America has a monopoly problem • Hacker News Board

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#121

Post by thecombjelly » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:41 PM UTC

America has a capitalism problem. What the article fails to address is that the root cause is really capitalism. Under capitalism wealth and power always concentrates, which in the case of businesses, that eventually means bad monopolies. Under a representative democracy that also means politics will always be corrupted because those with money and power will always be benefited by controlling politics, and they have the money and power to do so (who owns the news media? who can afford to buy off politicians, whether they start corrupt or not?). While the power of monopolies ebbs and flows as those without capital get angrier, the monopolies will always come back because that's what capitalism does.

Monopolies are not inherently bad. It's entirely possible to have a monopoly and have a great thing that everyone likes and is happy with and which keeps innovating. But under capitalism the primary incentive is the accumulation of capital which rarely lines up with creating something great long term.

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#122

Post by Synaesthesia » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #103

Synaesthesia wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so. Why then the phenomenon which the government has permitted of outsourcing US jobs? Have the tax cuts created more jobs? Was there a condition attached that they need to employ more people? It’s quite simple, with financial power comes political power. Elections cost a lot of money these days and if you look at the donor list of both parties it’s dominated by large corporations. Edit: a more useful m…

> Why then the phenomenon which the government has permitted of outsourcing US jobs? The government doesn't "permit" outsourcing of U.S. jobs. Thanks to the technology created by folks here on HN, there is nothing the government can really do if IBM decides to fire a worker in New York and hire one in Bangalore. The only thing the government can really do is offer concessions and incentives to reduce the bleeding. >…

Well this election was different in two radical ways, two candidates who were not the first choice of corporate donors - Trump and of Bernie Sanders. It must not be forgotten that Trump is a billionaire who largely financed his own election. Bernie Sanders on public contribution. But this has been the exception rather than the rule.

This scholarly study found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.“

Hardly a surprising fact. Polls show most Americans believe the government is dominated by a small group of special interests who are looking out for themselves.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#123

Post by tooltalk » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #64

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it this way: it's not that the larger companies are breaking the laws or simply not paying taxes that they owe - they're just being more innovative in how they approach those things. In a global economy, when there's pressure to pay lower wages by outsourcing labor, pay lower taxes by organizing some or all of the company abroad, or exploit loopholes in domestic laws for greater efficiency, that's just what…

You’re not mentioning the outsize influence that corporations have on government which leads to them permitting these loopholes. It can be fixed by legislation. In 1952 corporate tax in the US was 33% of total revenue. Today it’s less than 9%.

Well, I think it's absurd to compare the post war (or the Korean war) tax rates to that of today. I think the effective corporate tax rates during the Reagan era would be more appropriate -- which then got whittled down again during the Clinton/Bush era.

But I agree with you that you can't ignore corporations' outsized influence on corporate taxes.

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#124

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

thecombjelly wrote: post #121

America has a capitalism problem. What the article fails to address is that the root cause is really capitalism. Under capitalism wealth and power always concentrates, which in the case of businesses, that eventually means bad monopolies. Under a representative democracy that also means politics will always be corrupted because those with money and power will always be benefited by controlling politics, and they have…

[deleted]

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#125

Post by Brakenshire » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:52 PM UTC

privateprofile wrote: post #72

Brakenshire wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU has a set of laws called State Aid, which disallows member states from subsidizing business to the detriment of their competitors (either other businesses or other states). Government can improve infrastructure, but cannot literally hand out cash to build a factory, or anything like that. This exists even though EU nation states have far more individual power than US states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State…

> Government can improve infrastructure, but cannot literally hand out cash to build a factory, or anything like that. Yes, because such "subsidies" would create competition for companies from more developed EU countries, the same countries that drive the acceptance of new EU members. Removing these obstacles crushed local industry, which is why less developed countries ended up with close to zero industrial producti…

> Removing these obstacles crushed local industry, which is why less developed countries ended up with close to zero industrial production after joining the EU (thus starting the social, employment and competitiveness problems most smaller EU nations are facing).

These sorts of talking points exist everywhere, in the West and in the East, state aid is one of the most attacked elements of the EU. Actually the talking point is near identical in the UK, that manufacturing has died because the government hasn't been able to step in (in effect, to prop up uncompetitive industries). Manufacturing has in fact plummeted in most developed countries, and it's easy for governments to pass the blame onto the EU.

