A lot of these markets aren't really functioning when there are many middlemen that have an 2-4 company oligopoly that choke out any actual competition.

Many markets don't really have 'competition'

▲

ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

No, markets still function anyway over the long term (monopolies go bankrupt and are disrupted all the time) and if you are worried about oligopoly you want to ensure that communism and state ownership of the means of production is stamped out to prevent monopolies.

▲

valicord a day ago | parent [-]

Ah, yes, clearly communism is the reason for high inflation in the US...

▲

ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

That wasn't what I wrote or communicated.

▲

valicord a day ago | parent | next [-]

The comment you were replying to said that the reason for high prices is oligopoly and you've replied that the way to prevent oligopoly is to be against communism, so logically it follows that fighting communism would help lower the prices, no?

	▲	ericmay a day ago \| parent [-]
		Well, I guess if the OP was under the mistaken belief that the only reason for high prices was because of an oligopoly, then sure. But that premise is incorrect and it would be a bit bizarre to suggest that given at a minimum we could look to American tariffs or something never mind the pandemic helicopter money that was dispersed. But if you want to follow that train of thought with that faulty premise, then sure yes we must stop communism to lower prices because the OP says that oligopoly is solely responsible for price increases, so it follows that further restriction on market participants further increases prices. I don't agree with that premise, but if that's your view and the OPs view then it would be logically consistent for you to also advocate stamping out communism to lower prices.

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

So it was just a non-sequitur? Nobody was suggesting communism.

(Also communism doesn't follow the same rules as monopolies.)

▲

ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

No it wasn't a non-sequitur. Instead of repeating myself I'll just link to this good explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49197575

▲

Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-]

That explanation doesn't work.

They advocated for competition instead of ogliopoly. You decided to talk about a completely different and irrelevant way there could be a lack of competition. Even if your conclusion is right, that they would be against communism if it was a realistic threat here, there was no reason to bring it up.

I could say that a bunch of badly placed volcanos would reduce competition and they must be against those volcanos. Such a statement is technically true but it's a non-sequitur.

	▲	ericmay a day ago \| parent [-]
		You're free to disagree with my explanation but it's logical and consistent and I'm happy to continue to stand by that.