Universal Basic Income

Arruda said:
Even then you don't get back to square one because proportionally incomes have increased by significantly different margins. For some UBI will be irrelevant, for others it my be a bump of 100% or more on what they earn. It reduces the gaps.
Click to expand...

I would speculate that the cost of living would inflate to the point that it negates the UBI. Things that 100% of people buy i.e. essentials/necessities would have 100% of the market getting identical cash injections, it would only be a matter of time before retail prices, rents, house prices etc. increase to find the same balance that exists today. Businesses unfortunately don't do charity and if they can charge more they absolutely will, and people will pay it if they have the money to.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
I would speculate that the cost of living would inflate to the point that it negates the UBI. Things that 100% of people buy i.e. essentials/necessities would have 100% of the market getting identical cash injections, it would only be a matter of time before retail prices, rents, house prices etc. increase to find the same balance that exists today. Businesses unfortunately don't do charity and if they can charge more they absolutely will, and people will pay it if they have the money to.
Click to expand...

Give this guy a listen...

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hana...tocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en

Nick Hanauer is a rich guy, an unrepentant capitalist — and he has something to say to his fellow plutocrats: Wake up! Growing inequality is about to push our societies into conditions resembling pre-revolutionary France. Hear his argument about why a dramatic increase in minimum wage could grow the middle class, deliver economic prosperity ... and prevent a revolution.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
I would speculate that the cost of living would inflate to the point that it negates the UBI. Things that 100% of people buy i.e. essentials/necessities would have 100% of the market getting identical cash injections, it would only be a matter of time before retail prices, rents, house prices etc. increase to find the same balance that exists today. Businesses unfortunately don't do charity and if they can charge more they absolutely will, and people will pay it if they have the money to.
Click to expand...

That’s not exactly how supply and demand works though is it? Business will still need to be competitive or other business will undercut them and get all the trade.
 
Pexbo said:
That’s not exactly how supply and demand works though is it? Business will still need to be competitive or other business will undercut them and get all the trade.
Click to expand...

What's the first thing you will do if you rent a shitty place in a shitty area and then someone comes and puts a extra £500 in your pocket each month?
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
What's the first thing you will do if you rent a shitty place in a shitty area and then someone comes and puts a extra £500 in your pocket each month?
Click to expand...

all those slightly better than shit places on slightly less shit areas have all just put their prices up by £500.

so what is the first thing you are going to do?

also, let’s be frank you give that money to everyone, and far from everyone will think of moving home if they live in a shit area.
 
afrocentricity said:
How does that work though? Excuse my naivety...
Click to expand...

So many people would choose to spend their £500 on something better than they already have, that it will just inflate the prices of those things and bring things back to an existing equilibrium.

For example if everyone in the country receives this money each month, now everyone has more to spend on their rent, and they are also qualified to borrow more for a mortgage. What does this do if not directly increase the cost of rents and the values of property? If you're a landlord or a seller you generally speaking aim to get absolute maximum value that you can.

Of course the property industry isn't the only thing competing for that extra £500. You can make similar arguments for food, fuel, luxury goods, basically anything. It's not very different to just printing extra money, even if it was 100% funded by Jeff Bezos private worth at no cost to anyone else, the outcome would be the same.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
So many people would choose to spend their £500 on something better than they already have, that it will just inflate the prices of those things and bring things back to an existing equilibrium.

For example if everyone in the country receives this money each month, now everyone has more to spend on their rent, and they are also qualified to borrow more for a mortgage. What does this do if not directly increase the cost of rents and the values of property? If you're a landlord or a seller you generally speaking aim to get absolute maximum value that you can.

Of course the property industry isn't the only thing competing for that extra £500. You can make similar arguments for food, fuel, luxury goods, basically anything. It's not very different to just printing extra money, even if it was 100% funded by Jeff Bezos private worth at no cost to anyone else, the outcome would be the same.
Click to expand...

Isn't that an argument against any wage increase?
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
So many people would choose to spend their £500 on something better than they already have, that it will just inflate the prices of those things and bring things back to an existing equilibrium.

For example if everyone in the country receives this money each month, now everyone has more to spend on their rent, and they are also qualified to borrow more for a mortgage. What does this do if not directly increase the cost of rents and the values of property? If you're a landlord or a seller you generally speaking aim to get absolute maximum value that you can.

