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

Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 353 posts

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#341

Post by kesselvon »

bko wrote: post #67
cs702 wrote: post #4

"I started a manufacturing company in Little Elm, about 35 miles north of Dallas, to produce the first-ever automatically retracting syringe to eliminate the risk of nurses contracting HIV through accidental needle sticks. The syringe received rave reviews from nurses, hospital executives and public health officials, a major grant from the National Institutes of Health and robust private investment. But when my partn…

> A market in which buyers are not free to choose better products is not a free market. Most businesses can choose better products (not sure about hospital industry). They can also choose to sign an agreement that makes a supplier relationship exclusive. For instance, a restaurant can sign an agreement to accept only Mastercard. Is this not a free market?

Things that benefit a consumer on price (Walmart), don't necessarily benefit the economy as a whole (destruction of the smaller retailers that worked in this market). While consumers save money, the money is leaving the local economy and going to Walmart HQ, while money spent at a local retailer will continue to circulate within the area

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#342

Post by s73ver »

kamaal wrote: post #308
conanbatt wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what is fair?

Merit. If you have a better product. A bigger corporate shouldn't be allowed to use its war chest to swing things in favor through buying out politicians, law or other such stuff.

While I agree with the second part, "Merit" isn't an unbiased descriptor. At the end of the day, deciding what criteria constitutes "Merit" and who has earned it is up to people. People with their own biases.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#343

Post by tanderson92 »

mozumder wrote: post #291
jessaustin wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm such a racist conservative that I voted in the primary for Bernie, and certainly would have voted for him again in the general if DNC hadn't been in the tank for Mrs. Superpredator, because he had the most credible argument for something, anything different . Congratulations on electing Trump instead! Congratulations, too, on hypnotizing yourself into really believing that there's no one to your own left. Pe…

I don't understand.. are you saying you're not interested in the differences between the two parties, or are you saying ther are no differences between the two parties? Because if it's the latter, do you think the 20 million additional people that receive health-care under Obamacare isn't a difference? Because, like Joe Biden said, it's a "big fucking deal". Also, you're not helping your cause by saying you're a Bern…

> Also, you're not helping your cause by saying you're a Bernie-bro. Bernie-bros are generally racist, as he supports a largely xenophobic nativist trade policy. There's a reason Bernie's base is largely white. Bernie and Trump supporters are the same.

That game (one's ideas are better because one is a woman/PoC) can be played both ways:

"Women and people of color make up the majority of the Trump coalition"

https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/women-and-people-of-color-ma...

These kinds of identity attacks are lame as hell. And to your point about Bernie's base being largely white, let's look at his recent (national) approval numbers, from the Harvard-Harris poll, which found him to be the most popular active politician in the country:

http://walter.thehill.com/sites/default/files/berniepoll_0.j...

Highest support from Democrats (80%) closely followed by African Americans (73%). What a xenophobic nativist!!!

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#344

Post by enraged_camel »

flyingfences wrote: post #324
enraged_camel wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>No system of regulations you build won't eventually be corrupted because (exactly as he says) there exists no neutral desireless arbiters in our world to enforce them. I don't believe that. Al Capone was notorious for bribing the police and the judges, or intimidating them and their families if bribery failed, to the point where many people thought he was invincible. That turned out to be incorrect: https://en.wiki…

> We just need to identify them and put them in the right positions. Such an approach hinges on the presumption that the people doing the identifying and appointing are also virtuous and non-corruptible. Any attempt at a guarantee of the neutrality of the arbiters and enforcers will quickly descend into a Seussian "who's watching the watch watchers?" scenario.

I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm just saying Eliot Ness's example proved that it's possible, even in an environment rife with corruption (Prohibition-era Chicago).

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#345

Post by maxxxxx »

Network2020 wrote: post #317
maxxxxx wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure how to pull this off in practice but I think it would be healthy for an economy if companies couldn't grow beyond a certain size. Once companies get too big they pretty much kill new and innovative companies. Just look at how quickly small companies in the 70s and early 80s innovated around personal computing and how little innovation is happening in the smart phone or search engine area now because Goo…

Hmmm I believe that the Google/Apple smartphone issue is squarely the result of developers (the same ones who complain about Android and IOS). Manufacturers could create smartphone after smartphone, but if developers don't build apps to make the phones attractive, consumers aren't interested in purchasing. Developers, unfortunately, are the ones blocking out other smartphone makers.

It's a feedback loop. Without developers a platform can't thrive but without users of the platform the developers can't afford to write apps for the platform.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#346

Post by kesselvon »

metaphorm wrote: post #334
costcopizza wrote: post #80

Drive through many American small towns and it looks the exact same. A strip mall with a Subway, a couple national fast food joints, and if you're big enough, Wal-Mart. There are literally 1000s of towns with this copy and paste setup-- how could this not be detrimental when money is going to a huge corporation every time?

you're describing the American cultural wasteland that is the suburbs and exurbs. These communities are drowning because their local vitality has been subsumed by giant national corporations that clone themselves over and over again into every community they operate in. The result is a national monoculture where everyone is worse off. On the plus side, though, your toilet paper costs about 15% less than it used to.

