User blog comment:GrandMethuselah67/Character Sheet: Malcolm River/@comment-4867780-20161014010956/@comment-26322734-20161016013216

I'mma take your first statement bit by bit since there are a few things to refute.

"I'm not talking about political organization, I'm talking about empirical end results."

The empirical end results show the opposite of what you're describing. Economics shows that economic oligarchies are impossible. Historically, countries that have had free markets (such as Hong Kong), weren't guilty of any of the things you were bringing up, except when the government steps in and distorts the market in the favor of the business, allowing them to get away with all sorts of malpractice.

"Considering the very nature of economy, isn't it natural for a small number of exceptionally talented individuals to build private empires that end up indirectly ruling the society they belong to ?"

What you're describing is an oligopoly (a small group of businesses competing), and economics really actually does touch on that. It's one of the forms of competition within a free market, and oligopolies always dissolve into monopolistic competition (a larger number of businesses competing) in a few years, and then perhaps perfect competition (a multitude of businesses competing). The only way oligopolies don't dissolve into a more competitive state is if special privileges are given by the government, allowing them to eliminate competition through the passing of anti-small business laws. In a free market, oligopolies are unsustainable because if a group or trust of large corporation charge too much for something, consumers are sure to simply not buy it, and substitute it for something cheaper, which would most definitely be sold by a smaller business.

"Economical success is like snow balls : the more talented you are, the more money you gain, the easier success become, the more you can capitalize on it for more money and more success, etc. etc. And the negative opposite is also true : the competition of bigger companies led by smarter entrepreneurs inevitably eats away at your humble little business little you're either driven out of it or assimilated into the Borg."

If you simply had to be smart to be successful, Bill Gates wouldn't have filed for bankruptcy, and Elon Musk wouldn't have almost gone bankrupt. The Free Market is unforgiving, it doesn't play favorites because it is made up of numerous different self-interested individuals with their own goals and motives, competing with each other to gain the favor of the consumer. But it's fair. There are no favorites, there are no dominating forces without the intervention of the State. The state plays favorites by giving money and privileges to those it favors, and double-taxing and penalizing those it doesn't.

Small businesses are generally favorable. They're grassroots. In a free market, taxation is very low or nonexistent, eliminating one of the major barriers to the success of a business. With small busineses having more money overall, they can produce more to compete with larger businesses at a cheaper price due to a lower production cost. Due to the law of supply and demand, consumers will buy whatever is cheaper, which will make the businesses thrive. It's that simple.

"So when it comes down to it, isn't it the nature of free markets to give birth to private financial oligarchies that indirectly rule the world through sheer economical superiority ? No more technical abstractions please, just a clear and simple description that a profane can actually understand ^ ^; Like what I did in the previous paragraph, for example."

Sorry for the economics jargon!

Okay, I'll answer this question with a scenario:

Say you're buying a cell phone. The cell phone is high quality, but it is way too expensive for a cell phone (say the average cell phone in this scenario is 150 in whichever your country's currency is, and this phone is 250 or 300). Would you, as a consumer, buy the phone anyway, or try to buy a different phone that is closer to your price range, but may be a little lower quality?

If you answered the latter, then that is a demonstration of why financial oligarchies don't work in a free market. No matter how high quality the phone is, you aren't buying it if it's too expensive, right?

So instead, perhaps, you'd go for a phone that is less expensive and a different brand. In doing so, you are giving the business' competitor money instead of the business itself.

What you're doing, in this scenario (assuming you've picked the latter option), is practicing a concept called consumer sovereignty. You are exercising the choice to choose a less expensive phone over a more expensive phone.

And sure, there are people who will simply save up for the all too expensive phone, or will buy it anyway, but in that case, it's within the average consumer's price range, so there's no problem in the first place. If it is too expensive, then the business will be forced to either:

A) Go out of business.

Or

B) Decrease the price of their product so they can gain a wider amount of buyers and make a profit.

Even if things are too expensive, they often don't stay that way for long. Do you know how expensive a computer used to be in, say, the 80's? $1,200 for the computer, $100 for the hard drive, and $2,000 for the overall investment. And even then, they were extremely slow, tedious, and took up an entire room. Today we have computers the size of a notebook that can do better than what the supercomputers of the 1960's could do, averaging at, say, $180 dollars. Smart phones, averaging at $149, that are millions of times faster than the supercomputers that orchestrated the Apollo Landing. So yeah, the market, even when it isn't completely free but on the more free end of the spectrum, allows for the production of goods and services that are high quality for cheap prices, and even if they are expensive now, they won't be for long.

"I can't help wondering, if a complete privacy model is so overwhelmingly superior overall, how comes it is virtually nonexistent in the entire history of mankind ?"

The British Empire, Modern China, Scandinavian Countries, Japan, British Hong Kong, Modern India, America circa 1890-1920. All of these are countries, whether they exist today or not, that have had generally free markets. All of these countries undergo massive economic growth as seen in their G.D.P.

Now socially these countries may have issues, but again, that has to do with government, not the private individuals within the market.

"Surely, not everything can be blamed on the big bad government, on this scale there has to be some major societal issues that privacy worshippers have seriously overlooked, otherwise statistically we would have at least a small number of these up and running somewhere in the world."

Countries with free markets generally don't last long without market regulations because either the government steps in for various reasons or citizens get ahead of themselves and vote in people with more socialist policies. Which is fine, really -- whatever they determine is best for them is best for them, such is democracy -- but economics tells us otherwise.

"If Malcolm isn't any better or any worse than Bradley, then why is he aligned "Good" why Bradley is aligned "Evil" ? Seeing as neither is better nor worse, shouldn't they both be "Neutral" instead ?"

Well first of all, Bradley isn't aligned evil. He can be either Lawful Good, or Lawful Evil, depending on one's perspective.

Second of all, Malcolm is aligned Chaotic Good because he's also a superhero (albiet one who travels to different universes and dimensions and planets), hence the costume. Ideologically, he's more Chaotic Neutral. He's a "I do what I want" type person, since he believes in the Non-Aggression Principle (everything should be voluntary and not coerced -- within reason, of course). And mind you, him enforcing a free market cannot be a selfish act, because he isn't the beneficiary of a free market. Nobody is the beneficiary of the free market, except, collectively, the consumers.