"Just vote with your wallet bro!"

the non payers are more dehumanized than payers

they are represented by a fucking hook

A fool and his money are soon parted

star wars was always shit anyway

EA has always been shit. Star wars wasnt shit until ep 1 circa 2001 ish

Attached: 200.jpg (680x680, 55K)

>company makes games
>people pay developer for things in game
>
>user will not rest until this is stopped

so all our shiptosting was in vain?

>Capitalism and free markets are soooo based!
>Grr I hate microtransactions why do devs keep doing this >:(

This.
Welcome to democracy.

EA was pretty good in the ps1-ps2 era

It's missing the Space whales.

Okay, this is epic

Are there any japanese AAA games with lootboxes/microtransactions? It seems to be contained within phone games but not much outside of it

You ever hear the phrase "people with more money than sense"? Here you go. Retards who have unhealthy spending habits prop up the worst games because they are literally designed to make the game less fun if you don't spend any extra money.

Attached: disgust_bobby.jpg (615x456, 31K)

>2.5 million million
who the FUCK types like that

dumb cunts

whales need to be thrown into woodchippers feet first

This kills the individualists.

Targeting whales is incredibly unsustainable, I'm not surprised so many companies target them, but the best thing to do is edge more and more low-end "minnows" closer to "dolphins." The whole Players-into-players thing is actually the better and healthier thing to do.

>players-into-players
lmao, players-into-payers*

>Players-into-players thing
what

Dolphins where you at my brethren

Capitalism is supposed to serve the people and unrestricted capitalism will inevitably end up taking advantage of the people

it's called a cartel when companies coordinate and mark up their prices so all of them can profit. It's "illegal" in a capitalist environment but happens all the time. IE: airline companies

Its pretty funny how /pol/ supported repealing net neutrality for the sake of the free market (and probably because anything vaguely pro-consumer is communism) even though the only people that will benefit would be a handful of billion dollar companies and end up fucking over everyone else that doesn't live in the coast or in a big city

Attached: 1543462997522.png (500x501, 139K)

Dolphins RISE UP!

Lootbox I don't think so, but tales of games always had some helpful items for casuals, and more recently DMCV

That was a typo kek, see Though yeah, some company that tried to help market and sell in-app purchases that got shit a while back from redditand Jimbo Starling

Okay, this is epic

This and doesn't IAP stand for "In-application purchase"? It doesn't make sense to write "IAP purchase" or "buy IAP".

I guess people who buy the 15 - 20$ starter packs to support games they like then don't spend anything afterwards fall into the minnow category.

strawpoll.me/17755461

Attached: sketch-1554578126829.png (720x729, 42K)

in app purchase, purchase value

it makes sense but looks kinda confusing on first glance

that's because of the method the company used. The technology the company offers collects user data to determine the best times to advertise in-app purchases to users, even going so far as to make the game harder in order to frustrate users and get them to pay to win. Mobile games in particular do this; you'll get stuck on a Candy Crush level for days until you either buy something to help you beat it or play it enough to brute force the RNG in your favor.

M means thousand, so MM means million.

In a way I think the problem is capitalism is still to restrictive. While we have laws to prevent monopolies and overtly predatory practices the bigger companies still use those restrictive laws to game the system and pocket the law makers so they have loopholes.

A good example is while the two big isp companies on my area agreed to not undercut eachother, smaller ones came along with competative pricing. Instead of the bigger companies pricing to match, they sued the shit put of the smaller companies. For what? Doesn't matter. They had the money and the system by the balls all they need to do is bleed the other small companies in court costs until they are essentially bankrupt. Even though we have laws against monopolies, I currently have to deal with one because instead of a healthy competative market I have two large companies that agreed to skull fuck everybodys' wallet together no amount of restriction will improve that because they have the money, resources, and connection to find the loophole. The only way I can see this changing is either we make it the market 100% unrestrictive for shits amd giggles to see where it goes or we take every person in a position of power who so much as shook hands with a CEO, march them into the town square and blow their paid off brains out. I'm open to other suggestions.

M means million. k means thousand. Of course Americans don't learn stuff like that in school.

Pirates win again

How does this thread have almost 50 replies and no one asking for a source?

>people should only be allowed to buy things that i like!

