Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 353 posts

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#301

Post by Qwertious »

bko wrote: post #144
maxerickson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the argument being made. The buyer is better off staying with the single supplier. The argument is that this is a breakdown in markets and should be regulated (for instance by breaking the supplier apart).

If the buyer is better off, and presumably the consumer, who's worse off? The woman who wrote the article that can't compete? She can't force the hospital to go against its interest and purchase her product?

It's local optima - they get the 50% price dip from buying 100% instead of 99%, because it saves the monopoly money by killing competitors before they spring up, but the lack of competition hurts the consumers because the monopoly has no incentive to drop their prices or really innovate until a competitor with the ability to drop consumer's costs by MORE THAN FIFTY PERCENT comes along.

So even if a competitor with 10% cheaper goods comes along, the consumer sticks with the monopoly 100%, for fear of being dicked by the consumer's 99% prices.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#302

Post by burfog »

astrange wrote: post #299
burfog wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If is to be insurance then people with pre-existing conditions should get coverage for everything that isn't related to the condition. Got cancer? Fine, we'll still cover breaking your leg, as long as the break isn't from cancer invading the bone or from cancer drugs weakening your bones. You're on your own for the cancer.

You want a useless product that will guarantee your death because it meets the dictionary definition of insurance? This is why the real policy issue is lack of healthcare, not lack of "health insurance", which is a fake benefit invented to maybe get you healthcare.

Real insurance involves a gamble. You pay a small amount to get what is essentially a lottery ticket. You win if disaster happens, giving you money to deal with the disaster.

Would you buy a lottery ticket if it was known to be a winner? Sure! Would anybody want to sell it? No! That isn't a viable business model.

What you are looking for is more like welfare. You have a problem, there is no gamble, you don't have the money, and you expect "society" to pay. That definitely isn't insurance.

Those are the options: insurance, welfare, self-pay

Imposing a duty to handle pre-existing conditions on "insurance" companies is forcing a business to provide welfare. Obviously, people will switch from the cheap company (or none) to the high-quality company when they get a problem. The tax on people without "insurance" is intended to discourage this, but it is ineffective because "insurance" costs more and because people will still switch from cheap to fancy.

In any case, we've invented some pretty fancy health care. Giving it to everybody would exceed our GDP. This is obviously unworkable. The situation only worsens as we invent more. How do you propose to limit usage, if not by price? Would you just promise everything, but let people die on waiting lists? Would you rate and rank people, perhaps on a point system with extra points for politically-connected people?

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#303

Post by TeMPOraL »

nebabyte wrote: post #279
enraged_camel wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, regulations aren't perfect. Yes, regulatory capture is a problem. Neither of those things is a reason to not have regulations. >>that corrupting it with noise will have negligable effect on efficiency and technological development What really hurts efficiency and technological development is monopolies. A company that is a monopoly has very little reason to innovate. We se…

He's not arguing for perfect, he's arguing for sustainable. No system of regulations you build won't eventually be corrupted because (exactly as he says) there exists no neutral desireless arbiters in our world to enforce them. No system of regulations you build WON'T get you back here eventually. [0] [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=2It2HRGGtCk

The same applies to markets too. In general, no static human-made system won't eventually be corrupted if some humans stand to gain from that corruption. Corruption needs to be fought actively and continuously.

--

On a tangent, I don't believe regulation-free markets are even possible; power and money are inherently connected (money itself being a form of power), so you'll always have "money in politics", and if governments were to suddenly disappear, then private actors with money would start performing their functions.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#304

Post by adwn »

virmundi wrote: post #293
JackFr wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. That seems like the opposite of a solution. For such a system to work one has to believe that that the regulatory apparatus is staffed with monks who are unaffected by the temptations of wealth, power and vanity that other humans are subject to and that 'regulatory capture' isn't a real thing. Further that the price mechanism as an in…

This is why I'm pro lynch mob. Allow a free market with few if any regulations. Also allow for common violence if a company strays too far from customs. If a CEO is shown to pollute the water ways there is always an AR15 out there. Few people fear violence since they know the law is weak.

> Also allow for common violence if a company strays too far from customs. If a CEO is shown to pollute the water ways there is always an AR15 out there.

I come to HN so that I don't have to read such stupid, knee-jerk, badly thought through opinions. If you have to, post this in a Facebook comment thread, but not here.

What do you think would be the consequences of legally allowing lynching? And I mean all consequences, not just the ones you intend?

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#305

Post by TeMPOraL »

ende wrote: post #264
Clubber wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end state of free market (as in free of government regulation, not free to compete) is monopoly. Capitalist societies understand that and regulate to ensure freedom to compete. Europe is much better at this than the US.

Incorrect. Monopolies do not naturally occur in most markets (with a few exceptions). The barriers to entry that create monopolies arise largely from regulatory capture. Some level of regulation is often necessary, but devising regimes that don't favor early entrants is very difficult. Nobody does this well; neither the US nor Europe.

They do if a company is able to do anything but make and sell products. The end goal of any company is to become monopoly.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#307

Post by code_duck »

valuearb wrote: post #183
arrosenberg wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure? Most historians credit the rise of the middle class to the post-war boom in the 50s. Standard Oil and US Steel were broken up during the Roosevelt and Taft administrations in the early 20th century.

When JD Rockefeller was growing up, the average American rode a horse (if lucky), never traveled more than a few miles from home, few had even been on a train. Sailing ships were the main and dangerous form of sea transport. 95% of Americans worked brutal farm labor jobs. Homes were lit by candle and whale oil, and heated with firewood. By the time Standard Oil was broken up, railroads were everywhere, steel ships ru…

That's great, but I don't see why you credit that to those companies being monopolies. There's no reason to think these positive things wouldn't have occurred for consumers just the same if there was more healthy competition in the steel and petroleum market. That just happens to be the technological change that was sweeping the world at the time.

It reminds me of Microsoft receiving credit for computers becoming pervasive and useful in everyday life, as if they deserve special recognition, or thanks, for brutally clawing their way to the top of a very profitable industry and ruthlessly suppressing competition, even when it meant scuttling superior technology. Clearly someone else would have made an OS for home and small business computing if Microsoft didn't.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#308

Post by kamaal »

conanbatt wrote: post #239
s73ver wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares what it's called? Wouldn't we all prefer a fair market, even if it does mean regulation?

Who decides what is fair?

Merit.

If you have a better product. A bigger corporate shouldn't be allowed to use its war chest to swing things in favor through buying out politicians, law or other such stuff.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#309

Post by eecc »

I found this book rather interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_Capital it reflects over essentially the same problem (to make a Marxist critique to capitalist pretenses of freedom, fairness and its claims to optimality.) Among other points, the book spends time arguing how Corporate Capitalism is fundamentally monopolistic.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#310

Post by RangerScience »

Qwertious wrote: post #104
skummetmaelk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing though, that is exactly what a late stage "free market" looks like. What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.

'People need to stop wishing for the "free" market. The term is abused by orators and manipulators who prey on peoples desire for a market which is free in the spirit of the word, and deliver to them a market which is technically "free" and horrible.' Don't call it the free market. Call it what it is: COMPETITION. "Free market" implies "I can do what I want", but frankly we don't WANT people to be free to pull anti-c…

I like this. "Competitive Market" is what you want, "Free Market" has a shitty steady state.
Post reply on HN