PSA: Winner Take All Markets and Neo-Feudal Billionairism

It’s nice to see that the cucky embrace of neo-feudal billionairism has largely been destroyed through opposition with reality. Once so prevalent on the right and even alt-right adjacent spheres such as edgy libertarianism, it’s rare to see all but the most committed of ThielBux bad faith actors even pretend to support billionairism these days. Hell, below we have cuckservative grifter Lauren Southern doing the whole “can you stop being a capitalism supporting retard pls,” bit, albeit tepidly.

You’ll still see some retarded “muh socialism,” posting from the greybeards on Gab, but even that is fairly tepid nowadays. Trillion dollar multinational corporations engaging in mass censorship, support of BLM, pervert garbage, mass migration, and every other socially destructive and unpopular part of the (((privileged class))) agenda. So ultimately the cognitive dissonance between the abstract idea of muh capitalism and Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/Pepsi oppressing everyone is too much for all but the whiniest and worthless of cuckolds to support.

However, I feel like there was a clear intellectual refutation of this nonsense that was never really laid down. According to “muh free market,” retards, censorship by YouTube shouldn’t be possible. Once they engage in censorship, high quality non-censorious and actually popular corporation should simply spring out of the ether, ready to pick up the business that these trillion dollar corporations are “stupidly,” denying. And yet, weirdly enough this doesn’t happen. How could this be?

Let’s say that you’ve got some 40 year old guy named Craig who has worked in the restaurant business since high school. He’s got plenty of experience, and he’s very competent. Beyond that, he has plenty of connections built throughout the years.

Unsatisfied with the current restaurant scene he gets some people together and they plan a new restaurant. He’s saved up some money, goes in to the bank and applies for a loan, and that’s that. Jim’s Seafood Emporium is born, and enjoys a few decades of success before Section 8 housing brings some Unsportsmanlike-Americans into the neighbourhood and it all goes to shit.

Regardless of how it ended, this storybook tale is actually pretty realistic. Things like these do happen, and are maliciously used by cuckservative shills doing the “muh regulations” bit to dupe naive people into supporting literally trillion dollar multinationals. But if market economics works on this low level, why doesn’t it work at a high level?

The reason is that for markets to work, where by work I mean provide for the people as opposed to simply allowing billionaires and hanger ons to exploit our labour, we need at least two things to be true:

1. No unfair advantages to prior success. Or at least extremely minimal.
2. Low enough entry costs, capital, time, expertize, etcetera, that many small time players can compete.

This works in the restaurant industry, at least to some extent. Chains such as McDonald’s show this to be of only minimal validity, but markets do somewhat work there. If you have a successful restaurant, that’s pretty much it. The service that you can provide to customers does not get massively better the more customers there are, in fact the opposite may be true. If your restaurant becomes too busy, people don’t want to eat there because they don’t want to wait in line for an hour just so that they can eat.

In contrast to small businesses, big businesses are invariably big because they have an unfair advantage that being big provides. YouTube is a great example. They have by far, and it’s not even close, the largest audience. As a result, people make videos for YouTube. This grows their audience, which makes more people make videos for YouTube, and so on. There is a positive feedback loop that is obtained simply by virtue of being successful. And Google didn’t even get that by being good, they just subsidized YouTube to 2 billion per year until they got an insurmountable install base advantage over everyone else. Hell, Google didn’t even make YouTube, they made Google Videos, which failed. They bought YouTube from 4 Stanford grads for $1.6B.

Facebook is another great example. It barely even qualifies as a tech company, and the website sucks. So why do people use it? Because other people use it. Facebook would have no value if only one person used it, but it has a massive multi billion person audience. If you simply cloned Facebook you would have “just as good of a product,” in the technical sense, but since you don’t have the install base, nobody is going to use your Facebook clone. People rely on Facebook for advertising their businesses, meeting people apolitically, and a whole host of other services that you won’t be able to provide, simply because of the inherent unfair advantage to success in many truly free market businesses.

Amazon is the same. They have the largest audience, which gives them better economies of scale, and the ability to cater to more niche audiences. It also gives them the ability to open more warehouses, which gives them shorter shipping times. All of this gives them a larger audience, and the positive cycle continues. The idea that Amazon is this amazing piece of technology and business that you’d need to be a genius to compete with is absurd. It’s a shitty website plus warehouse logistics in a winner takes all field.

In reality, these businesses are natural monopolies. They don’t need artificial government help to be monopolies, they just are. This should be considered in comparison to true small businesses, which often do not get unfair advantages to success. I mentioned a family restaurant earlier, but the same would go for a self employed carpenter, dock repair guy, produce store, and many other businesses. Social networks are a winner takes all market. Janitorial services are not.

Billionaires are a worthless class of people that have massively outsourced returns on the value they have provided to society, precisely because they own businesses in sectors where they enjoy unfair advantages due to previous success. The winner takes all fields mentioned earlier along with many others. Success that, as Google has shown with YouTube, can simply be purchased by already being rich, in a different market (search engines) that also has unfair advantages to success. Google had a larger market share, which meant they could get more accurate results, which meant they had a larger market share, etcetera.

Because they are winner takes all markets there is a tremendous amount of power at these corporations. The idiotic cuckservative idea that some malicious parasite would willingly choose to enter some random government bureaucracy over Google’s bureaucracy is utterly ridiculous. That’s why in reality we see the exact opposite.

This is the head of Twitch’s censorship team. A tranny that identifies as a deer.

Now, is it true that these corporations and billionaires collude with the government to get what they want over the little goy-peasants? Of course they do. But what Facebook wants more than anything else isn’t some special privileges, it’s to not be regulated. Any truly populist politician will run on stopping Facebook from censoring the people, which is an imposition on the free market, and Facebook bribes politicians to stop that from happening. After all, it’s a shitty website in a winner takes all market. It doesn’t need special regulation. You can’t compete against Facebook, because it’s a natural monopoly.

I really don’t want to hear any “muh free market,” garbage from people nominally in our thing. We have been reduced to telegram and Gab because of mass censorship from these tech corporations. That doesn’t mean that I’m saying “here’s some magical economic system that makes everything great.” I have repeatedly stated that people matter far more than systems, and that we are fighting against a tiny class of people best referred to as Globo Homo Schlomo. This parasite class includes judges, billionaires, politicians, “academics,” the Harvey Weinstein of Hollywood, etcetera.

I’m writing this because I want this to be a resource to destroy the flimsiest psuedo-intellectual cuckservative arguments for not having the government cockslap Mark Zuckerberg back into his place. Market economics simply do not work for winner-takes-all fields, and this explains why these corporations do not act in such a way so as to maximize profits, as cuckservative propaganda would have you believe. They don’t act that way because they don’t have to. They’re natural monopolies.

TL:DR: Market economics don’t work for big businesses, and if you go around bloviating about “muh capitalism,” in the year 2022 you’re a faggot.