Do socialists fall for the zero sum game fallacy because they're socialist...

The angle I assumed you were coming at it was "This is my business and I don't want the government's grubby paws on it."

If we're assuming that the resources of a nation are the property of the people and the economy is not market driven (Or shareholder driven) then anyone you "hire" to run the company for the government is basically a government take over no matter how you slice it.

If you look at Congo when it was Zaire, the US backed dictator ran the Copper mines with a great deal of competency because his existence (And personal bankroll) was dictated by pleasing the US's market driven economy.

What I'm saying essentially is this, We cannot trust the market to look out for everyone or even itself, and we cannot trust government to do the same.

Why does that have to be taken as fact because an industry is under new management?

I don't know how it works where you are but here the government issues mining leases of 25 years. All they would need to do is not issue new leases as they run out and instead buy the on-site plant and equipment at 110% market value insuring the investors have an "out".

no, because the market is not a thing that can have intentions or commit actions. the market is just the sum total of all the actions of all individuals and companies, and I think we can trust those to look after themselves.

my super ultra mega monster dick has a monopoly on your mom

You're a crypto-capitalist

First, Checked.

If you look at any country that has had a government take over of ANY industry, the market has reacted EXTREMELY unfavorably to it. (Conrail is the first thing that comes to mind because I'm a train autist.) again, I can't speak for international markets, but I am patterning my thinking off of the US market.

While your idea would work in theory, I don't believe it would ever work in reality. Can you imagine the uproar if a successful mining company was told "We're socializing this company and there's nothing you can do about it, take this payout and walk away."

I can't imagine that would go down well.

Then what's the point of having either if we're all looking out for Number 1?

Technically, the original natsocs (the brownshirts) were socialists. They tried to rebel as Hitler started going the fascist route and then they got BTFO'd.

The company would crack the shits in a huge way and act like everyone they employ is going to be homeless next week but this can be easily countered by keeping the mine and all plant operational during the exchange.
As for the public I think they would be skeptical at first but when their taxes were halved the following year because 100% of resource profits are subsidizing them I think they would be all for it and not want to see them fall back into private hands.

what do you mean, "either"?

I'm just not seeing it happening here in the US, mainly because our government is reactionary. And you also have to assume that all of the crazy motherfuckers who have been just waiting for the government to overstep it's "Boundaries" in a big way wouldn't take that as a cue to start kicking things off.

A government take over of a large, successful private enterprise would cause huge societal shocks.

If the government isn't ready to do some Night of the Long Knives shit, then it better not even try.

by either I mean government or the market. You're just going to get jew'd either way, so what's the point of even playing along other than to maybe beat someone else?

I'm really happy how peaceful this discussion is,carry on guys.

we can't not have the market. as long as people want to trade with other people, there is a market. as for why people want to trade, mostly it's because they have something and need something else that another person has.

Right, but we're no longer trading goods for goods. Or even goods or services for something shiny that we all decided has value. It's the idea of the idea of the shiny thing (Digital currency is backed by paper money that isn't backed by gold).

The zero sum fallacy is correct, and their will always be bigger pies but what I worry of is when people realize "Hey, this is fucking bullshit."

doesn't change anything with regard to the basics of how a market works. someone has digital currency, someone else wants it, they trade.

these two sentences seem to argue against each other

Sorry, I misspoke. What I meant to say was my brief research into it seems correct. That there is no "Bottom"

I'm just wondering how far down the rabbit hole this is going to go, and how things will change if people realize that this is just a circus.

discord.gg/ctagmQE

guys join this and send woke memes to these cucks

bum

Actually since all socialist nations have a central bank, they aren't actually socialists. They are communists. The government then allows private vendors in the system to control production of goods, but since the central bank controls the cash flow and inflation. It really controls the production with border restrictions.

YFW when no one alive hasn't been a communist.