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#126

Post by irrational » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:56 PM UTC

whistlerbrk wrote: post #14

America has a corruption problem. The ability for companies to vertically integrate and essentially make smaller businesses non-competitive can only occur when you don't have to pay the taxes your smaller competitors have to pay and don't have to obey the same laws your competitors have to obey. We have a systemic corruption problem (manifested in lobbying) coupled with greed on scales we've never seen before. Everyt…

I agree with what you said, except for the "greed on scales we've never seen before". I think it's pretty clear, if you look back at the last 5,000 years of history that we've clearly seen greed on the same scale (or greater) than what we are seeing right now. It seems to be endemic to the human condition.

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#127

Post by dfee » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:57 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #110

abandonliberty wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you have is natural selection. Systemic corruption is itself a deterministic outcome/symptom when corruption is an adaptive trait. Unfortunately many undesirable behaviors are adaptive: the risk-adjusted rate of return is positive. 'Bad actors' have much more to gain from engaging in them than watchdogs have in stopping it. You will always lose the fight against corruption in the long run because as the war goes…

From the Iron Law of Oligarchy page: "no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy" I'm not sure this is proven yet. Certainly in the past, I'd have agreed, but with communication via the Internet making realtime decision-making between all members of a democracy possible, I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. If not absolutely direct, then at least h…

Essentially for free is not “for free”. For example, the best way many people have to communicate with their peers is Facebook. But A) their peers aren’t the ones seeding the discussions, and B) their communication is filtered for signals like “vitality”. More mundane, but important ideas, are a bit squashed on a platform like that.

Picking on Facebook because they’re the biggest, but Twitter appears to be worse on every axis, as it continues to evolve to favor clout.

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#128

Post by narag » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #110

abandonliberty wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you have is natural selection. Systemic corruption is itself a deterministic outcome/symptom when corruption is an adaptive trait. Unfortunately many undesirable behaviors are adaptive: the risk-adjusted rate of return is positive. 'Bad actors' have much more to gain from engaging in them than watchdogs have in stopping it. You will always lose the fight against corruption in the long run because as the war goes…

From the Iron Law of Oligarchy page: "no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy" I'm not sure this is proven yet. Certainly in the past, I'd have agreed, but with communication via the Internet making realtime decision-making between all members of a democracy possible, I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. If not absolutely direct, then at least h…

I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least.

But would it be desirable? I don't think so.

If not absolutely direct, then at least having the ability to instantly revoke a mandate from someone you have entrusted could go a low way to limiting the power of an oligarchy, as could entrusting different individuals and groups with a single person's vote, depending on the issue.

The later seems like a very good idea. The former not at all. If you trust someone with a mandate, just allow the time needed to develop a consistent plan. Worrying too much about short term is exactly the opposite of good administration.

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#129

Post by irrational » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

wiremine wrote: post #88

American has an optimism problem. Or rather, optimism seems to be unequally distributed. Feels like we need some leadership to raise our eyes to all the opportunities out there, and how we can get to a better spot.

So, we need someone to show us how to make America great again?

Re: America has a monopoly problem

#130

Post by illumin8 » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 4:59 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #103

Synaesthesia wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so. Why then the phenomenon which the government has permitted of outsourcing US jobs? Have the tax cuts created more jobs? Was there a condition attached that they need to employ more people? It’s quite simple, with financial power comes political power. Elections cost a lot of money these days and if you look at the donor list of both parties it’s dominated by large corporations. Edit: a more useful m…

> Why then the phenomenon which the government has permitted of outsourcing US jobs? The government doesn't "permit" outsourcing of U.S. jobs. Thanks to the technology created by folks here on HN, there is nothing the government can really do if IBM decides to fire a worker in New York and hire one in Bangalore. The only thing the government can really do is offer concessions and incentives to reduce the bleeding. >…

> If money really bought elections, companies would spend a lot more of it trying to do so.

Even the threat of money buys politicians. Case in point: the repeal of Obamacare is wildly unpopular with the US public, but the Koch brothers got a majority of the house of representatives to vote for it. How? Simple: they threatened that any GOP representative who voted against it, would face a primary opponent in their district next year with $millions in funding. They don't even have to spend the millions (although they do), because simply the threat of a well funded primary challenger is enough for them to buy votes.

It's a great tragedy that the supreme court has effectively taken our democracy away from us by ruling that money is speech, and protected by the first amendment.