Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy • Hacker News Board

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#31

Post by bluGill » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #3

gumby wrote: post #2

The irony of monopoly is that when broken upmitntypically benefits the former monopoly parts. Rockefeller Made more money after being broken up than he had as a monopolist. AT&T has underperformed since being reassembled from its post-breakup pieces, which had flourished with competition.

Is that's the case then why don't companies voluntarily break up?

Companies break up all the time. Sometimes as a "spin off" where a part is let go on its own. Sometimes a division is sold to someone else who wants it. Companies are in a constant process of changing size based on what they guess is the best place to be next year.

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#32

Post by moate » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #19

sykic wrote: post #12

Making matters worse, America’s low tax-to-GDP ratio – just 27.1% even before the Trump tax cut – means a dearth of money for investment in the infrastructure, education, health care, and basic research needed to ensure future growth. In comparison to our peers the U.S. is under taxed. The OECD average is 34.2%. What makes the average person feel overtaxed is the combination of federal income tax, state income tax (w…

So what do you think a better tax system would look like? Here's what I think: - No corporate taxes - No income tax deductions - No income tax exemptions - Lower income tax rates across the board - Income tax rate is calculated by a continuous function based on your income - Such a function would be based on existing effective tax rates Done correctly, such a reform would be much simpler, easier to deal with, and rev…

>>and revenue neutral.

Why is this a good thing? It seems that most people feel that the problem is twofold. 1- Middle and Lower class families feel like too much of their money is forced to pay for taxes or services that taxes could be used to provide and thus they're not getting a fair shake. 2- Rich people are able to navigate the complex legal codes relating to tax in such a way that they benefit by "not paying their fair share". This seems to be a growing sentiment in both wings (although conservatives tend to believe that everyone is taxed too heavily and have all sorts of varied solutions about how best to deal with wealth inequity)

If you created a revenue neutral system it doesn't seem like it really addresses the issue of wealth inequality. If someone believes the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, it would make sense that in a reformed system that's "better" you would increase revenue because you'd be gaining more from those at the top.

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#33

Post by anoncoward111 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #29

anoncoward111 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why junk yards and small businesses are a true blessing. I can pay someone $500 to put a $1000 engine into my car and get another 100,000 miles out of it, rather than "sorry that's not allowed, please go to the dealership and buy a new car". In some countries, said behavior is literally illegal or impractical. Killing small business would be the death of capitalism and freedom.

Which behavior is illegal? Consumers are choosing to patronize businesses that offer them the benefits of efficiencies of scale.

I am not sure of the current regulations but engine swapping in Sweden and other modifications were completely illegal since the 90s and basically what Americans consider to be normal and acceptable is flat out not allowed on the roads in Sweden by police or inspection authorities.

This means that 100% stock vehicles are in demand, and Volvo and Saab and BMW benefit heavily compared to a modified Jeep, which would make more sense for Sweden's enthusiasts

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#34

Post by anoncoward111 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #28

anoncoward111 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why junk yards and small businesses are a true blessing. I can pay someone $500 to put a $1000 engine into my car and get another 100,000 miles out of it, rather than "sorry that's not allowed, please go to the dealership and buy a new car". In some countries, said behavior is literally illegal or impractical. Killing small business would be the death of capitalism and freedom.

"Killing small business would be the death of capitalism and freedom." Capitalism and capitalists would be fine. They would just operate in a non-competitive market. Which is preferred anyway once you have a dominant market position.

Preferred by the monopoly and nobody else, is what you mean, yes?

Which is to say it is against the will of the people,

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#35

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #31

chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that's the case then why don't companies voluntarily break up?

Companies break up all the time. Sometimes as a "spin off" where a part is let go on its own. Sometimes a division is sold to someone else who wants it. Companies are in a constant process of changing size based on what they guess is the best place to be next year.

[deleted]

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#36

Post by sleepysysadmin » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

bwanab wrote: post #25

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #8

The fundamental title and premise of the article is quite inaccurate. https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/hh.mkt?country=BR... Clearly market concentration has been going DOWN worldwide since 1988. It's important to get your basics correct.

At the risk of "appeal to authority", I'm going submit that Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize winner in economics. My guess is that he's got his bases pretty well covered.

He's the Chief Economist of the World Bank... the source of my link. I completely agree with his new-keynesian economics. What I disagree with is his positions on socialism that might work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Which hey, machine learning might make this work.

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#37

Post by Datenstrom » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

anoncoward111 wrote: post #34

maxxxxx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Killing small business would be the death of capitalism and freedom." Capitalism and capitalists would be fine. They would just operate in a non-competitive market. Which is preferred anyway once you have a dominant market position.

Preferred by the monopoly and nobody else, is what you mean, yes? Which is to say it is against the will of the people,

Are you asserting that capitalists care about freedom and the will of the people?

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#38

Post by fiter » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #30

lotsofpulp wrote: post #9

This is the inevitable result of efficiencies of scale. With computers, databases, instant communications, why would a business be restricted in anyway to expand as far as it can once it has perfected whatever it is selling. In the long run, it would be beneficial for all consumers to be able to select from multiple sellers, but in the short term, it's beneficial for each consumer to purchase from the whomever is giv…

I think what it comes down to is the appropriate amount and type of regulation that suits the market. As market concentration happens, those corporations must necessarily become more regulated to ensure consumer choice and employee rights. The less concentrated the market, the less regulation required because natural market forces will have larger impacts. Once a corporation reaches a significant size, they largely o…

Do you think monopolies like PG&E in California are well-regulated? If not, could you tell me why this isn't due to systemic difficulties in setting up a well-regulated monopoly?

EDIT: I should put my thesis in here: It is easy for regulatory capture to happen in the case of monopoly and regulator. I would also expect the monopoly plus regulator to perform more poorly than either a competitive company or a public entity.

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#39

Post by anoncoward111 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

Datenstrom wrote: post #37

anoncoward111 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preferred by the monopoly and nobody else, is what you mean, yes? Which is to say it is against the will of the people,

Are you asserting that capitalists care about freedom and the will of the people?

Crony capitalists (what I would call mercantilists) certainly do not care about the will of the people. They are tyrants who hide behind a word they are corrupting.

However I will defend to the death my right to exchange goods with you. I'm assuming you and I are just normal citizens who don't control multi-billion dollar businesses?

Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy

#40

Post by clairity » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #9

This is the inevitable result of efficiencies of scale. With computers, databases, instant communications, why would a business be restricted in anyway to expand as far as it can once it has perfected whatever it is selling. In the long run, it would be beneficial for all consumers to be able to select from multiple sellers, but in the short term, it's beneficial for each consumer to purchase from the whomever is giv…

you're suggesting we optimize along a single axis of a (probably infinite) multidimensional system.

the simplistic retort would be that "value" condenses all that complexity down into a single metric, but we know how well optimizing for one metric works out. we get all kinds of distortions and mis-aligned incentives. we might even name that class of problems "externalities".

the corporate free lunch ain't free. bigness gets paid for by us little people being subjected to thousands of small cuts (decision short-circuiting caused by information assymetries, paying usurious fees on loans, etc.). don't fall for that duplicitous platitude.