The problem isn't the free market. The problem isn't that it entrenches zombie corporations, or elitist greed and rent seeking. The problem is that we prohibit the free market from naturally dealing with it.

In a normal, natural free market, with no artificial intervention or manipulation, successful businesses are constantly being founded. These are the little seeds and saplings. The most successful of those reach maturity, mega-corporation. Eventually, that corporation rots, the original founders leave, it gets taken over by bureaucrats, business suffers and resources start to get hoarded at the top amongst the executives. The remedy for this is death. The corporation must die and go bankrupt, to be replaced by a more successful upstart that is in its efficiency, growth phase.

We prohibit this. We enact "too big to fail" policies, we extend endless subsidies and cooperation with state contracts, we kingmake basically. Certain megacorps become inextricably linked with the state, disallowed to die (due to the fear of turbulence, or simple corruption), this is simply state socialism. The organic evolutionary market process is impeded and halted. We sit there and wish for magical internal reform that simply can't happen because like any tree the megacorps has rotted to its core and can only wait for death.

And this is why the key to any successful, prosperous economy, is to EMPOWER the SMALL BUSINESSES, the founders, the entrepreneurs, rid them of regulatory burdens/walls. There is constant economic churn and you need to have an endless supply of potential replacements for the megacorps that are going to inevitably die, and NEED TO DIE. The Boeings, the Microsofts, the GM's, the mega-banks, these should have all been allowed to die a long time ago and replaced by a worthy successor, not locked into a state agreement and turned into a perpetual crony zaibatsu. Founders and entrepreneurs are the heart of it all and they need to be unleashed.

jews belong in work camps

>>60742369

uh thanks for the bump

>>60742296 (OP)
bailing companies or banks out is just communism

The corporate business form is not a creation of the market. It is an artificial construct created by governments. It's a statutory fiction.

>>60742296 (OP)
This. Make all government subvention illegal. If your business is good, it will be profitable without it.

>>60742296 (OP)
Sounds good, but how do we prevent corporations from using their economic power to buy politicians and convince the public to support enacting these policies?

>>60743341
or worse, how do we prevent corporations from literally murdering their rivals and small businesses and stealing all their shit?
>>60742296 (OP)
>The remedy for this is death
o-oh... uh...

>>60742296 (OP)
>real capitalism hasn't been tried yet

>>60743341
Free marketeers fail to realize that megacorpos just evolve into states if given the space and resources to go, like an organism. There cannot exist a truly "free market" without an overarching state kneecapping organizations that get too big.
Alternatively you could have the state absorb the megacorpos.
tldr u can have either south korean cyberpunk or chinese state-capitalism

>>60743365
It quite literally is going on all the time
For the market to be un-free takes willful and consistent acts against it
That's one facet of why the last 50 years has turned up the turbo fake and gayness, and is accelerating

>>60743374
They just don't realize that free market only serves the interest of those who have not yet made it. Since once you're at the top you can only go down, for the people at the top, free market just means competition for their spot. They have no interest in keeping the market free, and the economic means to shut it down.
As a former lolbert I kinda understand the thought process but it's so naive and short sighted once you think about it critically.

>>60743341

By finding a way to curb the government. If the vehicle they use to pervert the system is weak, they can't pervert it as much. There should be generally anti-regulatory, anti-tax sentiment.

>>60743374

Not really true. Since we're talking about a vacuum now, where in your world the megacorps has an army or something, there would be a coalition of small and medium sized corpos allying to take it down. But I'm not talking about a lolbert fantasy, I'm speaking about pragmatic state policy. Many dictators and kings for instance have realized this and fostered these conditions. When the state works as a referee, and champions the founder and small business, the economy thrives. This of course requires a good man and a good system up top.

>>60743396

This is literally not lolbertism boss. I'm reducing the idea of "prosperity" to its core functional component. You could call this "founderism" if you wanted. Everyone tries to find ways to fix megacorps, when its impossible. They need to die. And since they die, you need to buff small businesses, founders, entrepreneurs. That's how the market cycles healthily.

What I'm describing right now could be as simple as:
>break down blanket regulations that only benefit the big established players
>end the corrupt contractual patronage schemes
>abolish income taxes on businesses (which have an outsized effect on small startups without a lot of revenue or influence)

The problem is, as always, government greed, which has no limit. Corporations would not be able to lobby the government if they weren’t considered “people” by the government. The only reason they are considered “people” by the government, is so the government can steal from them in the form of corporate taxes. Eliminate corporate personhood. Eliminate corporate taxes.

Corporations can no longer lobby the government and government can no longer tax corporations. That would fix so much shit.

>>60743400
>By finding a way to curb the government. If the vehicle they use to pervert the system is weak, they can't pervert it as much. There should be generally anti-regulatory, anti-tax sentiment.
And how are you going to do that when they also control every means of communication and propaganda? And when they can use their control of the state to bribe the public with wealth transfer programs? The mass of the lower class is too dumb and unambitious to do anything with the free market. The upper class is already at the top and the free market only means risking losing their spot. Ultimately the only class that stands to gain from free market is the middle class, who is outvoted by the lower class and outspent by the upper class. All the upper class has to do to secure the support of the lower class is to take wealth from the middle class through taxes and give it to the lower class through welfare programs. How do you combat that? How do you convince the lower class to stop supporting that system when it is actually in their best interest to keep that system in place?

>>60743411

>What I'm describing right now could be as simple as:
>>break down blanket regulations that only benefit the big established players
>>end the corrupt contractual patronage schemes
>>abolish income taxes on businesses (which have an outsized effect on small startups without a lot of revenue or influence)
Ok, but how are you going to do that? That's like saying "cold fusion is simple, all we need to do is keep the reaction perfectly contained" . Your solution only looks viable to you because you're brushing away the biggest hurdle.

>>60743459
>>60743440

How am I going to do that? By being the leader of a country and doing that. Stop thinking so simplistically and trying to organize this into some neat little box. Governments fucking suck and nothing you do is going to last forever. But you can do it, and so can your successor. If you're clever you write out a sort of constitution that creates these axiomatic planks with a high threshold to ever violate them. You foster a culture and tradition that perpetuates this cross-generationally.

No anon, there is no way to rewrite human DNA and enforce eternal anti-corruption, but there are many ways to shift the winds in your favor and create more desirable outcomes than "just settling for a poor dynamic and calling it an L." I'm actually calling for the end of democratic-republics as this situation can only really be enforced with a lifetime central ruler at the top, who has more investment in the future and a care to improve it.

>>60743396
the "free market" is good for the upper crust elites in the sense that it's an efficient resource distribution vehicle. letting some proles climb the ladder in exchange for not having to fund communist style bureaucrats who embezzle anyway.
>lock in current order, but suffer -15% economic debuff
>unlocked changing order, elites at risk but +5% economic buff
individually they still pull levers to maximize personal gain however
>>60743400
>Not really true. Since we're talking about a vacuum now, where in your world the megacorps has an army or something, there would be a coalition of small and medium sized corpos allying to take it down
The Hudson's Bay Company was an English crown corporation. They were the de facto state of Canada until the English decided to govern directly. If the home Island had vanished, the megacorpo would've just become "Government of Canada".
There's a good reason you don't see the thing your describing the in modern world. Power consolidates, especially when you don't have some other strong animating force like an ethnic uprising or hard economic turmoil.
>alliance of small states/corpos vs big state/megacorpo
>big state/corpo offer one or more small states/corpos a deal they can't refuse, often a share of power for destroying their enemies
>subsidized traitor states backstab and defeat their former allies, big state absorbs all of them
>subsidized traitor corpos backstab and defeat their former allies, megacorpo absorbs all of them
https://litter.catbox.moe/mn6sk5z997gfnef7.mp4
your only option is to be the one with power, and if youre redpilled, to advocate for a state that, in order:
a) exists to ensure the continued existence of your people/bloodline/ethnos
b) will secure as much power as possible to see this through

>>60743459
>>60743478

I think a good example is Chile. Pinochet + the Chicago Boys basically wrote out a constitution that they devised to try to crystallize their free market economic policy into more everlasting law. He abdicated after not much time, but the constitution, laws, policies remained, and it's taken the Chilean socialists a long time to try to unravel it. He could have done more. But it's a good start as an idea, clearly they have done very well vs. the LatAm baseline.

>>60743484
>the thing your describing
youre*

>>60743484

At root I am basically describing a sort of monarchism/fascism/dictatorship, something akin to Singapore, Chile, El Salvador, but on a larger scale and with more continuity. I'm aware that large bureaucratic democratic-republics simply devolve into a sort of weird socialism every time due to the retard voters and short term thinking.

>>60743496
then if we're talking about America, youre knowingly or not advocating for empire.
El Salvador can get away with a philosopher-king dictator because theyre small. If you were to try and get something like that in America, prepare for war and/or big time authoritarianism

>>60743459
There just needs to be a rule about any company making above a certain % of national GDP is regulated to much higher standards, or some other handicap. Any partially owned, or umbrella llc nonsense will contribute to that % to make agglomerated monstrosities like black rock/vanguard non viable. Offshore headquartered companies pay an automatic tax on *revenues* to disincentivize tax haven bullshit. The ideas aren't particularly hard, we just don't value them yet

>>60743486
>He abdicated after not much time
After plunging 45% of the population into poverty and having a 20% unemployment rate. But on the plus side, if your annoying neighbors violated the nationwide curfew of 10 pm, you could call the cops and they'd be jailed or shot. The Chilean economy only improved after the socdems got elected.

>>60743506

There can only be war if both sides are willing to fight. The left is not, it's literally a disarmed, feminine coalition of women, foreigners, welfare minorities, no one who would care to take up arms for a national cause.

It would actually be really easy for a Trump successor to pull the classic maneuver right now:

>appeal mightily to the military and military aged men to get their total allegiance
>get elected, start to undermine and break down any kind of oppositional forces within the federal bureaucracy
>concoct a fake crisis: Mexico or Canada "invading", or terrorists, that requires martial law and the delay of elections (this is what's in style right now)
>perpetually delay elections while continuing to build your power and coalition and quietly axing any potential enemies or friction

Ask yourself seriously where would the real pushback come from? Nothing really. The conditions are ripe for it and we've seen this story before. Only the historically illiterate think it's hard to do, it just requires will and risk.

>>60743522

Their trajectory for upward gdp per capita growth obviously started towards the tail end of his tenure, once his reforms started taking root. Now go ahead and please fuck off, I literally just pointed out that he babyproofed it because he knew socialist rats would retake power quickly.

>>60743478
>If you're clever you write out a sort of constitution that creates these axiomatic planks with a high threshold to ever violate them. You foster a culture and tradition that perpetuates this cross-generationally.
That's literally what the USA was and what the founding fathers tried to do, and you can see how it worked out. The original US constitution was an almost perfect document that was systematically picked apart from the moment it was enacted. Just look at the 2nd amendment. It clearly states, in no uncertain terms, "shall not be infringed" and all it took for the NFA to pass in 1936 was the media blowing gangster shootings out of proportion (it was almost strictly a Chicago issue) and for FDR to enact basic welfare to gain votes to do what the hell he wanted.
And that's assuming you will be in a position to even try it in the first place. How do you intend on gaining power in the first place? Who is going to be your support base? How will you compete with the systems of mass media already in place? How will you compete with the ideologically biased educational system? How will you compete with the bribing of the lower class through welfare?

>>60743583

Would you not call the US a success, starting off as a little colonial backwater? It had a good run. And it's still more bulletproofed than Europe, for instance, it's still better for business here. But even then, the founders weren't quite so dead set. They still allowed for voting, terms, and all that.

I only started this thread to reduce "economic success" to a core principle beyond the lazy "economic freedom" response you usually here, because more specifically it's about giving people the full freedom to start and conduct business (to replace the deadweights at the top). But if we're talking nitty gritty

>media are whores and will do a quick about face the moment they are scared and their revenue is threatened, that's easy
>the welfare class is the deadweight of society and don't really pose any threat at all outside of the vote (which would no longer exist)

The key to gaining power, is to win the working class. These are the "real people" in a country. Not the old, not the foreign, not the welfare dependent, the workers. Of all stripes, but particularly the men, who are the most dangerous. You want to win the danger. Win the danger, win the war, easily. Look at the US in 2025: crying for nationalism, unity, economic opportunity. You can't see the obvious blueprint right there? Win over white and hispanic working class men, particularly those under age 60. Get into office, reward all of your patrons for greater loyalty. Invent an external threat, like I mentioned, Canada or Mexico invading or terrorism. Foment jingoism, patriotism, amongst your loyalists, and the crisis. In the midst of this, chip away at anything that could pose a threat internally. Once the time is right, suspend elections. There will be no peep, you have already won the loyalty of your nation's warriors. They remember who oppressed them before and they will be grateful.

>>60742296 (OP)
capitalism pushes for greater efficiency. massive corporations are the natural conclusion to this. small business is horribly inefficient. the employers are generally dumber, less sophisticated, lower paid. the business itself commands shittier discounts from its suppliers.

>>60743614

After all you have to remember, men in the US fucking hate the niggerwomansocialist regime. Who is going to ACTUALLY take up arms against you when the chips fall? No one. It's true that America is mollified and passive at this point, it's even more true that the elements of the left (women, foreigners) are. The moment this schism became "The America Party" vs. "The I Don't Like America Party" this became obviously clear. Julius Caesar already wrote the book on this.

>>60743625

You have it backwards. Megacorps are notoriously, horribly inefficient. Ever worked in one? They simply have a massive amount of resources and manpower at their disposal and can throw weight at any problem.

Small businesses are efficient, lean, focused. They have to be. There's no megabureaucracy to wade through to get anything done, things just get done.

>>60743529
the real pushback would come from the youth, and they would eventually unravel the power structure.
with political capital trump and co would push through a bunch of pro-jew shit, like we saw with the "no emergency aid if you dont swear allegiance to israel" stunt recently.
>left wing youth have been getting radicalized for 2 decades, but theyre retarded and brown
>right wing youth have been getting radicalized for 2 decades, but theyre white
powder keg half full i'd say. a power grab political escalation would elevate both radical groups' power and standing.
>all eyes on the power grabbers
>in between suppressing dissent, axing potential enemies, and concocting a boomer-grade false flag war narratives, the power grabbers suck one too many jewish dicks and the music stops

>>60743677

The youth, anon? The same youth that are borderline nazis right now because the boomer globohomo literally sent all of their work away after placing monstrous debt on their shoulders? It's never been easier to capture the youth.

No one has tried appealing specifically to the youth have they? The first one who does is going to win them handsomely. This is what I mean, the conditions are very ripe for an internal coup or soft transition to dictatorship. What we have now is gerontocracy, welfarocracy, these are groups with no real power just capital. Promise the youth rewards for their loyalty and give it to them and it's a cheap and ez pathway to power.

>>60743635
>small businesses are efficient, lean, focused. They have to be.
except that's not the case. often times its retards running at a loss pilling up massive debt over the span of a decade before going bankrupt, only to have their place taken by an equally retarded over-leveraged "investor"
according to some article i saw, apparently 62% of americans earning over 300k/y are up to the tits in credit card debt. people can barely manage their PERSONAL finances, you think this same caliber of person is effectively running a lean money making operation?
i doubt it

>>60743690

It is the case, it is literally impossible to run a small business like a megacorporation. Imagine trying to start a small business with the overhead fees they spend on non-doer departments: HR, legal, accounting, DEI, executive suite. I didn't say all small businesses are successsful, if we are comparing apples to apples (successful small business vs. megacorporation) the small business is head and shoulders leaner and more efficient, and I have been in both worlds. It is physically, fiscally impossible not to be. People usually wear many hats, work long hours for lower pay, and respond with agility to demands and issues.

>>60743635
yes i work at a fortune 10 company. things are slow to move because the projects are incredibly complex.

>>60743700
HR, legal, accounting, etc. aren't inefficiencies. they exist because managers and executives at large corporations are specialized and deal with their job. they don't want to deal with with hiring/firing/training (HR), writing contracts or defending against lawsuits (legal), building financial statements and going through audits (accounting), etc. -- so they hire workers to do nothing but these tasks

>>60743700
>>60743690

It feels like you're having a real hard time getting at the core of what I'm saying. I'm not saying all small businesses are better, I'm saying an emphasis on empowering and fostering small business is better for the market conditions.

Imagine a forest. How do you keep a forest lush and healthy? By trying to eternally keep the old rotting trees alive? or by planting as many saplings as possible so that every niche and gap can be filled be a new upstart? We even burn entire forests down sometimes. This is a healthier dynamic for an economy. Without fail, EVERY SINGLE corporation will reach their death day, their point of critical mass, where they no longer deliver value vs expense. They must be allowed to die. And in order to be comfortable with that, we need a very healthy, large, robust founder and startup environment.

>>60743713

They are overhead, necessary to deal with the scale of the operation. The larger the scale, the stronger the absolute power, but the weaker the efficiency. I can't believe you're sitting here trying to argue that "bigger corporations get more things done efficiently" dude I'm crying. Is there literally anything you won't argue or did I just meet the king of disagreeability on biz?

