71–80 of 160 posts
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
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox
Before then, things were very different. Here's an example of an anti-trust court case against a company selling shoes - read the court's rationale for applicability of regulation, and consider how many of them would apply to any of the large tech companies today:
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.
Scale and logistics are good. I think they should be managed by federation (and through regulation), but I'm sick of having bosses who see my salary (rationally) as something directly coming out of their bank account. I prefer a little indirection and mediation in the relationship.
Efficiency is good for everyone. The more time and effort you save, the more time and effort you have to waste. There are scales that are ideal for particular businesses, and that scale doesn't always coincidentally coincide with the scale a small-business owner can handle. Business should be as big as real (not paper or regulatory) efficiencies can be found at, and against those efficiencies we should maximize the flexibility and ability to innovate of individual businesses and workers.
Instead we just subsidize the biggest businesses most, and through legislation create false efficiencies to subsidize them even more (and guard them from any externalities.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 beyon…
And that is bad. But it is different.
> 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.
That's because capitalists take credit for China. Take China out of it, and capitalism is a no-op.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
It's a good point. My problem with monopolies is that they minimize risk and maximize reward, basically becoming a tax authority. Once you become a monopoly, you should graduate to nationalization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 beyon…
> Chernobyl hid the fact that the reactor was highly unsafe, because it was too expensive to fix it. And that is bad. But it is different. > 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. That's because capitalists take credit for China. Take China out of it, and capitalism is a no-op.
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.
1) having real international influence without resorting to military action
2) being resilient against international influence from others
The trillion dollar question is how to effectively keep private businesses in check without sacrificing on those points.