>
Its pretty funny how /pol/ supported repealing net neutrality for the sake of the free market (and probably because anything vaguely pro-consumer is communism) even though the only people that will benefit would be a handful of billion dollar companies and end up fucking over everyone else that doesn't live in the coast or in a big city
t. brainlet
It was those billion dollar companies that were behind the astroturf drive to keep NN in the first place. Protip: they weren't doing it because they actually want more competition.

Attached: 1512019482921.jpg (481x401, 65K)

/pol/ supported repealing net neutrality because this website is populated entirely by contrarian cunts with no actual opinions of their own. Orange man said net neutrality bad and it makes people upset that he said that? Net neutrality bad. They have spent the last several years doing mental gymnastics into knots trying to justify it too, it's hilarious.

If orange man told them to exercise their 2nd amendment to shoot their own brains out to own the libs, a good number of them would. Consider every political post on this website a false flag shitpost, even this one.

can we all agree virgil texas is cutest chapo?

>The only way I can see this changing is either we make it the market 100% unrestrictive for shits amd giggles to see where it goes
>or we take every person in a position of power who so much as shook hands with a CEO, march them into the town square and blow their paid off brains out.
well then you are seeing it wrong

the entire point of a business is to generate as much money as possible, it's not supposed to and shouldn't care about anything else
when looking at it this way you can see that restrictions and regulations are a necessity

yeah and it turns out NN also benefits the people too

BENIS OMEGALUL

>pay 2 win in a pvp game
This is why the backlash was so strong

>The quality of games should be determined by a handful of dudes!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: 1553464265864.webm (718x404, 1.96M)

uh wait

dolphins are clearly the largest aggregate spenders here. if you math it out they spend $116m while whales are $73m and killers $48m.

they make up 16% of users so how are only 2-6% of users driving IAP value when nearly 50% comes from 16% of users. and pretty clearly this indicates that the core audience you want to chase are the people who are going to spend between $5 and $50 on your game - less than half full price on average - rather than the ridiculous addicts who spend more than full price on average.

It should be noted that the items that recently got the microtransaction treatment had always been considered tools for scrubs. You were never meant to actually use them because they drove down your ranking.

Attached: pop.jpg (750x1000, 89K)

I haven't "mathed it out" because I'm a brainlet but I'd assume the killer whale demographic contains some extreme outliers. Mean v. median tbdesu.

also minnows are like $33m so just dolphins + minnows beats whales + killers easily which means that literally like 59% of users are driving IAP value not 2-6%

i literally can't ignore games i don't like

>I'm a brainlet
it's multiplication.

you generally assume the outliers are included in the average that they give. straight multiplication by the average should give you aggregate spending, it doesn't really matter what distribution that takes

Okay, this is epic

>100 bux.
>Whale.

I'm laffin

Attached: Extreme whailing.jpg (960x540, 110K)

I'm sure the guy selling him all this shit was weirded out

Okay, this is epic

Only MMO's really

Okay, this is epic

>ben shapiro will never suck you off with facts and logic epic style

DOA has a shit ton of costume DLCs.

You supported net neutrality because you were propagandised into believing it was good for you via reddit infographics despite having no proof of the sort and merely going off the name of the policy which would obviously have been picked to sound as nice and friendly as possible

>he entire point of a business is to generate as much money as possible, it's not supposed to and shouldn't care about anything else
in theory, businesses make the most money with repeat business. In order to get customers to come back, you need to treat them well or give them a product they want to buy. AAA companies don't need to care about that because the scope of the people who buy their products is so large that repeat business doesn't matter; they can outright scam people and get a new group of suckers in to buy their next batch of garbage through marketing. Defending anti-consumer behavior by saying companies don't need to and shouldn't be trying to please the consumer is fucking dumb. Getting a customer to come back and buy something else will always be a better alternative. Look at EA; Battlefield numbers aren't what they projected because they released an unfinished game and expected early sales to fund the development of the rest of the game, which didn't fucking work. Compare that to something like the Risk of Rain devs; RoR was a good game that the devs put their heart and soul into so when they came out with a sequel people who played the first bought into it; RoR2 wouldn't have become flavor of the month if it didn't have a good predecessor or wasn't in itself a product worth buying.

don't expect Jim Sterling fans to be able to do basic math.

The problem is, there's no way to tell wtf the graph is for. And the two quotes are from different companies.

>chart tops out at $140
>L O L
I've mega whaled a few games.

Attached: bigfish.jpg (3460x1946, 965K)

It's a matter of how the Social Contract applies to the free market, and it'll take some real braining to get around. We understand that the use of physical aggression needs to be mitigated in a free society, because a society that allows murder and theft turns into a tyranny very quickly. The tricky part is figuring out how "soft" aggression can be mitigated without compromising too many liberties in the process. And I'm not sure there IS an answer where someone's toes don't get stepped on. It's pretty easy to tell someone to stop beating people up and taking things from them. It's hard to tell someone to stop being so successful at making money, when that money is being parted with voluntarily.

The question is what those restrictions should be.

>Non-player

Attached: 1540446649715.png (324x246, 35K)

>the entire point of a business is to generate as much money as possible
Sort of. The goal is to provide the most value to shareholders. That doesn't necessarily mean the same thing, especially over the long term.

This is why indie games are so popular lately. They're just games.

>"exponentially more"
EVERY NUMBER IS EXPONENTIALLY MORE THAN EVERY OTHER NUMBER YOU FUCKING RETARDS

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE LOG FUNCTION DOES

>$68.27
I'm a whale?

Attached: 1516248360318.gif (531x354, 3.6M)

I’m 90% sure they don’t expect Blue Whales (0.1% of paying gamers) to exist

Attached: 832FA777-9E96-47C1-80A1-6994F988F14C.jpg (949x475, 47K)

speak for yourself

see that argument doesn't really work anymore when talking about games because releases can be generally regarded as bad and they will still be able to attract repeat business, hearthstone for example

>stop buying what i don't like! I'm SERIOUS THIS TIME!

Okay, this is epic

what the strawman

why do you care if games exist with mtx/iap? just don't buy them. like how i don't like banana peppers so i don't buy them.

The video game industry is unique because their consumer base will eat whatever shit the companies shovel down their throats. Day 1 dlc, early access games, lootboxes, etc. Sometimes you’ll get rare instances of public backlash like Xbox always online thing or EA with the Star Wars lootboxes. But those are small bumps on the road. EA might try to appease the Star Wars crowd, but they’re going to do the exact same thing with the FIFA games and hope that no one notices. The XBox always online debacle was one of the rare instances when the industry was forced to appease the consumers. Compare that instance with every other cancerous shit the industry continues to get away with and they’ve still got a lopsided win loss record against their consumers.

Attached: D47082D0-5B64-45E5-8122-6D90A7EBD949.jpg (800x666, 80K)

>more than $50 a month
>whale

Attached: x9dUvCu.jpg (500x342, 107K)

>STOP. BUYING. WHAT. I. DON'T. LIKE.

My argument falls in line with repeat business looks good to shareholders.
When you're a(n) AAA company like Blizzard, you have the clout and marketing power to push things that would normally fail if a lesser company pushed it, even some other AAA companies don't have that anymore: especially a company like Valve--who openly admit they want their products to speak for themselves--can't compete with the actual psychologists Blizzard hire to make sure their games are as addicting as possible. Hearthstone sells not because it's a good product (in fact I believe it's one of Blizzard's worst games; you can buy card packs and have those cards outright removed from the game later), but because Blizzard is a shady company that designs games like they're drugs rather than games. Artifact doesn't work on multiple levels and Valve isn't going to push a product that users have responded to negatively; Blizzard will push their product no matter what it is or who it's for.

I fucking hate Blizzard. They're not game developers, they're drug dealers and they've perfected exactly how to get you hooked even if you aren't even enjoying the product they have to offer. It happened to me with Overwatch and I've sworn off anything they shit out from now on.

The hook isn't the nonpayers themselves.
It represents how the nonpayers didn't fall for the bait.

Attached: hqdefault (5).jpg (480x360, 18K)

LMFAO. CAPITALIST CONSERVATIVE WHITES BE LIKE "HEH, WE'LL BE FINE, WE CAN JUST VOTE WITH OUR WALLETS AND RELY ON MUH CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT US!"

