> I have never been nice,

first comment was both cheeky and had a "i agree" at the end. Those are both niceties. Not sure why I would have to explain tone from mild critique to being a wee cu nt in back to back messages

> I am pro-regulation, where regulation for me is busting monopolies, preventing tragedy of commons, setting necessary quality checks, forbidding forced labor. I am against regulation

What does any of this nonsense have anything to do with me replying to someone who had a basic question about the non existance of monopolies in unregulated markets?

I explained the basic mechanisms for monopoly creation which are all easy math formulas that happen in bacteria growth too because "if nothing stops me I eat everything" is equally valid in any env where there is growth

> There's no nuance remaining in this world

coming from anti-intellectual "oh you know chesterton fence" responses is pretty ironic.

Btw if you are going to call people out for using big words maybe dont come out with the most 17 year old "people arent as smart as me as they emotionally attach themselves to sophistry while I am a nuanced rational ubermench". It reeks of intellectual insecurity.

i asked for empirical evidence against the mechanisms of monopoly creation because moats, regulation and inelastic markets are the most studied and reproducible mechanisms in anture, economics and any growth env. The formula just converges to infinity

> In short - fuck America.

its like 3am there, everyone here is asian and european rn... you are fighting windmills