On the downside, incomes have stagnated since ~1970s. Before Reagan, company mergers had to consider monopoly power in regions and economic distribution; after reagan, it became mostly about consumer price

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#347

Post by flyingfences »

enraged_camel wrote: post #344
flyingfences wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We just need to identify them and put them in the right positions. Such an approach hinges on the presumption that the people doing the identifying and appointing are also virtuous and non-corruptible. Any attempt at a guarantee of the neutrality of the arbiters and enforcers will quickly descend into a Seussian "who's watching the watch watchers?" scenario.

I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm just saying Eliot Ness's example proved that it's possible, even in an environment rife with corruption (Prohibition-era Chicago).

Frankly, I don't see Ness & Friends as paragons of virtue. Sure, they were effective at upholding the law, but I don't see the law as at all just. I just can't look at people who relentlessly upheld prohibition and say "I want more of those in my government". Sure, Capone was a crooked crook, but the government was not any better in that case.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#348

Post by burfog »

stinkytaco wrote: post #340
burfog wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real insurance involves a gamble. You pay a small amount to get what is essentially a lottery ticket. You win if disaster happens, giving you money to deal with the disaster. Would you buy a lottery ticket if it was known to be a winner? Sure! Would anybody want to sell it? No! That isn't a viable business model. What you are looking for is more like welfare. You have a problem, there is no gamble, you don't have the…

Considering the US is one of the only developed countries not to have some sort of socialized health care, I don't believe it's not doable. The US lags behind on critical metrics like life expectancy and infant mortality. Waiting lists are only getting longer with the consolidation of healthcare into large systems. And that consolidation is driven by doctors leaving private practice because the margins are so thin th…

Healthcare isn't really working anywhere in the world. All systems deny healthcare to people who need it; the alternative is not possible for any economy.

I think it was just a few months ago that some girl in the UK headed to the USA for surgery, mortgaging a house to get it. The UK had decided that the surgery might not be the cheapest option that would meet a low-end standard of care, so they said no. That was it: leave the country, get an inferior surgery, or be permanently deformed.

That is typical. Also typical is "yes, of course, but the waiting list is 2 years". Also typical is "denied for people over age 60". For example, a hospital in the USA gave my 80-year-old grandmother hepatitis. Being the USA, she got a treatment that costs about $100,000. At her age, that would have been denied under the typical government healthcare system. It wouldn't be cost-effective you see, so she would just die.

So the fantasy of everybody getting the very best is out. It won't happen. It can't happen. How would you like to deny healthcare to people?

In the USA, we are really touchy about having the government say "no". We are also really touchy about paying for other people, especially people who don't seem to contribute much to society. That is just how Americans feel, on average. Life expectancy and infant mortality metrics are just fine in the USA if you ignore the poor, as typical Americans do. When you say that socialized health care helps, and you point to averages, you aren't selling Americans on the idea. The better-off Americans want care that is better and cheaper, not available to more people.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#349

Post by CuriouslyC »

nebabyte wrote: post #279
enraged_camel wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, regulations aren't perfect. Yes, regulatory capture is a problem. Neither of those things is a reason to not have regulations. >>that corrupting it with noise will have negligable effect on efficiency and technological development What really hurts efficiency and technological development is monopolies. A company that is a monopoly has very little reason to innovate. We se…

He's not arguing for perfect, he's arguing for sustainable. No system of regulations you build won't eventually be corrupted because (exactly as he says) there exists no neutral desireless arbiters in our world to enforce them. No system of regulations you build WON'T get you back here eventually. [0] [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=2It2HRGGtCk

This isn't true, if you make regulation a democratic process then the only way to influence the arbiter (assuming laws against propaganda) is via the public good, which was the whole point all along.

Re: Want to rescue rural America? Bust monopolies

#350

Post by CuriouslyC »

valuearb wrote: post #136
enraged_camel wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, regulations aren't perfect. Yes, regulatory capture is a problem. Neither of those things is a reason to not have regulations. >>that corrupting it with noise will have negligable effect on efficiency and technological development What really hurts efficiency and technological development is monopolies. A company that is a monopoly has very little reason to innovate. We se…

ISPs is an anecdote, economies of scale in most business means products are much cheaper if provided by large companies, so where is the cutoff between "monopolies" and simple economies of scale? The author claims 6 seed companies are worse than hundreds of seed companies, but doesn't give a single fact to support that claim.

Extremely strong economies of scale are probably the single biggest argument for government monopolies in my opinion. That being said, governments are horrible at providing end-user level service, so it would make sense for them to lease out capacity to private firms who service end users.
Post reply on HN