Mega corporations (or a monopoly) never realized even before the government got involved with trust busting and such. At it's height Rockefeller's Standard Oil held approximately 80% of the market share but even so lost a substantial amount and continued to fall before the government got involved. Large corporations just like any government suffer from the inefficiencies of central planning.
Who said it had to be a total monopoly? I'm just talking about a business deciding to up and murder the competition instead of competing in a free market. I contend that this is something they will do if given the chance. This would mean that a violence free market is impossible, since the actors involved in the market will employ violence with or without a government.
As Icecreamman said you are trading a supposed band of thugs for a guaranteed supreme band of thugs ruling under the guise of law. Anarchy might be utopian but I think one who says put all the guns and decision making power into the hands of a central government and expect it to limit itself is the real impractical utopian.
In a free market, anyone can create a company that competes with the mega-corporation.
What makes you think the mega-corporations won't attempt to stop new competition?
Mega corporations (or a monopoly) never realized even before the government got involved with trust busting and such. At it's height Rockefeller's Standard Oil held approximately 80% of the market share but even so lost a substantial amount and continued to fall before the government got involved. Large corporations just like any government suffer from the inefficiencies of central planning.
Both the words socialism and capitalism have many different meanings depending on who you talk to. From my perspective the terms capitalism and free-market are basically interchangeable which necessarily means an economy free of government manipulation.
"The answer is surely not any lucidity or clarity of style or thought. For the much revered Wealth of Nations is a huge, sprawling, inchoate, confused tome, rife with vagueness, ambiguity and deep inner contradictions. There is of course an advantage, in the history of social thought, to a work being huge, sprawling, ambivalent and confused. There is sociological advantage to vagueness and obscurity. The bemused German Smithian, Christian J. Kraus, once referred to the Wealth of Nations as the 'Bible' of political economy. In a sense, Professor Kraus spoke wiser than he knew. For, in one way, the Wealth of Nations is like the Bible; it is possible to derive varying and contradictory interpretations from various — or even the same — parts of the book."
Giving money out is more efficient than giving benefits because if people wouldn't have spent the money exactly the same as the benefits they receive, then money is being wasted. I'd be for it in place of the current system if it didn't cost more than the benefits currently received and it meant reducing red tape so people currently administering benefits could go get a real job. At least with the new system, the theft from taxpayers to those dependent on the state would be more transparent.
What is the goal of giving money? Is it so a person has access to some arbitrary amount of cash each year? What problem does giving people money solve?
The goal of giving out money is so that those receiving it can more efficiently use it based on what they want. If you give someone money equal to the amount of benefits they recieve and they don't spend each dollar on those same benefits, then money is being wasted.
I'm not saying this version or the previous are any good because ultimately they are both theft. I would guess there would be a lot more backlash if people saw the taxes being taken out of their pay being used to cut checks to a bunch of bums.
Giving money out is more efficient than giving benefits because if people wouldn't have spent the money exactly the same as the benefits they receive, then money is being wasted. I'd be for it in place of the current system if it didn't cost more than the benefits currently received and it meant reducing red tape so people currently administering benefits could go get a real job. At least with the new system, the theft from taxpayers to those dependent on the state would be more transparent.
There is a significant amount of nerd rage in my area where a game store went to all walmarts and targets in a 20 mile radius and bought them all out to resell at a marked up price lol....
Whoever believes simply paying more money will magically raise labor productivity is getting the correlation backwards or is being disohonest. I wonder if you would present those arguments if you were defending Walmart's interests.
Its not really magical... You pay more you get better applicants, you replace those that aren't as productive with said people if they don't earn their updated wage.
Its pretty fundamental knowledge to the topic.
The problem is people with low skills want jobs too. Raising the minimum wage prices many low skill workers out of the market because they cannot produce enough to justify paying them that wage. Raising the minimum wage hurts the least productive members of society and increases unemployment.
Christie won't be much different than the other statists he will run against. He will still support the surveillance state and wars of aggression. Ron Paul 2016!
Like asw122 said, Aetherling probably has a good chance of gaining traction in Modern as a finisher in the right deck, but even then I don't think he's an auto-four of. And until Modern has a viable MUC build that can use him he'll stay at a couple bucks after rotation.
Aetherling is no where near powerful enough to see modern play.
I've been told it's rude to offer a hand shake after a round if you are the winner. I think it depends if the game was good or if you won due to your opponent getting land screwed. What do you think?
As Icecreamman said you are trading a supposed band of thugs for a guaranteed supreme band of thugs ruling under the guise of law. Anarchy might be utopian but I think one who says put all the guns and decision making power into the hands of a central government and expect it to limit itself is the real impractical utopian.
Mega corporations (or a monopoly) never realized even before the government got involved with trust busting and such. At it's height Rockefeller's Standard Oil held approximately 80% of the market share but even so lost a substantial amount and continued to fall before the government got involved. Large corporations just like any government suffer from the inefficiencies of central planning.
Here is what Murray Rothbard has to say about Adam Smith:
The Adam Smith Myth
Edit:
One of my favorite sections:
"The answer is surely not any lucidity or clarity of style or thought. For the much revered Wealth of Nations is a huge, sprawling, inchoate, confused tome, rife with vagueness, ambiguity and deep inner contradictions. There is of course an advantage, in the history of social thought, to a work being huge, sprawling, ambivalent and confused. There is sociological advantage to vagueness and obscurity. The bemused German Smithian, Christian J. Kraus, once referred to the Wealth of Nations as the 'Bible' of political economy. In a sense, Professor Kraus spoke wiser than he knew. For, in one way, the Wealth of Nations is like the Bible; it is possible to derive varying and contradictory interpretations from various — or even the same — parts of the book."
Certainly.
Drug dealers have to eat too I suppose, who am I to judge?
How it helps the individual is subjective, everyone has different goals in life again who am I to judge.
The goal of giving out money is so that those receiving it can more efficiently use it based on what they want. If you give someone money equal to the amount of benefits they recieve and they don't spend each dollar on those same benefits, then money is being wasted.
I'm not saying this version or the previous are any good because ultimately they are both theft. I would guess there would be a lot more backlash if people saw the taxes being taken out of their pay being used to cut checks to a bunch of bums.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
The problem is people with low skills want jobs too. Raising the minimum wage prices many low skill workers out of the market because they cannot produce enough to justify paying them that wage. Raising the minimum wage hurts the least productive members of society and increases unemployment.
Someone in my meta plays a mono black deck that runs haunting echoes, surgical extraction, extirpate, sadistic sacrament, a bunch of discard and kill spells. Its actually infuriating.
Aetherling is no where near powerful enough to see modern play.