Of course the property industry isn't the only thing competing for that extra £500. You can make similar arguments for food, fuel, luxury goods, basically anything. It's not very different to just printing extra money, even if it was 100% funded by Jeff Bezos private worth at no cost to anyone else, the outcome would be the same.
Click to expand...
But is this what actually happens? Doesn't make enough sense to me. Sounds a bit wishy-washy...

golden_blunder said:
You have a paper with numbers on it, this chap calls out randomly drawn numbers and you check off against the ones on your paper. If you get all the numbers before everyone else you might win a prize..
Click to expand...
This, on the other hand, makes perfect sense..
 
maniak said:
Isn't that an argument against any wage increase?
Click to expand...

No. Wage increases will on average work their way to employees who are in positions/industries that are generating increasing revenues due to the free market (without getting into a redcafe debate that the CEO is literally stealing employees money). Of course they can and do cause pockets of inflation, but it's a indirect byproduct. E.g. a thriving mining company gives all its employees a payrise but they all live in a small mining town, you could get some local inflation. What can you really do about that.. but at least it was the choice of the free market and relative to the next mining company who is making losses, they get the rewards of their success. UBI would be self inflicted, government imposed, nationwide - a meritless idea.

afrocentricity said:
But is this what actually happens? Doesn't make enough sense to me. Sounds a bit wishy-washy...
Click to expand...

According to me, but I'm just a r*tard talking bollocks on a football forum. Can you make an argument that it wont happen? The nation becomes £500 richer and loses the taste for money?
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
According to me, but I'm just a r*tard talking bollocks on a football forum. Can you make an argument that it wont happen?
Click to expand...
Hardly compelling. I'm not going to believe something just because you say it. I'm applying critical thought...

How do the landlords increase the prices to match the UBI without pricing themselves out?
Do they act in unison?
Where does the will of the people/renters/consumers fit into this?
You also have no idea what people would use that money on regardless of what it entitled them to...

What am I missing?
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
No. Wage increases will on average work their way to employees who are in positions/industries that are generating increasing revenues due to the free market (without getting into a redcafe debate that the CEO is literally stealing employees money). Of course they can and do cause pockets of inflation, but it's a indirect byproduct. E.g. a thriving mining company gives all its employees a payrise but they all live in a small mining town, you could get some local inflation. What can you really do about that.. but at least it was the choice of the free market and relative to the next mining company who is making losses, they get the rewards of their success. UBI would be self inflicted, government imposed, nationwide - a meritless idea.
Click to expand...

I haven't read any studies or any ideas proposed, so I may be talking bs, but I assume a revolutionary idea like this would come with some extra rules imposed by the government, and rent control would be one of them. Like you can only increase rent a certain percentage a year.

Sure, after a few years what you're suggesting may indeed happen, but in the meantime we would probably see wage increases for the worst jobs because people wouldn't be desperate, savings on healthcare expenses since a lot of issues related to stress and anxiety would improve, people would save on taking care of relatives and kids if they can afford to work part time, etc.

I mean it would be a game changer, so I don't think it's a fair assumption to say that it would be "ok here's an extra grand" and the next day your rent goes up a grand. It seems like an oversimplification.
 
afrocentricity said:
Hardly compelling. I'm not going to believe something just because you say it. I'm applying critical thought...

How do the landlords increase the prices to match the UBI without pricing themselves out?
Do they act in unison?
Where does the will of the people/renters/consumers fit into this?
You also have no idea what people would use that money on regardless of what it entitled them to...

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

It's literally such a similar idea to printing money it might as well be. Look up hyperinflation if you aren't convinced. What else are people going to spend the money on if not things they already spend money on? Will everyone just keep it under their mattress? They don't have to act in unison, things naturally find a balance. What happens when someone decides to rent out their low-income house.. they set the rent at £400 because that's what it used to be? Or they set it to £600 because literally every tenant in the market has an extra £500 now. Maybe you will rent it for lower than it's worth, but most people wont.
 
maniak said:
I haven't read any studies or any ideas proposed, so I may be talking bs, but I assume a revolutionary idea like this would come with some extra rules imposed by the government, and rent control would be one of them. Like you can only increase rent a certain percentage a year.

