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

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#61

Post by akira2501 »

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.

What this viewpoint always misses is the labor market. That's a real market with real consequences, and when monopolies roll up entire industries, that's market power that gets used _against_ workers and their wages.

I don't think it's worth ignoring that or the loss in real innovations in the name of being deferential to established business and the imagined value of the quality products they create.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#62

Post by corrral »

WalterBright wrote: post #57
danaris wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is perhaps a relevant observation that "free market" and "capitalism" don't share a Wikipedia page.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#64

Post by pessimizer »

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.

Nations aren't a real unit to anyone except for rubes. The reasons interests and nations roughly correlate is because the individuals who make a nation's laws and direct its spending are more likely to be financially entangled with the people who those laws affect and the people to which that spending is directed.

They will also be financially entangled with elites in former colonies, and the operators of extractive industries in weak countries that depend on outside investments, and with everyone in the financial industry globally. They're also financially entangled with family members and friends.

The only people anti-monopoly legislation helps are people who are less connected and less influential. The only place it will be supported (by the well-connected and influential) is in countries who are trying to protect domestic industries. Once the protectionism (or the nationalized industries) are destroyed, then monopoly becomes ok in time to get control over entire sectors of the economy and raise prices to maximize profit extraction.

Any concern about whether the US is dominating the world or not is only practical. It's useless to sic the US against a country that is being protectionist or refuses to denationalize if the US doesn't have the strength to properly make the people who reside in those countries miserable enough to support the opposition.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#65

Post by pessimizer »

WalterBright wrote: post #60
danaris wrote: 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.

> 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?

Chernobyl wasn't hiding the negative effects of making money.

edit: I think Communism, or at least Soviet communism, is as bad or worse for the environment as capitalism. The difference is that the benefits of Soviet environmental disasters flowed to the nation in general. The benefits under capitalism generally go to fewer people than I could fit in my bathroom.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#66

Post by dominotw »

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.

here in chicago most of them aren't even farmers. They are just middlemen.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#67

Post by bediger4000 »

clairity wrote: post #48
softwaredoug wrote: post #8

The problem is users don’t necessarily want a fractured market. It’s convenient to have one vendor. In the short term, customers value the simplicity of having just one search engine or e-commerce experience. They don’t think about the long term harms to them / the economy.

customers don't all want the same single vendor though, as we have varying needs (outside of true commodities).

Yeah. Tell that to Microsoft

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#68

Post by turns0ut »

jmeister wrote: post #40
danaris wrote: 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

Especially in the NFT era of rug pulls. Globalization cannot run on fly by night grifters.

Anarcho-syndicalists that argue for workers councils run by experts basically got that but it comes coupled to outdated story of ownership.

In real terms the logistics and infrastructure are determined by experts but with the extra steps of getting validation from financiers who have no experience with the engineering methods, but their name is on some paperwork somewhere saying “they own that”.

I am cool with centralization effort to minimize duplication of effort. Not the kowtowing to some financier who lucked into money in the past in unrelated business, picking and choosing what I work on today as an engineer with nearly 30 years experience ranging from hardware design to kernel hacking, onto web app stacks with everyone else.

The ownership story is political double speak and corrupt expropriation of agency; replacing pols has improved economic gains for public and flushed corruption: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29766

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#69

Post by WalterBright »

pessimizer wrote: post #65
WalterBright wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Chernobyl wasn't hiding the negative effects of making money. edit: I think Communism, or at least Soviet communism, is as bad or worse for the environment as capitalism. The difference is that the benefits of Soviet environmental disasters flowed to the nation in general. The benefits under capitalism generally go to fewer people than I could fit in my bathroom.

Chernobyl hid the fact that the reactor was highly unsafe, because it was too expensive to fix it. So yeah, it was about money. Socialism is not immune to having things require a positive return on investment, and is hardly immune from forces that cause them to hide costs and risks.

As for the benefits of capitalism, it's the only system that has managed to lift millions of poor people into the middle class and beyond.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#70

Post by bediger4000 »

If we didn't da anything about Microsoft ca 2000, we absolutely can't do anything about what Stoller writes about.

Do we even know what Stoller's funding is? Propa... Material like this appeared around 1996 and continued to surface all through the Microsoft trial

Post reply on HN