better company. In the system you describe we’d end up with even more strictly defined economic classes, because the wealthy would have the ability to collectively decide policy without interference. You’d just be creating an oligarchy.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            18 days ago

            The idea is there is no policy, just companies competing for customers and employees and giving them both the best value or the customers and employees would move on to a better company.

            • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              28
              ·
              18 days ago

              Why compete when you can destroy the other companies without restrictions?

              Imagine Walmart buys the local water company then cuts water off to their competitors by charging them an exorbitant amount? Or the local power company? What’s to stop them?

              They can just absorb the local utilities and start intentionally giving their competitors terrible or no service and drive them out of business.

              It just turns to feudalism.

                • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  23
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  How would they get the capital together (a massive undertaking) or the equipment together (again a massive undertaking) as Walmart buys up the entire supply chain to provide the pipes and power lines?

                  Oh you want to hire an electrician for grid work? Walmart won’t sell you or rent you the equipment. Want to hire a plumber for grid work? Walmart won’t sell you the required equipment to set it up.

                  Not even that but what’s to stop them from corporate espionage? Sabotaging their competitors. “Oh we trap rain water and truck it to people. Lately people have been getting really sick from our water but not Walmarts water.”

                  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    16
                    ·
                    18 days ago

                    Again, I’m just exploring alternatives to the current flawed system we have and you’re another person just losing their minds about it.

                • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  But their only customer would be the one store Walmart is shutting down. Why would you lay millions of dollars of pipes and more millions of dollars in purification infrastructure just for one money strapped store?

                • Prunebutt
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  The established supplier would just buy the new competitor. If they don’t sell, the established supplier would pricedump and eat the loss, since they’re already estabished, until the new competitor agrees to be bought.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              18 days ago

              Why compete for customers? They could form a monopoly to make sure you need to pay their prices, or just threaten you into only buying their products. Unregulated markets eventually stop being markets.

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                18 days ago

                There wouldn’t be barriers to new companies opening up to compete as there are now.

                The current system we use encourages monopolies through the regulations.

                Want proof? Look at the monopolies.

                • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  There would be the monopolies with private armies and more money than God to shut down new competition. They can lower prices for years to run at a loss locally to run the newcomer out of money, or just do a hostile takeover.

    • NewDark@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      17 days ago

      It seems you’ve come from a time line where we got rid of the food regulations and you’ve injested far too much lead.

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        Companies with company town usually paid their employees with a company issued money that was only good at the company stores.

        They usually sold with inflated prices.

        This isn’t pure capitalism.

        • Prunebutt
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          What makes you think unregulated capitalism won’t result in these monopolies?

          And the Sturlungs?

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            I read the article and it didn’t really explain how a forty-four year period in Iceland in 1220 has anything to do with this conversation.

            • Prunebutt
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              17 days ago

              It was the medieval equivalent of anarcho-capitalism.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      18 days ago

      This sounds like insanity. You think the Jeff Besos’ of the world are going to play fair when capitalism has no regulations?

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        18 days ago

        If the people decide they don’t like Bezos’ company they would use a new one and he wouldn’t have a leg up on the other ones like he does now.

        • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          18 days ago

          How would they go to a new one if he uses the massive power he has to absorb and destroy the competition?

          How would they get there if the roads no longer connect to other areas because Bezos bought all the construction companies and makes the cost too high to maintain those roads?

            • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              18 days ago

              Walmart has enough capital on hand to work at a loss for a long long time before it’s an issue. How would their competitors compete when they can’t beat Walmarts prices?

              Walmart has already done this with grocery stores in areas in the modern day. Lower their prices to the point of operating at a loss locally to drive the competition out of business and once their gone then bring the prices back up.

    • cerement
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      18 days ago

      Russia post-Soviet Union is what you’re looking for

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        18 days ago

        The oligarchy system is not what I’m looking for, it’s a small group of people given control of companies as favors not organically growing by being the best.

        • cerement
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          18 days ago

          oligarchy is the natural result of unfettered capitalism – capitalism rewards profit, not merit

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            18 days ago

            Do you think hot dog man was the best person to run Russia’s largest private army?

            No, he was Putin’s caterer and was given a plush posting because of it.

            That’s not capitalism.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Unregulated capitalism is impossible by definition, because capitalism requires private property, and private property only exists because the state enforces that status.

    • Vilian@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      a yes, the unregulated capitalism mindset that cause the great depression