And why do you think corps have gov't support?
Because governments give it to them. Governments are big and active, and rarely try to limit themselves. Smaller less active governments would give less.
Tim, your ideology is messed up. It has you brainwashed. An adherent to an ideology is called an ideologue. The definition of an ideologue is as follows:
Definition of IDEOLOGUE
1: an impractical idealist : theorist
2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
merriam-webster.com
You really need to see how you are blind to your own fallacies.
And yes because corporations lobby for them. That's hardly surprising, if the government is in the habit of hurting X, and helping Y, a lot of companies are going to work hard to be Y, and to make sure their competition is X. Corporations lobby for special benefits because governments operate in such a way that this rent-seeking works.
The average American has very little if any control over corps. They do have some control over gov't. That's why gov't should always have the upper hand when it comes to corps.
How are they getting gov't to assist them in being monopolistic when we have anti monopoly laws on the books?
Walmart isn't a monopoly. If your talking more generally most monopolies are caused by, or at least kept in place by, government action. Some of these actions might be be a net benefit, for example its probably worthwhile having a patent system even though patents create monopolies, but worthwhile or not its still government action creating or protecting monopolies. And not just monopolies, governments also restrict competition even when they don't create or protect monopolies, listening regimes can be an are used to restrict competition, so are extensive reporting requirements that new smaller startups would have a hard time meeting. Tariffs, and non-tarrif import barriers and many other types of laws or regulation also benefit entrenched incumbents by limiting free competition.
This is what you said earlier:
"If the benefits don't help the corporations than why have them? If they do help corporations reducing them would hurt corporations. "Hurting" doesn't equal killing. Although in some cases corporations would actually die (or at least be drastically restructured) if they couldn't get any subsidies, targeted tax breaks, or restraint of trade (not only monopolies, and trade restrictions, but licensing requirements, and even things like environmental and financial reporting requirements can be structured to make things hard on potential new competitors).
Tim, you're all over the place. One minute you are opposed to all restraint of trade; the next you are saying it may be a necessity. Which is it?
And you have it backwards.....when there was no restraint of trade, it led to monopolies.....not the other way around. |