Sure, after a few years what you're suggesting may indeed happen, but in the meantime we would probably see wage increases for the worst jobs because people wouldn't be desperate, savings on healthcare expenses since a lot of issues related to stress and anxiety would improve, people would save on taking care of relatives and kids if they can afford to work part time, etc.

I mean it would be a game changer, so I don't think it's a fair assumption to say that it would be "ok here's an extra grand" and the next day your rent goes up a grand. It seems like an oversimplification.
Click to expand...

I agree, if UBI stands any chance it would need to be alongside such a myriad of regulations and a drastic reduction on your personal and professional financial freedoms to even stand a chance of improving things. Even then it's so complicated that the most likely scenario is they fcuk it up and things end up worse than they are now. Does anyone really want the government interfering with what things should be worth? Trying to stop the inevitable inflation would be like fighting against the tide.

UBI is such a simple solution that the outcome is similarly simple unfortunately.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
It's literally such a similar idea to printing money it might as well be. Look up hyperinflation if you aren't convinced. What else are people going to spend the money on if not things they already spend money on? Will everyone just keep it under their mattress? They don't have to act in unison, things naturally find a balance. What happens when someone decides to rent out their low-income house.. they set the rent at £400 because that's what it used to be? Or they set it to £600 because literally every tenant in the market has an extra £500 now. Maybe you will rent it for lower than it's worth, but most people wont.
Click to expand...

I repeat, watch this video to get a different perspective on why you are wrong.

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hana...tocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en

ps. UBI is nothing like printing money out of thin air. It's just a way to redistribute all the machine produced wealth.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
I agree, if UBI stands any chance it would need to be alongside such a myriad of regulations and a drastic reduction on your personal and professional financial freedoms to even stand a chance of improving things. Even then it's so complicated that the most likely scenario is they fcuk it up and things end up worse than they are now. Does anyone really want the government interfering with what things should be worth? Trying to stop the inevitable inflation would be like fighting against the tide.

UBI is such a simple solution that the outcome is similarly simple unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly my point of view is being influenced by my experience in Portugal. We have that here, councils control rents (even for privates) to stop older people and lower income people from being unable to pay rent. There are many rules for transportation, education and health. If tomorrow the government stopped interfering in the market, more than half of the population would go below the poverty line.

I assume it's the same in other countries. If we're talking about less financial and professional freedom alone and not other freedoms, I believe the vast majority of people would be ok with that if it meant a better quality of life for themselves and the community.

Maybe in the US it would be hard because they seem to have this government = bad mentality in many places, but in european countries where the state intervention is more common, especially in the south, people would be ok with those limitations and a UBI.
 
George Owen said:
I repeat, watch this video to get a different perspective on why you are wrong.

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hana...tocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en

ps. UBI is nothing like printing money out of thin air. It's just a way to redistribute all the machine produced wealth.
Click to expand...

He makes some reasonable but vague points about having a higher minimum wage being a positive, which I tend to agree with. What he's talking about has nothing to do with UBI. If everyone gets it and exactly the same amount for doing nothing at all then it's akin to printing money. It has the exact same result.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
He makes some reasonable but vague points about having a higher minimum wage being a positive, which I tend to agree with. What he's talking about has nothing to do with UBI. If everyone gets it and exactly the same amount for doing nothing at all then it's akin to printing money. It has the exact same result.
Click to expand...

The important point is, more money on the streets, working class people, won't really have a negative effect in terms of inflation.

As for the bolded, they won't be doing nothing. They will be spending that money/credits. That's their job... keeping the economy flowing.

UBI is not printing money out of thin air. It's just putting back into circulation, all that money that had been parked out of the system.
 
George Owen said:
The important point is, more money on the streets, working class people, won't really have a negative effect in terms of inflation.

As for the bolded, they won't be doing nothing. They will be spending that money/credits. That's their job... keeping the economy flowing.

UBI is not printing money out of thin air. It's just putting back into circulation, all that money that had been parked out of the system.
Click to expand...
Where does the money come from?

Honest question. Wouldn't taxes etc need to be upped to get this?
 