>>60743689
you seem to misunderstand, the current ruling elite's top priority is Israel.
the youth's current primary geo-political focus is israel.
the elites love israel. the youth hate it.
Trump and his jewish handlers, after cutting all manners of dirty deals, still couldnt deliver the mass deportations. the pace at which they would have to deport starting today is already unrealistic, and theyre not starting today. they won't even say when theyre starting, because they wont be starting. they'll do a reagan style amnesty, deport a bunch of criminals, and leave it at that. its already over.
not to mention mid terms, dem game plans, etc.
the things required to get the radical right wing youth on their side are currently the inverse interest of the elites.
>internal coup or soft transition
game played by elites not commoners. who do you think would even orchestrate such a thing? H1B Elon? gay jew Thiel and Jeeta wifed Vance? who is our "champion"?
>inb4 the normies get wise to jewish tricks and all stand up together against their oppressors and live happily ever after
immigration and jewish power are the top issues. immigration is wanted by megacorpos, and jewish power is favourable to the jewish elite. the american big tent right wing will never concede even one of them.

>>60743700
>what is economies of scale for 400

>>60743743

I have said multiple times their strength is in their resources and absolute power and abilities. They can throw weight at an issue. But it's done with lots of overhead and waste.

>>60743716
you want a market where big players are allowed to fail and small players have protections. welcome back from 2009.
unfortunately that project fell through and now we're headed to dystopia and nobody really cares.
>small business better
yeah decentralized everything is better
>bitcoin > central bank
>a power grid of solar panels everywhere independently producing electricity > one centralized power plant that if sabotaged or destroyed leaves tens of thousands without electricity
>personal car > public bus
but when you need to get 100 people somewhere and you can only afford either 4 SUVs or 2 50-seater busses, your hands are kinda tied.
the lower classes dont have the wealth required to do what you want to happen, and they will only be getting poorer.
the poor dont get political power.

>>60743748
thats not what economies of scale means.
being big means you can squeeze more efficiency out of your input, not be more wasteful because you have more resources.
>order 10 units of x, $100
>order 10,000 units of x, $100,000
likewise
>business bringing in 100k revenue cannot afford a 60k/y HR rep and would be silly to hire one
>business bringing in 1M revenue can not only afford a 60k/yr HR rep, but doing so will be actually be profitable
i could give you countless examples
>you borrow 10,000 from bank, 5%-15% APR
>massive corpo borrows 100,000,000 from bank, 1%-5% APR
the scale alone reduces cost basis. even if your corporate bloat reduced net revenue by 4%, but that bloat allowed you to save even 6% on long term credit, then doing so is not only financially viable, but mandatory as otherwise you have to answer to shareholders as to why you violated your fiduciary duty.

>>60742296 (OP)
ok cool but "megacorps" are never going to let policies pass that let them die so wtf u gonna do bitch

>>60743787

They have and could actually be beaten politically

>>60743784
>>order 10 units of x, $100
>>order 10,000 units of x, $100,000
added too many zeros, meant
>order 10 units of x, $100
>order 10,000 units of x, $10,000

>>60743792
the US outsources the majority of its defense industry innovation to publicly traded companies and medicare and medicaid are administered by publicly traded health insurers. also the financial performance of publicly traded companies (necessarily very large companies) underpins the retirement of anyone who hopes to not retire in crushing poverty (your 401k returns.)

>>60743807

Yes anon and this is a problem and why we're stuck in a debt/inflation/tax rape spiral

>>60743812
i was responding to your claim that 'they have and could actually be beaten politically.' i don't agree with that at all. american government -- crony capitalism, shareholder socialism, whatever you want to call it -- and megacorps are too intertwined.

>>60743816

>they are currently winning so they could never lose

lol? this conversation is going back into a circle, am I getting baited by AI or something

>>60743821
how could small businesses win? they are competing, small businesses do exist. but why aren't e.g., regional grocery chains crushing walmart? why aren't there startup health insurers that undercut UHC, humana, etc?

>>60743837

"regulations", "taxes", "lobbyists"

>>60743306
>Make all government subvention illegal
So close yet so far. Oh the irony. Fix government with more government we have not tried that before have we.

>>60742296 (OP)
You are almost getting it. Like you lack maybe 10 IQ points to truly getting it.
The question is: how much?
Reassess all your point again under the lens of "what quantity is here?"
Like: yes, megacorps will always rot. No one disagrees. But when? Within 5 years of their dominance?
Or perhaps 100, 150 years?
Should we be content with dystopias where some modern day British East India Company rules the country with an iron fist, only taking solace in the fact that they will collapse in your great-grandkids day? All just to masturbate your ideal of a totally free market?

>>60743440
>>60743400
I didn't read the rest of your conversation, but I hope you both understand you're on the same side.

>>60743478
We need an emperor who actually protects