Liberalism is not inconsistent with regulation. Oligarchy introduces inefficiencies to the market. Liberal Democrats have been generally open to and supportive of regulations which oppose oligarchic monopolies, and mitigate externalities. They certainly have their flaws, too many to enumerate here, but they generally want the market to run as “purely” as possible, without the confounding effects of oligarchy. Oligarchy and monopolies upset the mechanisms of the market, and the liberals are the ones passing regulations to try to prevent that. This much is obvious by the existence of regulations, and the near absence of legislators to the left of liberals.
Liberalism is not fully mutually exclusive with regulation, but liberal regulation is to try to maintain capitalist markets against their own failures. Yes, they can be willing to engage in some regulation to try to maximize future markets and capitalism. But they are pro-oligarch and pro-inequality, liberals are trying to maintain it long-term even if the most extreme excesses of oligarchs must be reigned in for the short term.
But most importantly, Oligarchy and monopolies aren’t an “upset” or disruption of markets, but the obvious and natural outcome. Profits are optimized by consolidation and removing competition. And even if competition is maintained, once one company wins the competition there is monopoly, and the fact that most capital intensive industries have a natural barrier to entry (it would take billions of dollars of venture capital to enter and be a very weak competitor with the incumbent) means that markets have oligarchy and monopoly as their natural and necessary outcome.
A homeless guy can’t just immediately become a billionaire by saying that there should be a competitor of genetic testing with 23andMe.
But they are pro-oligarch and pro-inequality, liberals are trying to maintain it long-term even if the most extreme excesses of oligarchs must be reigned in for the short term.
The liberal approach is stretching that short term out forever. They will always reign in outliers and apply bandaids to keep the charade going, directly targeting oligarchy and inequality to keep up appearances that liberal capitalism works. The other guys wanna get to the end already, where they own everything forever. Oligarchies stagnate markets, and liberals don’t want the music to stop.
The eligible voting population is about 30% for oligarchy, 30% for the liberal charade, 5% for some other opinion, and 35% totally politically apathetic. The point was that if you want to actually accomplish something in a democracy, you need demographics. You’ve gotta find 30% to challenge the actual pro-oligarchy demographic somewhere.
Liberalism is not inconsistent with regulation. Oligarchy introduces inefficiencies to the market. Liberal Democrats have been generally open to and supportive of regulations which oppose oligarchic monopolies, and mitigate externalities. They certainly have their flaws, too many to enumerate here, but they generally want the market to run as “purely” as possible, without the confounding effects of oligarchy. Oligarchy and monopolies upset the mechanisms of the market, and the liberals are the ones passing regulations to try to prevent that. This much is obvious by the existence of regulations, and the near absence of legislators to the left of liberals.
Yeah Margaret Tatcher was a great person. Every decent communism should ally with her and her spiritual descendant
lmao
Who said Margaret Thatcher was a great person? That’s a wild straw man.
Liberalism is not fully mutually exclusive with regulation, but liberal regulation is to try to maintain capitalist markets against their own failures. Yes, they can be willing to engage in some regulation to try to maximize future markets and capitalism. But they are pro-oligarch and pro-inequality, liberals are trying to maintain it long-term even if the most extreme excesses of oligarchs must be reigned in for the short term.
But most importantly, Oligarchy and monopolies aren’t an “upset” or disruption of markets, but the obvious and natural outcome. Profits are optimized by consolidation and removing competition. And even if competition is maintained, once one company wins the competition there is monopoly, and the fact that most capital intensive industries have a natural barrier to entry (it would take billions of dollars of venture capital to enter and be a very weak competitor with the incumbent) means that markets have oligarchy and monopoly as their natural and necessary outcome.
A homeless guy can’t just immediately become a billionaire by saying that there should be a competitor of genetic testing with 23andMe.
The liberal approach is stretching that short term out forever. They will always reign in outliers and apply bandaids to keep the charade going, directly targeting oligarchy and inequality to keep up appearances that liberal capitalism works. The other guys wanna get to the end already, where they own everything forever. Oligarchies stagnate markets, and liberals don’t want the music to stop.
The eligible voting population is about 30% for oligarchy, 30% for the liberal charade, 5% for some other opinion, and 35% totally politically apathetic. The point was that if you want to actually accomplish something in a democracy, you need demographics. You’ve gotta find 30% to challenge the actual pro-oligarchy demographic somewhere.