George Owen said:
The important point is, more money on the streets, working class people, won't really have a negative effect in terms of inflation.

As for the bolded, they won't be doing nothing. They will be spending that money/credits. That's their job... keeping the economy flowing.

UBI is not printing money out of thin air. It's just putting back into circulation, all that money that had been parked out of the system.
Click to expand...

That isn't a point. If everyone gets given the same amount of additional unconditional money then everyone is exactly where they were in the first place relative to each other. You have to detach the 'number of £'s' to the 'actual value' because giving everyone so much money changes the value of the £. There's no denying that no matter how you try to spin it. You aren't making everyone richer by handing out £500 to everyone. You're doing nothing at all but creating inflation at great tax payer cost.

Your last point is really getting to the crux of the matter now. UBI is all about the fantasy that everyone can share Jeff Bezos & Co' fortunes and be rich together. At least admit it. There's no good evidence or argument that UBI will solve any real problem, quite the contrary. Fair enough if you think that large corporations should be limited in size, I tend to agree. I could even get on board with a limit of personal wealth (despite how it would be almost impossible to actually enforce thus pretty much fantasy) but don't dress it up like UBI is some brilliant solution that solves all or any of our future economic problems. It just doesn't!
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
Sounds amazing who would have thought that a select group of people getting some free money each month would actually benefit them? Incredible. The real experiment would be to give it to everyone and see how fast it takes for everything to reach hyper inflation and everyone to be back to square one.. earning what the free market says they are worth.
Click to expand...
Hyperinflation? It's been discussed before, this makes no sense.

I see I missed some discussion when I wrote that, so to add to this: UBI is meant to top up incomes of people living below the poverty line and replace the often complex existing web of benefits through a single universal one. So your point about giving everyone extra money or printing an enormous amount of extra money makes no sense. Also, hyperinflation goes way beyond a slight extra inflation due to an increase in government benefits.

Finally, your point about the housing market makes no sense. Again, not everyone just gets extra money. And second, a lot of the people who will receive a significant net benefit have severe trouble making ends meet. UBI won't make them look to move, but allow them to feed themselves properly, maybe pay for fun things sometimes, and maybe do some professional training. You're treating this as if it's a big chunk of money for people who are OK in their current circumstances and will therefore look to 'move up'. That's just wrong.

Vidic_In_Moscow said:
That isn't a point. If everyone gets given the same amount of additional unconditional money then everyone is exactly where they were in the first place relative to each other. You have to detach the 'number of £'s' to the 'actual value' because giving everyone so much money changes the value of the £. There's no denying that no matter how you try to spin it. You aren't making everyone richer by handing out £500 to everyone. You're doing nothing at all but creating inflation at great tax payer cost.

Your last point is really getting to the crux of the matter now. UBI is all about the fantasy that everyone can share Jeff Bezos & Co' fortunes and be rich together. At least admit it. There's no good evidence or argument that UBI will solve any real problem, quite the contrary. Fair enough if you think that large corporations should be limited in size, I tend to agree. I could even get on board with a limit of personal wealth (despite how it would be almost impossible to actually enforce thus pretty much fantasy) but don't dress it up like UBI is some brilliant solution that solves all or any of our future economic problems. It just doesn't!
Click to expand...
All studies on UBI done so far have pointed to positive effects. (Although it's often been partial, like the Stockton study. But there is better work as well.) Rather than this bluster, do you have any actual evidence?
 
Last edited:
arnie_ni said:
Where does the money come from?

Honest question. Wouldn't taxes etc need to be upped to get this?
Click to expand...
One of the things that will supposedly happen with a UBI is that many benefits or assistance allowances dont need to be paid because the UBI covers them so the extra burden on the tax system isnt as bad as might seem
 
Stack said:
One of the things that will supposedly happen with a UBI is that many benefits or assistance allowances dont need to be paid because the UBI covers them so the extra burden on the tax system isnt as bad as might seem
Click to expand...
Plus all the administration needed to figure out who can and can't get current benefits will disappear to some extent as everyone is eligible for UBI.
 
Maagge said:
Plus all the administration needed to figure out who can and can't get current benefits will disappear to some extent as everyone is eligible for UBI.
Click to expand...
Great, so even less jobs and more need for UBI then.
 
