LogFAQs > #931277577

GreenKnight127 posted...

I wasn't expecting to spend so much time thinking about one of the questions.

This one really threw me for a loop:

"It's not logical or efficient to have several companies all making the same tire, the same wrench, the same cable, etc., so the state should step in to coordinate their efforts."

Like....there's a difference between a wrench....and your internet provider. You know?

Monopolies are bad. And depending on what the service is.....it would be extremely dangerous if every American had the same exact internet provider. If that one provider got hacked....we'd ALL be fucked.

But I also think it's ridiculous that there are 87 brands of batteries, if they are all, scientifically, physically, essentially....the same.

This is wrong even in a communist society or socialist society as competition between multiple brands leads to innovation. Pure socialism where everyone gets paid the same amount and there is no competition for products is actually bad for innovation because of this (to some degree), that does not mean we need to be purely capatalistic and all about the competition, but a melding of both systems would be the best solution.

Just having one company build a product could easily lead to stagnation and while a monopoly would not be that dangerous if it was regulated by the govermnent (which it obviously is if there is only one company), it could prevent new technologies rising to replace old and we could be stuck with batteries from the 80's, in 2020 if that was the case.

A version of socialism where everyone has a base level of income but you can make more, have better living spaces, purchase extra luxiories etc if you work harder (or better) etc, and some competition still exists, is the best solution.

Our current system is wacked for a majority of citizens. Competition does work to spur innovation, but we have the resources for everyone to have a comfortable life and not even need to work 30 hours a week. While some alterations would certainly benefit the majority, getting rid of all competition and the ability to have a better life, more things etc, based on your hard work and efforts would be a serious mistake.

A more equal distribution of wealth is what we need more than anything, along with a tax system that is fair and allows for some socialist ideals (free health care for all, free education for all, and the assurance of a job that will pay for a comfortable life for every american).

Sadly all the power is in the wealthy in this country which makes such changes very unlikely. Even if you voted in someone who actually would fight for such changes, you would then need to vote in enough people in congress etc that also believe in such changes and usually the options/choices don't include them at all.

Therefore, I predict that things won't change much naturally with our current political system, we may not even see a fair tax system without loopholes etc in the near future. I could be wrong, but pretty much in the 30 years I have been voting, I do not feel like anything has actually been changed for the better, and we have not worked as a nation on our infrastructure at all since Hoover.

I could live another 20 years, or only a couple more, but sadly I don't expect to see large changes in my lifetime, unless global warming gets so extreme they are forced apon us.

---

Zangulus "I try to avoid having any knowledge at all of his dick."
Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing."