maybe we should have a little talk about the historical arguments that classical economics used to advance, why they're wrong and how modern economics corrects for those mistakes. i have a feeling that this is what this cycle is going to be about for me - that i'm going to end up in a lot of arguments with democrats and liberals about market theory.

you may have been told that competition reduces prices because each of the competitors wants to find ways to get the business of the consumer. when this happens, firm a and firm b get into a bidding war (essentially, a race to the bottom.) in order to save the sale. as a demanding and self-interest driven consumer, i bet that sounds like the best idea for you, because everybody wins, right? well, so long as by "everybody" you mean me, then everybody wins, and everybody...else...loses. what i'm trying to get across is that the premise is absurd on it's face: we don't live in an economic reality where the rules ensure that the consumer wins and everybody else loses.

let's have a little common sense here in understanding what actually happens. the firms don't say "competition is bad for us and good for consumers, so let's do lots of it! fuck our shareholders!". rather, what the firms say is "wait a second, you want us to compete? for you? yeah. right. we've got out our own self-interests here, and it's not you, consumer. sorry. rather, us firms are going to get together and set the prices at whatever we want it set at, and fuck you for complaining about it. and, so long as we stand together, what are you going to do, consumer? huh?"

and, i'll tell you what the consumers need to actually do, which is take control of the firm, but consumers lack revolutionary potential, so they never actually say that. rather, what they do is go crying to the government...

"reeeeegulaaaaaaaatoooooooors. these firms won't compete! it's not fair! make them compete. it's good for consumers, like me.". unfortunately, the regulators work for the firms, and they're actually there to prevent the government from forcing them to.

and, that's where we're at - this silly game where the government tries to pretend it can "spur innovation" and "incentivize competition". but, the firms don't want to compete, and the government can't actually make them. what the firms want to do is collude.

meanwhile, prices come up and down based on all other kinds of things, including the costs of mass production. socializing production is efficient. that's why firms socialize as much as they can, internally.