| ▲ | tkel 5 hours ago |
| This isn't really something that could be addressed by regulation. It's a natural consequence of capitalism. It's in every industry. http://concentrationcrisis.openmarketsinstitute.org/ |
|
| ▲ | tt24 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > It's a natural consequence of capitalism. It's in every industry. The link you posted doesn’t support this claim. |
| |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'd put it this way. An economist would say profits go to zero if markets are really free. Like if there were no barriers to entry and consumers chose purely on price firms would keep entering and would always be incentivized to lower prices to get the sale. There are barriers that are natural, like "I already have a relationship with vendor A", or "I really enjoy brand B", "I'll have to invest a lot of money to start this business and I won't do it if it seems unlikely I'll make a profit", etc. Then there are barriers like "we have a patent on this technology", "we own a copyright on this movie", "we control the distribution channels", "we pass laws to get keep out competitors." Business is all about finding ways to beat the economic constraints and ensure you get a profit! The best case you can make for our system, in my mind, is that there is competition so that vendors have an incentive to provide good products and services at fair prices. Sure, there has to be enough profit to attract investment, but our system works better for all of us when regulation encourages competition. | | |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are businesses that are highly profitable even in a commodity market. Profits go to zero on the marginal supplier in a perfect market. Any supplier who has a lower cost base than the marginal supplier is profitable. The canonical example is oil. It costs about $3 to pull a barrel of oil from the ground and pipe it to port in the best oil fields of Saudi Arabia. OTOH, Canadian tar sands cost $50 to pull out of the ground and another $10+ to get to port. During normal times the natural price of oil is ~$60. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | shlant 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It's a natural consequence of capitalism Adam smith was hostile towards monopolies (which your link refers to - nothing to do with price fixing although the conclusion is the same) and his critiques being very apparent throughout Wealth of Nations. This is a common opinion with proponents of free markets. So what specifically about capitalism makes this a "natural consequence"? |
| |
| ▲ | tancop an hour ago | parent [-] | | The main feature of capitalism is not free markets, it's capital. And capital accumulates leading to inequality that only ever gets bigger unless we actively take steps against it as a society. Being against monopolies doesn't help if you're not willing to actually punish them. Free markets are great but to really work they need to come with competition enforcement (including total M&A bans in high risk industries), strong unions, support for worker ownership and a tax structure that rewards productive investment instead of executive payouts. Market socialism instead of capitalism. |
|
|
| ▲ | boxed 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Regulation is literally there to compensate for these types of issues with unregulated capitalism. I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that the thing we've tried many times and that works a lot of the time can't work. |
| |
| ▲ | shlant 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | if it's not perfect, it's useless or destructive is a pretty common perspective in left-wing groupthink. Some examples are how everyone to the right of a left winger is a republican/fascist/etc or that it's Medicare 4 All or nothing. | | |
| ▲ | Zigurd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I get who you're talking about, and I've encountered those tiresome people. The flavor of the week is that No Kings is a Disneyfied faux protest. This of course ignores the fact that large scale protest in the US attracts police beatings and widespread use of pain compliance techniques if it isn't presented as family friendly. Avoiding those outcomes while attracting is steadily growing number of protesters, with the most recent attracting 8 to 9 million is in itself a huge accomplishment. Way too big to ignore and within reach of overwhelming numbers. Which is to say you could've picked a better example than M4A. Holding that up as a minimum expectation is hardly radical. | | |
| ▲ | shlant 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Which is to say you could've picked a better example than M4A. Holding that up as a minimum expectation is hardly radical. I'm not commenting on whether it's radical, just that if they had the choice between something like the ACA and nothing, many in these groups would rather have nothing. In fact, many would argue (as they would against other things they consider "incrementalism") that anything less than their demands would actually be detrimental somehow. Very much in opposition to "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". This is exemplified in the whole M4A "force the vote" nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | pessimizer 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | ACA is garbage. It was created by the Heritage Foundation and started off being called Romneycare. It has worked terribly, and required what is an unconstitutional (in many opinions) fine for people who fail to be able to afford insurance. The only reason anyone has any pleasant feelings about ACA is because a Medicaid expansion was passed at the same time. Of course I would prefer nothing. ACA stopped the momentum for M4A, as it was designed to do. Forcing the vote was a litmus test that Democrats purporting to understand this failed. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Didn't Trump get rid of said fine in his first term? | |
| ▲ | shlant 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I appreciate you stepping in to be the perfect example of the kind of thinking I'm talking about. People like you are the real enemy of progress and we are very thankful that you are so politically irrelevant. | | |
| ▲ | nekusar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And your style of thought processes is why the Overton Window is so extreme to conservative to the point of fascism. I remember WHY the Heritage foundation put together their plan. It was cause Hillary Clinton dared, as first wife, put together a plan for single payer. Republicans howled at it nonstop with complaints of government death panels, and you guessed it, China. That was also back when republican thinktanks actually put together plans. Terrible ones, sure, but actually had plans, rather than "concepts of a plan" (trumps own words). Of course, Romney ran with it. It was, as you guessed it, terrible for Massachusetts. And surprise surprise, when the black guy speaks for it it turns into extreme hyper-communism... but it was really just garden variety racism by republicans. But now, we have for-profit insurance death panels. And no, shlant, when your form of "compromise" entails in a one-way ratchet and your control is whether its slow or fast and not reverse, its not a compromise. Blow this shit up. Plenty of us are done with your idea of compromise oro 'reaching across the aisle' ala obama. It has never worked, since Reconstruction. Just gets worse and worse. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pessimizer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The flavor of the week is that No Kings is a Disneyfied faux protest. It's strange to ignore all of the actual criticisms, such as that they are protests with absolutely no demands, and that they're arranged by Democratic Party insiders using spam farms. The reason they're called "No Kings" is because nobody knows what that's supposed to mean. It was consciously concocted as an alternative to fighting the "oligarchs" as Sanders constantly said, because Democrats support oligarchs. > with the most recent attracting 8 to 9 million is in itself a huge accomplishment. It's not. They're just faithful movement Democrats walking together in the street trying to figure out different ways to yell "fuck Trump." They're a mockery of protests, they're just extremely ineffective marketing. They wouldn't be tiresome if they were easy to answer for you. Accusing people of just complaining about people and things not being "perfect" is a sign of somebody who doesn't even have a dishonest argument to make, so they're resorting to making no argument at all, and instead calling you a snob. | | |
| ▲ | shlant 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | this is not a serious rebuttal. > they're arranged by Democratic Party insiders using spam farms Ah yes, the tried and true "they are paid protestors" shtick. Yawn. > The reason they're called "No Kings" is because nobody knows what that's supposed to mean. It's very simple - Trump acts like a king, wielding his power however he wants while ignoring any checks and balances. People are very much against that for obvious reasons. > because Democrats support oligarchs. curious what your thoughts are on Elon Musk and DOGE > trying to figure out different ways to yell "fuck Trump." Yea there's no reason why anyone would have legitimate issues with Trump as a president.. He certainly doesn't provide new ones on a daily basis |
|
| |
| ▲ | nativeit 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Every socialist I’ve ever met has conceded that capitalism is a great mechanism for wealth generation. Just not for much else humans might value in their societies. | | |
| ▲ | shlant 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | wealth is pretty good at being a vehicle for other things humans value | | |
| ▲ | ryoshoe 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yet despite that many residents in the wealthiest nations report increasing levels of unhappiness with the state of things. While there are other factors that play into this, it doesn't seem that wealth generation itself is a direct vehicle to the things people value / make them happy |
|
|
|
|
