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

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#151

Post by WalterBright »

lovich wrote: post #142
WalterBright wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you cannot show a single successful enterprise that does not require land You're engaging in reductio ad absurdum, because the space every person occupies is required for them to exist. Your argument is simply silly. A land-based business would be one that farms or mines or puts a racetrack on the land. Two businesses can be contained in offices right next to each other, and one goes bust and the other gets rich. T…

You declared that land wasn’t a part of wealth creation, and then pointed toward Japan as an example of wealth creation with a low amount of land and a lot of wealth and South America as an example of a lot of land and no wealth creation. All of this to support your claim that land != wealth creation It is not a reductio ab absurdum argument to ask you to give proof to a statement that you declared. I have already be…

> I have already been warned about engaging in flame war arguments

Instead, posted insults. But it's fine if you want to start taking the high road. I'll forgive you :-)

> your very incendiary claims that the land taken from other peoples was not in involved in wealth creation.

First off, if you read the known history of the indigenous peoples of America, they were constantly engaged in taking land from each other. (For example, read "The Commanche Empire" by Pekka Hamalainen.) Secondly, they lived at a subsistence level. This is not much in the way of wealth creation.

The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas did go much further, and did create wealth from the land, but far less effectively than the Europeans did. They were also in Central and South America, not North America.

> also don’t think plundered land had anything to do with wealth creation

This is not what I wrote. I wrote that land is not required for wealth creation. It is not the common factor among wealthy economies. And whether it was plundered or not is irrelevant. (All land has been taken at some point in time.)

> It is not a reductio ab absurdum argument to ask you to give proof to a statement that you declared.

That's a misrepresentation of what I wrote about an office requiring land. Also, it is impossible to prove anything about economics. But what we can do is examine history. When we do, the common theme for highly wealth creating economies is free markets. Not land.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#152

Post by clairity »

int_19h wrote: post #143
clairity wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he was one of the few because the idea that monopolies were good for consumers is about a 5th grader's level of thinking. in a perfect world where monopolies serve a single, narrow segment, don't overreach into adjacent markets or sociopolitics, and there's no general uncertainty or strife, you might argue they'd be a more efficient than multiple market participants, but we live in a dynamic and ever-changing world w…

I'm not suggesting that he was right; quite the opposite, I blame the man for the sorry state of affairs today. But this idea was not restricted to "a few" - Bork's book was popular in circles around Reagan, and from there it became a part of modern Republican economic orthodoxy. What was unusual was a businessman , and in the industry that had already seen issues with monopolies at that, saying it openly.

i mean, the era of reagan was also the era of trickle down economics. it was all sorts of stupid--full of greedy, motivated reasoning, not reasonable, rational, or coherent thought.

as an independent, party affliation is a sure sign of vacuous thinking to me, where the cost of membership is leaving your brain at the door (and that's what thiel does btw). democrats are currently making this mistake with anti-federalism, trying to push through national laws that are squarely in the province of state control. this is expedient in the short run for their political careers but damaging to the foundations of the nation in the long run, as consolidation of power nationally is the quintessential threat to our democratic republic. it reeks of hypocrisy.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#153

Post by robertlagrant »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #132
robertlagrant wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not all monopolies are natural Did you read my first paragraph?

Yes I did read it. Why do you suspect I had not? To be more explicit, I wouldn't agree it's most often the government making monopolies. There are plenty of cases where government regulators are captured by 'natural' monopolists (or otherwise large players) who then entrench themselves with regulatory moats, serving only their interests. And even government made monopolies aren't _well_ regulated IMO, for example tel…

I thought you didn't read it because you said "Not all monopolies are natural", after I spent my first paragraph talking about non-natural monopolies.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#154

Post by csense »

pessimizer wrote: post #64
sylvain_kerkour wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Nations aren't a real unit to anyone except for rubes

A geographically contiguous group of people who see themselves as having a common culture and values, combining for economic/military coordination and centralized decision-making for certain kinds of decisions certainly seems like a natural unit for humans to organize themselves.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#156

Post by lliamander »

93po wrote: post #75
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?

This is like saying someone choked to death on celery once, therefore celery is just as bad for you as pork fat

Socialist/Communist countries have repeatedly killed off large segments of their own populations either due to mismanagement or straight-up murder. The magnitude of difference on this metric is so vast between capitalist and Communist countries that there really is no comparison.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#157

Post by anamax »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #148
anamax wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT is not subject to said "rules or caps" when it advocates for candidates. Neither is Zuckerberg. Why should people who get together to do political speech be treated any differently?

I think we agree in principle, but are disagreeing in the resultant law. It sounds to me like you're advocating saying NYT, and rich people can give large sums of money, therefore why cant groups of people also do it? I'm advocating for NYT and rich people should not be allowed to give large sums of money, and neither should individuals beyond their individual contribution cap. The principle I am all for is that weal…

Actually, your mention of campaign contributions and "give money" suggests that you don't understand Citizens United. I write that because Citizens United had nothing to do with contributions to a politician's campaign.

The question in Citizens United was whether some folks can get together and make a movie advocating against a political candidate without being subject to campaign finance laws.

There's no question that the NYT (and unions) can advocate for/against a candidate in any way that it sees fit; the question in CU was "are other groups different?"

The CU decision was "there's no difference between the NYT and any other group. If you have a way of speaking, you can politic with that way as you see fit."

Feel free to explain why the NYT (and unions) shouldn't be limited but others should be. (Condo associations often put news in their newsletters, so ....)

Alternatively, explain how you're going to limit the NYT's ability to advocate for political candidates and causes without repealing the 1st amendment.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#158

Post by JonShartwell »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #92
JonShartwell wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only difference between a manufacturer’s online store and a retailer’s from customer point of view is that the retailer sells multiple brands. I guess maybe there’s some value if you want to browse different brands, but if you already know what you want then the middleman is not providing you any benefit at all over the manufacturer’s online store. Brick and mortar is different because they’re actually maintainin…

"Brick and mortar is different" Not in the ways you describe: "because they’re actually maintaining a space to show the items" This is similar to Amazon's site browse/search experience. "and bringing them close to you" This is similar to Amazon's fulfilment network.

It’s a common experience to order something from a website and have its appearance be different from your expectations based on the photos and description. If you can see the appearance of the item you’re buying before buying that problem is impossible

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#159

Post by rahimnathwani »

JonShartwell wrote: post #158
rahimnathwani wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Brick and mortar is different" Not in the ways you describe: "because they’re actually maintaining a space to show the items" This is similar to Amazon's site browse/search experience. "and bringing them close to you" This is similar to Amazon's fulfilment network.

It’s a common experience to order something from a website and have its appearance be different from your expectations based on the photos and description. If you can see the appearance of the item you’re buying before buying that problem is impossible

I'm old enough to remember when most things I bought were bought in a physical store. I'd choose based on price, appearance and (for things like electronics) a textual description.

Today, I'll choose after reading several 2/3/4 star reviews for each of several alternatives.

This has resulted in a far lower rate of surprises and disappointments.

Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen

#160

Post by framperz »

zwieback wrote: post #120
8note wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a sales mechanism for CSA boxes they aren't too bad The efficiency is dependent on what you're measuring - food per land area? Food per energy input? Energy output per energy input?

I was thinking of total energy (and maybe something like CO2) per food on the customer's table, including the waste that's produced.

Great quote on that from Vaclav Smil's new book: " each greenhouse-grown, supermarket-bought tomato has the equivalent of five tablespoons of diesel embedded in production"
Post reply on HN