Stack said:
One of the things that will supposedly happen with a UBI is that many benefits or assistance allowances dont need to be paid because the UBI covers them so the extra burden on the tax system isnt as bad as might seem
Click to expand...
Also, any extension of the welfare system costs money. If one agrees that people shouldn't live below the poverty line, then in pretty much every country the state will have to do more to prevent that from happening. UBI is just one approach for that (and seemingly a pretty good one); but one way or another, a state would have to cut elsewhere or raise its revenue (i.e., raise some aspect of taxes) to pay for the extension of existing welfare programs.
 
Cheimoon said:
Also, any extension of the welfare system costs money. If one agrees that people shouldn't live below the poverty line, then in pretty much every country the state will have to do more to prevent that from happening. UBI is just one approach for that (and seemingly a pretty good one); but one way or another, a state would have to cut elsewhere or raise its revenue (i.e., raise some aspect of taxes) to pay for the extension of existing welfare programs.
Click to expand...
Cheers, I hadnt thought of that aspect. I wonder how long till we see it become a thing in multiple countries.
 
[
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
That isn't a point. If everyone gets given the same amount of additional unconditional money then everyone is exactly where they were in the first place relative to each other. You have to detach the 'number of £'s' to the 'actual value' because giving everyone so much money changes the value of the £. There's no denying that no matter how you try to spin it. You aren't making everyone richer by handing out £500 to everyone. You're doing nothing at all but creating inflation at great tax payer cost.

Your last point is really getting to the crux of the matter now. UBI is all about the fantasy that everyone can share Jeff Bezos & Co' fortunes and be rich together. At least admit it. There's no good evidence or argument that UBI will solve any real problem, quite the contrary. Fair enough if you think that large corporations should be limited in size, I tend to agree. I could even get on board with a limit of personal wealth (despite how it would be almost impossible to actually enforce thus pretty much fantasy) but don't dress it up like UBI is some brilliant solution that solves all or any of our future economic problems. It just doesn't!
Click to expand...

What would be the worst consequence scenario for the UBI?
 
Pexbo said:
That’s not exactly how supply and demand works though is it? Business will still need to be competitive or other business will undercut them and get all the trade.
Click to expand...
Plus he's presenting it as if UBI is going to significantly increase disposable income across the board. That's simply nonsense - or in any case, it would be a very poor implementation of UBI that would go far past its goal. (I.e., ensure everybody is above the poverty line.)
 
Australia boosted all sorts of social payments during covid and guess what? The poorer people are the greater the likelihood that they spend it all and boost the economy. Australia's GDP only dipped by just over 1% overall last year even with various sectors being decimated.

UBI is a great idea as the hoops people are made to jump through to get welfare are almost irrelevant when we have nowhere near full employment and very unlikely to see it in the future. In part this is about how we operate in a post full employment world. It won't be enough to make it desirable exactly but kids can get fed and clothed at least. And it will free people up to start their own businesses or to study to advance themselves or take time off to interview for a better job and a thousand things that the current system perpetuates.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/03/california-universal-basic-income-study
 
There's a certain amount of dishonesty on all sides here. UBI must surely be a form of wealth re-distribution. Many will gain, some will pay for that by paying increased personal taxation, or indirectly through higher prices as organisations are taxed more. I'm afraid many UBI proponents are glossing over or ignoring how it will be paid for, but for me it's better to be honest about it. And I'm all for it, making the country a better place to live benefits all of us in a myriad of ways.

I suspect @Vidic_In_Moscow is well aware of the fact it's redistribution but rather than just say he's against anyone having to pay more he's twisting and turning with the hyperinflation nonsense. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to pay more ViM, you're quite entitled to say so. Personally I'm only of very average wealth, but if I have to pay some more to help us all be a bit more civilised then I will. That's politics, we all have a vote.
 
I will concede that hyperinflation was not the right term to have used, what I mean is inflation to the point that negates the UBI, which I strongly believe. I hear the idea that there's so much bureaucracy that we're actually saving money by just giving everyone a flat rate by cutting all the nonsense out, and there's something to that, but I think just giving literally everyone free handouts is not a solution and essentially a cop out. If we're handing out tax money it should be to those who need it and nobody else.

Let's assume that the poorest 10% of people out there are the ones in most dire need of this extra money (according to supporters of the idea they are the people who absolutely need more than they get today in existing schemes). They get a small increase in earnings which helps them out massively, and perhaps they don't have enough extra money to cause any inflation, I can certainly accept that. But what about the extra money that the next poorest 50% of people receive (the bulk of the population)? To these people maybe it is almost entirely a complete surplus income, which will cause inflation for anything and everything these people want to hand over money for, which unfortunately the poorest 10% of people will not be exempt from, which puts them back to square one.

A lot of people say they can afford to and would be happy to pay more in taxes to help out the poor - then what's stopping you? The fact is you're just one person declaring that a 2nd person should have to give money to a 3rd person. Very noble indeed.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
I will concede that hyperinflation was not the right term to have used, what I mean is inflation to the point that negates the UBI, which I strongly believe. I hear the idea that there's so much bureaucracy that we're actually saving money by just giving everyone a flat rate by cutting all the nonsense out, and there's something to that, but I think just giving literally everyone free handouts is not a solution and essentially a cop out. If we're handing out tax money it should be to those who need it and nobody else.

Let's assume that the poorest 10% of people out there are the ones in most dire need of this extra money (according to supporters of the idea they are the people who absolutely need more than they get today in existing schemes). They get a small increase in earnings which helps them out massively, and perhaps they don't have enough extra money to cause any inflation, I can certainly accept that. But what about the extra money that the next poorest 50% of people receive (the bulk of the population)? To these people maybe it is almost entirely a complete surplus income, which will cause inflation for anything and everything these people want to hand over money for, which unfortunately the poorest 10% of people will not be exempt from, which puts them back to square one.

A lot of people say they can afford to and would be happy to pay more in taxes to help out the poor - then what's stopping you? The fact is you're just one person declaring that a 2nd person should have to give money to a 3rd person. Very noble indeed.
Click to expand...

Think you have some good points. Dunno much about inflation and how that kicks off. but yea, the poorest/most in need, if that's it, hand out and no more, while everyone else gets the same hand out, could be it'll just restructure slightly for a little while and then back to square one, as you say. Political reply something along the lines of “there, we paid you, now f off”. Studies on UBI kinda breaks down on the small sample sizes of the experiments, don’t they? Scale it up to nationwide and add a few years, hard to tell what it'll look like. What UBI is or supposed to be, long term, should be defined really, really, really specific without any possibility of misunderstanding. Money for the poor is easy to agree with. Most probably do
 
Personally I think a better discussion is how to split up mega corporations who have almost monopolies on whole industries and prevent them getting so colossal in size, supermarkets being the simplest example that comes to mind. The consumer would end up paying slightly more due to economies of scale (you can think of it as a tax) but instead of 10 corporations making all of the money with a majority of salaried workers, maybe you have 1,000 or 10,000 more independently owned businesses that benefit far more people and the country. They're good only for their low prices to the consumer, other than that they milk countries of all independent entrepreneurs and a whole class of would-be business owners.
 
Breaking up mega corporations, restructuring the benefits system and all the other ideas usually put forward instead of UBI tend to usually be less feasible than a successful UBI in practice...
 
afrocentricity said:
Breaking up mega corporations, restructuring the benefits system and all the other ideas usually put forward instead of UBI tend to usually be less feasible than a successful UBI in practice...
Click to expand...
Where there's a will there's a way!
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
Personally I think a better discussion is how to split up mega corporations who have almost monopolies on whole industries and prevent them getting so colossal in size, supermarkets being the simplest example that comes to mind. The consumer would end up paying slightly more due to economies of scale (you can think of it as a tax) but instead of 10 corporations making all of the money with a majority of salaried workers, maybe you have 1,000 or 10,000 more independently owned businesses that benefit far more people and the country. They're good only for their low prices to the consumer, other than that they milk countries of all independent entrepreneurs and a whole class of would-be business owners.
Click to expand...
And which corporations are you thinking of?

For example, who wants 5 search engines? I prefer having 1 Google.

And how will they prevent cartels from forming? What if 5 companies collude to keep prices high?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.