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

An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#11

Post by carschno »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #6
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a monopolist is efficient, then nationalization is efficient. Break them up or seize them.

That does not follow. "The monopolist can do this efficiently" != "the government can do this efficiently". In particular, the monopolist has given evidence of knowing how to run that operation well. The government has given no such evidence. I'm not a fan of monopolies, but your position is flawed.

How do you come to conclude that Organisation A (monopolist) will magically be less good than Organisation A (owned by the state)? If the same organisation is profitable while but state-owned, it could also be an indicator that it's just not operating in a legit way.

Note: I think you've also been confusing government and state, but I assume that was not intentionally.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#12

Post by bryanrasmussen »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #6
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a monopolist is efficient, then nationalization is efficient. Break them up or seize them.

That does not follow. "The monopolist can do this efficiently" != "the government can do this efficiently". In particular, the monopolist has given evidence of knowing how to run that operation well. The government has given no such evidence. I'm not a fan of monopolies, but your position is flawed.

If we go from a generic concept of monopoly as consolidation of power instead of a specific instance of monopoly - this company has consolidated power - then it follows that if consolidation of power is more efficient we should just consolidate power.

But sure, if it's specific instances of consolidation that are more efficient then you are correct, the specific company has shown it can do it efficiently and thus it does not follow that consolidation with the government would be efficient.

but if you have a situation that what determines if a monopoly is efficient is that it is a monopoly and controls its industry then it seems we have just in a round about way gotten back to any consolidation of power is efficient and the government should do it. Unless you can show inefficient consolidation of power that is inefficient in some way other than by losing the power then it seems the argument for nationalization is back on.

on edit: on the other hand if you can show an inefficient consolidation of power, like consolidation of majority of shopping through one portal that is yet unable to keep counterfeit products out, then it argues that inefficient consolidation of power should be broken up because it's inefficiencies will not be solved as long as the power is consolidated and competition will hopefully help.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#13

Post by datavirtue »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #6
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a monopolist is efficient, then nationalization is efficient. Break them up or seize them.

That does not follow. "The monopolist can do this efficiently" != "the government can do this efficiently". In particular, the monopolist has given evidence of knowing how to run that operation well. The government has given no such evidence. I'm not a fan of monopolies, but your position is flawed.

Monopolists are non-representative governments.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#14

Post by wrnr »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #2

Sometimes I wonder if 'monopoly' in the US has become a no true Scotsman fallacy. The threshold of direct consumer harm is either so high or evidence requirements so onerous it's as if there is no more Sherman Antitrust Act. The monopolizing doesn't even have to be in a computer or layers of shell companies anymore.

It is the opinion of the EU Comission that monopolies are ok as long as they do not abuse their power and if they do they get slapped with a fine.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#16

Post by biorach »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #4

One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem?? Do we want to break monopoly up in favor of a bunch of possibly shittier products? The real problem It's not the monopoly it's the Monopoly tax.

There's a large body of economic literature arguing that competition breeds efficiency and better service. Granted it's only starting to grapple with the question of how to regulate the new economy - c.f. Lina Khan's paper on Amazon which made quite an impression [1]

So it's not clear that breaking up a digital marketplace monopoly would result in shittier products, tho I agree that the theory is less clear cut than in the case of more traditional businesses.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170405144903/http://www.yalela...

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#17

Post by domador »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #5
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #4

One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem?? Do we want to break monopoly up in favor of a bunch of possibly shittier products? The real problem It's not the monopoly it's the Monopoly tax.

If a monopolist is efficient, then nationalization is efficient. Break them up or seize them.

Not all monopolists are equally efficient at managing their monopolies. Especially monopolies that can bail themselves out by forcing people to subsidize their losses.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#18

Post by jollyllama »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #15

Middlemen (e.g. wholesalers and retailers) serve a valuable function. Imagine each consumer having to maintain relationships with hundreds of factory owners and tens of farmers.

>Imagine each consumer having to maintain relationships with ... tens of farmers

Farmers' markets are great.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#19

Post by danaris »

sylvain_kerkour wrote: post #9
paulryanrogers wrote: post #2

Sometimes I wonder if 'monopoly' in the US has become a no true Scotsman fallacy. The threshold of direct consumer harm is either so high or evidence requirements so onerous it's as if there is no more Sherman Antitrust Act. The monopolizing doesn't even have to be in a computer or layers of shell companies anymore.

The passivity against monopolies has more to do with international competition and the fear of losing world domination.

Does it? Or does it have more to do with the massive industry capture of politics? Not to mention the right-wing ideology of, effectively, if you can make money doing it, and hide the negative effects from the public at least a little, you're a Real American Hero.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#20

Post by [deleted] »

jollyllama wrote: post #18
rahimnathwani wrote: post #15

Middlemen (e.g. wholesalers and retailers) serve a valuable function. Imagine each consumer having to maintain relationships with hundreds of factory owners and tens of farmers.

>Imagine each consumer having to maintain relationships with ... tens of farmers Farmers' markets are great.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN