Live data from Hacker News

An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

mattstoller.substack.com

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#51
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Farmers' markets are great. Fyi if you didn't already know... the farmers' markets are themselves a type of middlemen. (At least every one I've shopped at in the USA.) The farmers' market rents out the booth spaces to vendors (farmers). It's a real-world "platform" to bring together buyers and sellers. The farmers' cost to rent the space is embedded into the prices the consumers pay. A true individual relationship w…

We get about 2/3rds of our produce from a CSA (community-supported agriculture) share each week. The farmer drops off a load of whatever's ready to eat that week, and the members show up and take home their portion of what's there.

From a "commercial marketplace" POV, it's basically a farce. There's no security -- it's literally just a folding table full of food on someone's porch with a clipboard to mark that you've taken your share for the week -- and the supply varies with the weather, crop conditions, and even mundane things like "the delivery truck broke down this week; shares will be small and/or late."

And yet: everyone gets fed, the farmer gets paid, and it all ends up being price-competitive with a grocery store (much less a farmer's market).

We also patronize a farmer's market for the "showcase" products that succeed there: big pretty loaves of bread, flats of fruit, etc. It's still cheaper than any high-end grocery store, the shelf life is amazing b/c it hasn't traveled 1000 miles on a truck, and we get to interact directly with the folks who make the food.

The catch -- and it's a big one, in terms of classic microeconomic indicators -- is that we can't get an arbitrary amount of any chosen good at a competitive price right on the spot. Want peaches, but the stall sold out or bugs got this week's share? Sorry; hope cherries are okay this week. Don't like turnips or beets? Well, you might need to trade with someone who does, or find a new way to prepare 'em.

There's also no "economy of scale" to speak of; the largest vendors are probably a couple of bakers who make O(thousands) of loaves per day, or the ranchers and fishermen who show up with coolers full of frozen steaks and fillets (b/c one cow or fishing boat load actually feeds a lot of people).

Oh, and basically every farmer's market is also a localized barter economy. If you watch you can see the vendors roaming between stalls, offering trades and samples with other purveyors. After-hours, there are a _lot_ of boxes of food moving from one stall to another just before the left-overs get loaded back into the truck.

So yes, strictly speaking these are all "marketplaces". It's a far cry though from Amazon swooping in to undercut the successful products on their own platform, or any major store chain selling shelf space to the highest bidder to create -- rather than respond to -- consumer demand.

Obviously it doesn't work for every product or service, but there's definitely a space to accept a little less efficiency in favor of community-level resilience.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#52
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many progressives who've come around to favouring mega businesses over "mom-and-pop" for: higher wages, stabler jobs, easier enforcement of regulations.. For example: Matt Yglesias

Then it becomes unclear where the state begins and the (mega) corporation(s) begins.

I'm neither for or against this strategy. I only wish, quixotically, the misc belligerents in policy debates would be intellectually honest.

It's ridiculous to use liberation theology terms, eg "freedom markets", when referring to Fortune 500 corporations.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Everyone...Peter Thiel..." no, not this fake thought leader. business school literally teaches cornering markets (in strategy, but also marketing), and has for decades before those guys were even born. they literally recycled this information and presented it as if they were geniuses who came up with this miraculous approach all by themselves.

He's just the guy I heard say it. Unfortunately, John Rockefeller's estate and HBS don't put as much effort into marketing to startuppy-minded millenials in software like myself. Not trying to endorse Peter Thiel's opinions or those of or anyone else in that mileau. I'm saying the folks funding all the tech companies have been using this playbook for decades.

and that's why i commented. thiel is an idle opportunist, not an innovator or thought leader, and should be disregarded in such confines.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Note: I think you've also been confusing government and state, but I assume that was not intentionally. Not intentionally, no. Given that the context was nationalization, what in your view is the difference between government and state?

Ideally, a government (temporally) "steers" a state, which, again ideally, would be the property of its inhabitants.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#55

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.

Are most monopolies not of government creation? Anything that has increasingly onerous regulations or other government requirements are the sorts of monopolies that need breaking.

Any natural monopolies formed by just being really good at something and offering it at a low price are a waste of taxpayer money to try and disrupt.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#56
post #3

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.

I think that's why it's good that antitrust is more than just monopoly but also and other anticompetitive practices. I would like to see law begin to start with an implicit bias for the underdog, but unfortunately Citizens united and the general principle of money in politics means that larger entities will have disproportionate sway (due to Pareto principle of accrual).

Citizens United said that you and I have the same right to band together to engage in political speech as the New York Times.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#57
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many progressives who've come around to favouring mega businesses over "mom-and-pop" for: higher wages, stabler jobs, easier enforcement of regulations.. For example: Matt Yglesias

There are many people who have been steeped in our hypercapitalist society for decades and have simply accepted its premises as valid, regardless of their stated politics as a whole. It doesn't mean that the source of this ultimately deeply destructive ideology isn't the political right.

> our hypercapitalist society for decades

The US has been turning away from free markets for at least a century now.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#58

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.

Are most monopolies not of government creation? Anything that has increasingly onerous regulations or other government requirements are the sorts of monopolies that need breaking. Any natural monopolies formed by just being really good at something and offering it at a low price are a waste of taxpayer money to try and disrupt.

Precisely. The regulatory environment in the US is astounding.

People yell at Apple for being a monopoly but android exists and the consumers just don’t care.

Amazon tried to launch a line of phones and no one cared.

If things were really so oppressive the consumers would demand something else but they just don’t care.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#59
post #56
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's why it's good that antitrust is more than just monopoly but also and other anticompetitive practices. I would like to see law begin to start with an implicit bias for the underdog, but unfortunately Citizens united and the general principle of money in politics means that larger entities will have disproportionate sway (due to Pareto principle of accrual).

Citizens United said that you and I have the same right to band together to engage in political speech as the New York Times.

Sure, and it should have said New York Times is not a person and therefore gets no say in any matter. The Pareto bit I mentioned means even if we band together they ultimately have disproportionate resources.

It's employees / shareholders et al can vote how they like, but that's different than the New York Times (or Russia for that matter), swaying an election.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#60
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> and hide the negative effects from the public at least a little, you're a Real American Hero.

Has there ever been a socialist operation (or any other operation) that didn't also do this?

Like, say, Chernobyl?

Post reply on HN