Why don't you look into Natural Monopolies, and pricing regulations that usually comes alongside privatisation? Wouldn't it be worthwhile looking at it from both perspectives (the arguments for and against nationalisation), instead of just one point of view
So you're saying we should enforce anti-trust laws? Let me guess: No, that's government overreach. These episodes always end up reinforcing the opposite of libertarians' views.
You don’t see a difference between govt mandated monopolies and enforcing anti trust? Suggesting government shouldn’t prevent competition is about as libertarian as it gets.
@@richardlocke3375 Lobbying the government is only one way that powerful businesses can shut down competitors. Another way is strong-arming competition, and that doesn't necessarily mean mafia tactics. New businesses need to be able to raise capital, hire employees, purchase raw materials, and sell their product at a profit. The problem is that an established monopoly can remain vindictive longer than an upstart can remain solvent: An entrenched monopoly can threaten to blacklist workers, banks, suppliers, and retailers who do business with startups. If a single business is responsible for a large fraction of another business's revenue, the second business is at the mercy of the first. It's a serious risk for suppliers, retailers, and banks to bet on an upstart against an entrenched monopoly, knowing that if the monopoly stops doing business with them and the startup fails, they might go bankrupt. It's an even bigger risk for workers to turn down a job at a monopoly in favor of working at a startup with the threat of not being able to work for the monopoly if the startup fails. Moreover, the monopolist can further attack startups by selling products at a loss, accepting short-term losses in order to prevent competitors from being able to make a profit, especially if the monopolist has other sources of income. None of these tactics violates the non-aggression principle or the property rights of anyone, but they do exploit consumers in the economic interests of the monopolist, which is why anti-trust laws were written to outlaw such behavior. The threat of bankruptcy and destitution can be just as effective at coercing people as putting a gun to their heads, perhaps more effective if the former is legal and the latter is not.
The bucket brigade could use more than the one bucket at least
Why waste funds like that? 1 bucket is enough to remove the water.
Or just, not exist?
Why not just carry a bucket when using the machine, you’re still using a bucket and thus well within the scope of the law.
You make a great point
The sound effects are pretty good.
I was just watching this episode
0:00
Who said it wasn’t?
4:57
What episode and season?
As if anyone will listen to Plato.
Why don't you look into Natural Monopolies, and pricing regulations that usually comes alongside privatisation? Wouldn't it be worthwhile looking at it from both perspectives (the arguments for and against nationalisation), instead of just one point of view
They know, just lookg for "austrian economics monopolies" and you'll understand that this critique makes no sense.
nice
1:05 Why does everyone sound like they from Canada
The real question is why everyone in Canada speaks like from Atlantis
Ed: Canadians are weird!
👍👍😍😍
This guild…
From an episode like this, the economic principle seems to look primarily Distributist.
?
So you're saying we should enforce anti-trust laws? Let me guess: No, that's government overreach. These episodes always end up reinforcing the opposite of libertarians' views.
You don’t see a difference between govt mandated monopolies and enforcing anti trust? Suggesting government shouldn’t prevent competition is about as libertarian as it gets.
@@richardlocke3375You totally missed the point.
@@richardlocke3375 Lobbying the government is only one way that powerful businesses can shut down competitors. Another way is strong-arming competition, and that doesn't necessarily mean mafia tactics. New businesses need to be able to raise capital, hire employees, purchase raw materials, and sell their product at a profit. The problem is that an established monopoly can remain vindictive longer than an upstart can remain solvent: An entrenched monopoly can threaten to blacklist workers, banks, suppliers, and retailers who do business with startups. If a single business is responsible for a large fraction of another business's revenue, the second business is at the mercy of the first. It's a serious risk for suppliers, retailers, and banks to bet on an upstart against an entrenched monopoly, knowing that if the monopoly stops doing business with them and the startup fails, they might go bankrupt. It's an even bigger risk for workers to turn down a job at a monopoly in favor of working at a startup with the threat of not being able to work for the monopoly if the startup fails. Moreover, the monopolist can further attack startups by selling products at a loss, accepting short-term losses in order to prevent competitors from being able to make a profit, especially if the monopolist has other sources of income. None of these tactics violates the non-aggression principle or the property rights of anyone, but they do exploit consumers in the economic interests of the monopolist, which is why anti-trust laws were written to outlaw such behavior. The threat of bankruptcy and destitution can be just as effective at coercing people as putting a gun to their heads, perhaps more effective if the former is legal and the latter is not.