*GETS RAPED AND DEFILED AND PIMPED AND SLAVED BY THE THIRD WORLD MONGREL HORDES*

B-B-B-B-BUT MY AUTISM SAID THAT THE GOOD GUYS WOULD WIN WITH THEIR BRAIN POWER :((((((((

Because they affect people who don't buy in app purchases by making the game worse and more grindy for them
The lower status and hardship of people who can't or won't pony-up the cash is what gives value to the experience of pay-to-win, so by just trying to enjoy the game you fucking paid for you are really paying to be cannon fodder. you've actually been pressed into service by a corporation to be on the losing side of a virtual war because you were told you might have "fun". fucking lol

see RD2 online for an example

what point are you trying to make? are you sincerely trying to imply that Early Access titles that never get full releases, cut content sold as DLC, in-app purchases for content you NEED, and other anti-consumer practices are subjectively terrible rather than short-term cash grabs? Do you think educated consumers (which albeit are rare nowadays) really buy into these sorts of things because they like these practices and want to see them more?
People don't just think with their wallet; they don't fucking think at all.
Honestly, you're probably fucking baiting, and I'm taking it. I'm HUNGRY to prove you wrong, even if you don't believe what you're saying.

Attached: 1447817248547.png (625x626, 35K)

Sounds more like desu

>Using the same strawman twice in a row in retaliation to someone stating industry trends.
Boy, this pot of water sure is getting hot. It might even be brought to a broil soon.
This.
Also this.

Attached: YouDontSeemToUnderstand.jpg (392x309, 141K)

>Minnows: $33,182,000
>Dolphins: $116,545,000
>Whales: $73,425,000
Yeah no sure, only whales have an impact. The first two groups not spending money on games or subscriptions definitely wouldn't hurt publisher wallets.

To be fair, almost every game with paid power-boosting microtransactions has been a shit flop, cosmetics seem to be the way to go nowadays. The exception being gacha games, because weebs have no self-control or self-awareness.

You guys should really stay on your containment board.

Yeah but that value is represented in dollars most of the time. I've seen businesses that barely kept the lights on, but provided some other benefit to the stakeholders such as access to equipment or contacts that would have been unreasonable to acquire/maintain privately. In the long run though you can't trade time on your industrial grade 3d printer for the bread and eggs you cook for breakfast. You have to turn a buck once in a while.

>Net Neutrality was pro-consumer
God I'm glad fags like you weren't able to bring about Fall of the Railroads 2: Electric Boogaloo

Attached: 1518270875963.jpg (420x415, 27K)

explain how it isn't

Orcas are the BLACKED of the sea.

Okay, this is epic.

>Pay no attention to the overpriced cable fiefdoms being carved out, you still have the free market to thank for the ability to buy actual dialup or unreliable satellite internet.
I'm out of lube, can I rent some from the Crony Capitalist that's paying you while he reams me?

Attached: WeHadThisDiscussion.jpg (848x480, 55K)

Okay, this is epic

Cartels are inherently unstable unless actively managed and protected by the government. Once a cartel is formed and agrees to restrict output/raise prices and split the pie, each member of the cartel can benefit over the others by disobeying the agreement and raising production/lowering prices to grab more marketshare. Railroads, banks, lightbulb manufacturers and so on all failed to establish stable price-fixing via private agreements.

don't buy bad games then, dumbass.

I'm saying don't buy things you don't like. it won't affect you in any way.

t. brainlet with no understanding of business

Just cuck my shit up.
Open the boarders and lets have a horrendous late capital corporate slave states where we all live in swedish designed cuckboxes and the only think we will be able to afford with the average middle class salary will be electronics and digital software.

Fucking based. Let's have an omega high violence dog eat dog world where you literally have to have gunned security forces to walk around cities and the onces who can't afford that become prayer to the meanest marauder.

Attached: 1542739910612.png (640x795, 157K)

ISPs seem to have managed pretty well.

all because someone played a video game you didn't like... who could have predicted this?

>I voted with my wallet!
So did the minnows and the dolphins and together with the whales they outnumber the nonpayers.

Attached: 1553827638325.jpg (2048x1906, 618K)

they have government supported limited monopoly power in exchange for them building infrastructure. similar to utility companies.

Are you okay, ESL-kun? I agree with your general ironic point but come on.

They typically have exclusive franchise agreements with state or local governments. For instance in my state of North Carolina, Time Warner was the only broadband game in town until AT&T and Google started rolling out fiber, because Time Warner had an exclusive franchise with the state on cable service.

This actually makes me sad. The dude has a legitimate mental illness

Ah yes, nothing says anti-Crony Capitalism like exorbitantly huge corporations like Google demanding that appointed officials enact heavily-restricting regulations that would kill smaller ISPs, even though at the same time, the majority of its fees are being waived by local governments when laying down Google Fiber. God forbid that companies like them and Netflix actually pay more for the traffic they use, which is of course how utilities in real life work, but let's not talk about that. Instead, let's push the government more into handling the internet. I mean sure, they've fucked up every single deal they've had with ISPs, and a mix of servicing agreements and shitty regulations are what facilitated these pseudo-oligarchies to begin with, but I know for sure they've got it right this time!

