• camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No, that’s an effect of collusion and cartelization of the economy. It’s because you have very few actors supplying the product and the barriers of creating a similar product are too high, so new competitors cannot access the market. Then the current suppliers can sit on the product and wait for it to be at the right price, as long as it doesn’t go to waste.

    As you can see, all of this screens about real estate:

    • Cartelization/collusion: The aren’t that many companies that have properties on sale
    • High cost to enter: Building is pricey, and it depends on the location of the property more than anything. So a building in one neighborhood is not a direct replacement of a building in another neighborhood.
    • Real estate does not go to waste. Unless bad luck or poor choices, your building should work fine for a couple of generations. And worst case scenario, the land already has a price.

    This is the time when governments should intervene and come up with a proposal to solve the cartelization.

    • queermunist she/her
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, that’s an effect of collusion and cartelization of the economy.

      That’s just capitalism honey

      • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes and no. Capitalism without regulations may bring this kind of issues. But capitalism with regulations shouldn’t. The issue is that the required regulations are not being applied or do not exist.

        We should not blame or put the weight of the issue in capitalism, when we clearly know we don’t live in a perfect capitalistic world, and very few markets are like that. The issue is with politicians.

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Capitalism destroys its own regulations because politicians are for sale! You’re acting like politics and markets are different, but they’re interconnected at their very core.

          • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t blame capitalism for something that’s at the core of any political system: Greed destroys it. Greed and humans are intertwined. It’s not capitalism’s fault. The same happened across history even when and where capitalism didn’t exist: the Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet block and even in China now. Greedy people that can be bought will exist everywhere. The wish for power is not inherent of capitalism, is inherent of human nature. Failing to see that will lead to the same issue over and over again, in democratic or autocratic regimes.

            • queermunist she/her
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Misanthropy.

              The problem with capitalism and feudalism and the ancient empires before them is they are unequal and undemocratuc. The common thread through all of them is a large amount of power concentrated into very few hands, leading to class conflict between haves and havenots. Capitalism isn’t unique in that respect, it’s just the most advanced form.

              • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t hate the human race. But I cannot stop pointing to our flaws. Not understanding our flaws, will lead to keep having them and the problems they carry.

                On the other hand, what you are saying will be valid in any system. How do you propose to have a completely egalitarian society? It’s nearly impossible, there will always be people wanting more than they have and won’t care about the consequences of it.

                • queermunist she/her
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  As long as there are haves and havenots then there will be class conflict.

                  Abolish private property so no one can be a ‘have’ and redistribute the wealth so there are no longer people who are ‘havenots.’ WIthout the accumulation of wealth and power the class distinctions evaporate into air and we could abolish the State itself, because the State only exists as a tool for one class to oppress the other.

                  Imagine if everyone was finally working together.

                  • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    See? That’s where I get confused and I end up with the “that can’t happen” attitude in my head.

                    If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let’s imagine that it’s seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn’t that be thievery in the eyes of those who don’t want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don’t it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a “haver” against all of those “havenotters” that gave their property for nothing but good will.

                    And then there’s the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of “property”? And then it’s the issue of how do you measure that “property”? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It’s not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.

                    Finally, who does that? We? And who is “we”? Who organises “we”? How is “we” not anarchist? And if it’s anarchist, how do we ensure it’s just?

    • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have a solution, it is called anti trust legislation. We need to break up all of these too large to fail organizations. It’s ridiculous that we have only a handful of major players in soo many markets.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oops, the businesses bought the politicians and now they won’t pass anti-trust legislation. Who could have seen this coming???

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          _Looks at Anti Trust legislation that was passed over a hundred years ago and scratches head.

          Sherman Act 1880 Clayton Act 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act 1914_

          We don’t need new laws, we need people appointed to the FTC who will enforce the law more aggressively.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, and what happened to that legislation? Businesses bought the right politicians and defanged everything that inhibited their profits. Businesses have their thumbs on the scale making sure the FTC doesn’t have the right people to be a threat.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The anti trust act is a federal law… I’m not sure where you inject city hall with breaking up cartels or large multinational businesses.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s wrong. In many countries boomers possess a truckload of the estate, but they don’t expect to sell it because it’s their life insurance.

      It’s not cartel or collusion, it’s how society was planned by the libs over the last 50 years.

      • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Planned by the libs”, as if the “libs” were a single entity that have a homogeneous plan. Let’s stop giving entity to stuff that never existed and realise that there is a structural problem that occurred because of bad management of our economy and policies. Because we had mediocre actors and in some cases actors with bad faith.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s what I call the libs: it’s not an entity, it’s the politicians with this ideology. Feel free to turn that into a conspiracy.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you making up a special magical definition for “libs”? Good luck with that.