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

The worst possible antitrust outcome

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 219 posts

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#151

Post by account42 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #24
saulpw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's rich, and then there's 10x rich, and 100x rich, and 1000x rich, and 10000x rich, and now even 100000x rich. Millionaires are fine, billionaires are bad, and hectobillionaires are supremely terrible. I think once someone gets to a billion dollars net worth, they should get an AmEx black card, and 99% of their assets moved into a sovereign public wealth fund. They can have anything they want, they lose the powe…

So if your business is extremely successful, your reward is losing control if it? To who, politicians? Leaving the large business intact and just changing the leader doesn’t seem like it changes anything.

Yes, if your business gets to societal scale then the rest of society gets to have a say.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#152

Post by bpt3 »

Supermancho wrote: post #107
nielsbot wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like to talk about politically tyranny, but forgot about the tyranny of capitalism. We've financialized servitude is all.

Many people decry the tyranny of capitalism, but this site tends to lean into it and defend it at every turn because capitalism is painted as the tide that lifts all boats, despite the bodies on the ocean floor. Some believe, wholeheartedly that a few regulations is all that is needed to establish a fair free market, despite evidence to the contrary. ANY niche market where a world-spanning monopoly can be established…

What is the alternative to capitalism you propose? Every alternative has resulted in many more "bodies on the ocean floor".

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#153

Post by bpt3 »

idopmstuff wrote: post #53
nielsbot wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First off, my money doesn't grant me power over anybody and it's still money That's not true. Depends on your wealth bracket of course, but money certainly is the power to compel. Let's say you have a neighbor whose dog is a nuisance barker. With money you can hire an attorney to go after them. If you don't have money, you have to suffer. There are millions of examples... this is just one not-particularly-good one.

I don't think you even have to go to the extreme of compelling someone to do something through the legal system. I can use money to get someone to clean my house or walk my dog - they don't have to do it, but the fact that I have money does give me the power to get them to do what I want.

Can you compel someone to walk your dog because you have enough money to pay someone to do it, or are they choosing to do it to earn some money?

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#154

Post by ratherbefuddled »

davmre wrote: post #81
NotPractical wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the extrajudicial punishment he's advocating for is the wrath of the court of public opinion though? Unless I'm misreading.

The public interest is in judging the trial process , not in judging the defendant. Suppose the government charges you with murder, searches your house, and finds your sex toy collection. At trial they present some elaborate thesis about how you used a sex toy to kill someone, but do not convince the jury, so you're found not guilty. The public has a legitimate interest in judging that the trial was handled with inte…

We are talking about an extremely powerful corporation in an antitrust case not a person. It does not need to be defended in this way, which is a level of protection rarely afforded to individuals.

There is a definite public interest in understanding how Google conducts itself given the reach and impact it has.

There is no way for the public to have confidence in the trial process if it is conducted in secret, and given the outcome every reason to question the process.

I'm surprised anybody objective would defend this.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#155

Post by account42 »

actionfromafar wrote: post #63
nielsbot wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well as tax like we used to in the 50s. (Ok, we can argue about the specifics, but you get the idea)

Yeah, the regressives (can't call them conservatives anymore with a straight face) never want to go back to that part of the 50s, for some odd reason.

This othersideism helps no one. Your beloved democrats haven't squat to reign in big tech either.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#156

Post by actionfromafar »

account42 wrote: post #155
actionfromafar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the regressives (can't call them conservatives anymore with a straight face) never want to go back to that part of the 50s, for some odd reason.

This othersideism helps no one. Your beloved democrats haven't squat to reign in big tech either.

What should we do? Where do we go from here?

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#157

Post by bpt3 »

fireflash38 wrote: post #146
bpt3 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they've been moving to Florida in droves for the last decade plus. Eventually you'll run out of other people's money to spend, and will be forced to face the reality of your own self-sufficiency.

Ah yes we're held hostage by the rich. Do what we say, or we take our ball and go home.

If you're going to balance your budget on their backs, yes: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/one-rich-guy-moves-new-jersey...

Europe figured this out long ago and has a very broad tax base (aka higher taxes on the middle class) to fund their social welfare programs but somehow you never see that proposed as a solution by the middle class in the US...

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#158

Post by [deleted] »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #30
idle_zealot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing between ideological opposition to rich people existing and opposition to disproportionately powerful people existing. In what hypothetical world are these not the exact same thing? Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action. That's the point of it, and is just another way of saying "power over others". A world where being rich doesn't grant power…

> A world where being rich doesn't grant power over others is one where money isn't money. First off, my money doesn't grant me power over anybody and it's still money. That leaves only one logically possible version of your statement and the correction looks like this: "A world where being rich doesn't grant power over others is one where big money isn't big money" In that form, your statement is perfectly logical,…

[deleted]

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#159

Post by mxkopy »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #72
mxkopy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be forced to invest into all aspects of the social fabric that makes your success possible. Your reward is being able to be a successful philanthropist

Your 401k is their social fabric contribution.

You misunderstand. From a billionaire’s POV a real contribution looks like taking some responsibility for the average person’s wellbeing even if it has nothing to do with their business interests, simply because they have the power to do this. The 401k is us benefitting from their selfishness, I ask that they stop being selfish

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#160

Post by 1718627440 »

hollerith wrote: post #108
TimorousBestie wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effective income tax rate was still on the whole higher for the wealthy in the 20th century. Depending on where you put the percentile cutoff, I’m seeing peak-to-troughs between 5-20%.

And the reason most governments reduced the rate was because economists argued that the higher rate reduces economic activity so much that total tax revenue (collected by the government) is actually higher at the reduced rate. Look up the "Laffer curve".

But taxes don't exist as an income flow, but to give incentives. Taxes exist to reduce economic activity for goods where you want that.
Post reply on HN