Attached: 1553736718286.png (376x740, 387K)

i know i hate when someone buys a thing that i wouldn't buy i cry every tiem

Where the Blue whales at?

let it die

$70 per month is killer whale tier?
really?
I spend atleast $200 in Maplestory per month and im sure that isn't killer whale tier.

Forget the content, this is the ugliest graph I've ever seen made by "professionals". Holy shit, how do you fuck this up as a designer?

Attached: 1554231647054.jpg (3024x4032, 858K)

Jesus christ man. Even if that is pocket change to you, its still way too much.

After the military-industrial complex, public utilities are the most lucrative crony-corporatist propaganda scam of all time.

From my time in retail 6 years ago, anyone who bought a shit ton of giftcards was likely a thief and we were encouraged to talk to them so they could face the camera and had to notify a manager afterward.

how dare you spend money on something that i wouldn't spend money on? i don't care if you earned it you can only buy things i approve of.

sure thing, comrade

Killer whales are just large dolphins, and they're smaller than most whales. It would make more sense to call them blue whales, if they're the "biggest" spenders.

>muh non argument

I'm full ancap tovarisch.

user please. I just joined this thread, didn't even read 90% of the posts, and I could sense your ass hurt immediately. Did someone hurt your feelings that bad?

>Yea Forums is a bunch of non players

Color me a surprised, and a nigger.

Attached: 8RuPPIVgFob0.png (450x505, 272K)

no i just can't stand it when things exist that i wouldn't buy it makes me so mad i whine about it on the internet. the government needs to put a stop to this.

>Using Privatized Railroads as an example of government influence being bad.
Not the best example to use. Also your assumptions of cartels only work when they are operating in the same market, which is fundamentally not true of the cable internet market. Not only do they have an agreement to not operate in counties that another part of the cartel is operating in, they also regularly force the counties to sign exclusivity deals in order to prevent newcomers from rising in market share.
>just move
The only markets with more than one ISP in a neighborhood tend to be city centers. I wonder why that is.

>Letting Google soak up all of the blame for the Cartel's business practices.
I find it interesting how Google has the better service in counties they operate in compared to the Cartel, and they can only enter markets without exclusivity deals in place.
>Netflix and Google need to pay for something already paid for by the ISP's residential customers.
Imagine a water company demanding a spring lake to pay them money to pipe the water to customers that are already paying money.
>Mix of servicing agreements and shitty regulations are what got us here
We agree, but I'd argue this is what happens when individual counties try to broker with national corporations. This is what happens when "States Rights" gets used without coordination against globalist powers, they divide and conquer.

Attached: HaruhiAngrySip.gif (500x625, 1.78M)

>heh it's just weebs bro
>launches candy crush while he waits for (you)'s

>force the counties to sign exclusivity deals in order to prevent newcomers from rising in market share.
What, do they threaten to shoot the legislators' dogs? You recognize that government protection is necessary to keep the cartel agreement from falling apart. It takes two to tango in crony capitalism friendo, the crony capitalist and the corrupt government official. The solution is to kneecap the government's ability to do much of anything other than keep the peace and enforce contracts.

It worked tho. Battlefront 2 sold like shit and EA had to step back their P2W elements due to massive player backlash.

>Netflix and Google need to pay for something already paid for by the ISP's residential customers
So at this point you're just admitting that you don't understand how the Internet as a whole actually works

Excuse me? Did you even watch Jim Sterling's video? We need communism to save gaming.

You think Netflix and Google shouldn't have to pay for internet service? And you think you're an anti-corporatist?

Attached: 1533830193313.jpg (600x450, 24K)

Literally the working class fighting against the proletariat changed the world. Governments started investigating lootboxes as gambling advertised to children, EA suffered heavy losses and almost the entire Star Wars license, and lootbox P2W was scaled back industry wide.

How do we change this?
Even if you deploy a homemade nuclear weapon in Silicon Valley, there's still tons of other companies. And even if you destroyed literally every tech hub on the planet, a new company would be CREATED.
I know voting with your wallet won't change it.
But voting with your bullets won't change it either, because the problem isn't companies, it's people.
You'd have to make it illegal to have shit taste and introduce re-education camps for people who buy low tier products.
Or, you'd have to introduce a long-term transhumanist project to engineer a better human, one who can replace the current populace and who also has good taste.
But there's no way to introduce a system like that without Jews and trannies co-opting it to use the re-education camps on actual gamers, or introduce the next Man as being more of a kalemale than an actual human.

You'd basically need an antisemitic movement to take control of a region and drive them out beforehand, and since you know how that ended the last time it was tried, you'd need the antisemitic movement to conquer the WORLD.
THEN, your movement can enact Bad Taste Re-education camps or engineer an actual Gamer as the new human standard.
THEN, you can be free of AAAshit.
I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's a long road.

>The only way I can see this changing is either we make it the market 100% unrestrictive for shits amd giggles
Veneuzula and Cuba already tried that, they were ultra far right-wing and all that did was piss the poor off so much that they practiced socialism/communism for the next 50+ years, and now it's getting swept under the rug that those places used to be ultra-right-wing so that conservatives can blame everything on liberals. The best government would probably be moderately conservative 2/3 times with the other 1/3rd moderately liberal so that the conservatives don't start getting corrupt, keep them on their toes. If you let your country become ultra-right-wing, it will fail for everyone but the rich and what will follow next is socialism. The only far-right-wing countries that "work" are Switzerland and Singapore because they can live with low taxes because they concentrate so many millionaires/billionaires, their model wouldn't work for every country on earth since then the rich would be spread thin like water and there wouldn't be enough tax revenue.

Finally. A world where people are only allowed to buy games that I like. Thank you based, Karl Marx.

any whale here? how much have you spent?

Right wing and laissez-faire are not nearly the same idiot. Venezuela especially has had retarded economic policies that were only carried by oil reserves. Now Venezuela's economic policy is so retarded that not even the largest oil reserves can hold it together. The freest economies are Switzerland, Singapore, and Hong Kong and they long surpassed the US in mean and median income and have comparatively little in terms of natural resources.

>People actually spend money on non existant virtual shit that they will lose once the game dies

Gachacucks are all mentally ill.

I would not be surprised if the Cartel does threaten to shoot legislator's dogs. They regularly dig up and intentionally damage small competitor's lines while "maintaining" their own lines.
>Google and Netflix aren't already paying for internet at the locations their datacenters are.
It is inexcusable for ISP Alice to demand a company that isn't on it's network to pay it money. ISP Alice can demand ISP Bob to pay more because ISP Bob is hosting those companies. ISP Alice can demand it's residential customers to pay more. But ISP Alice demanding ISP Bob's customers to pay ISP Alice is inexcusable.

Attached: load_your_gun.png (632x1529, 436K)

If you are spenting 68.27 per month on any game? Yes you are.

The market catering to that shit reduces what you buy that you do like

>Whining on Yea Forums about other people whining on Yea Forums

No matter who you support you are a corporatist, user. Both yes and no support some level of big business.

how are they a thief for buying giftcards

>I would not be surprised if the Cartel does threaten to shoot legislator's dogs. They regularly dig up and intentionally damage small competitor's lines while "maintaining" their own lines.

Also most small competitors are actually just using the larger companies lines to begin with. It's an illusion of free choice.

prolly laundering dirty cash

but your money would be stuck in fucking videogames giftcards then

As if the store gives a shit about that.

>because they can live with low taxes because they concentrate so many millionaires/billionaires, their model wouldn't work for every country on earth since then the rich would be spread thin like water and there wouldn't be enough tax revenue
This is pure gibberish. Do you really think Switzerland depends on taxing billionaires' incomes at 11% to maintain a stable tax income? Those countries have higher median incomes than pretty much everyone else, for starters, and thusly have a more stable tax base even if you exclude the ultra-wealthy.

>cartels are "illegal" in a capitalist environment

Actually it wouldn't be. Monopolies and cartels do not conflict with capitalism whatsoever. What does conflict with capitalism is the law.

>Sort of. The goal is to provide the most value to shareholders.
For public companies. There are some giant companies with massive profits that are still privately owned like Mars or Cargill.

Which they sell on the cheap to make clean money.

wow, what a imbecile

>Cartels are inherently unstable unless actively managed and protected by the government.
Or they use violence to maintain their control.