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

Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

voxeu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 476 posts

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#421

Post by WalterBright »

Apocryphon wrote: post #334
WalterBright wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Health care is another example. The government empowers the AMA to strictly control the number of seats in medical school, thereby restricting the supply of doctors and competition. Licensing, permits, etc, are all ways to limit and prevent competition.

Again, I do not deny that governments have been used as a tool for monopolies to form, but it is dubious that they are the only tool used by bad actors, nor is regulatory capture the only method for anticompetitive behavior.

I did not say "only".

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#422

Post by Apocryphon »

WalterBright wrote: post #421
Apocryphon wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I do not deny that governments have been used as a tool for monopolies to form, but it is dubious that they are the only tool used by bad actors, nor is regulatory capture the only method for anticompetitive behavior.

I did not say "only".

You didn't, but your phrasing certainly implied it. "The government is the tool used to suppress competition" is a very stark statement. Next time, say "a" or "one of the" tools.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#423

Post by WalterBright »

Frondo wrote: post #387
WalterBright wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Health care is another example. The government empowers the AMA to strictly control the number of seats in medical school, thereby restricting the supply of doctors and competition. Licensing, permits, etc, are all ways to limit and prevent competition.

I could ask any surfer on the beach right now and even they'd be able to identify that you've now entered a kind of argumentation where, if government is at all involved, government is the problem, no matter how it's involved. "The AMA strictly controls the number of seats, and the government has a medical licensing process, therefore the AMA's actions are the government's fault." Nope.

Before dismissing this out of hand, see "Competition and Monopoly in Medical Care" by Frech.

https://www.amazon.com/Competition-Monopoly-Medical-Care-Fre...

Plenty of evidence and cites.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#424

Post by WalterBright »

learc83 wrote: post #360
WalterBright wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No private company would be able to negotiate with that many land owners to build out fiber on a large scale. Before the government stepped in to anoint winners and losers in the phone business, companies sprang up everywhere and strung their own wires.

Telephone lines were almost always built following existing public roads or private railroads (that were built with government assistance and government land grants) even in the early days. There is no history of a successful, large scale infrastructure project built without government assistance. Either directly or due to the fact that much of it was built on government land. (unless maybe you consider some case whe…

An awful lot of railroads were built without government assistance. Of course, it was easier to build them if one got government financing.

Even so, a railroad is private property and they can choose to allow or not someone stringing wires along it.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#425

Post by WalterBright »

jjoonathan wrote: post #343
WalterBright wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only I didn't say "only".

You didn't call the government "a tool" used to suppress competition, you called it "the tool" used to suppress competition.

"the tool" meaning it was the first tool they reached for, not the only tool.

For example, if I said "Star Wars" was "the movie" to see in 1977, I obviously did not mean it was the only movie.

If I meant it was the only tool, I would have written "the only tool".

If you need to insert the words "only", "always", "never", "100%" into my words in order to argue, you should reconsider the strength of your argument.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#426

Post by WalterBright »

Apes wrote: post #382
WalterBright wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is the tool used to suppress competition. This is why the solution of making the government ever more powerful isn't going to work.

The situation is far more nuanced. If you said instead "The government can be a tool used to suppress competition," I think most would agree with you. The distinction is that there are plenty of other tools companies can use to suppress competition, and Government also can be used as a tool to encourage competition. A strict black and white view point that more government = less competition is absurd.

> A strict black and white view point that more government = less competition is absurd.

Yes, and fortunately I didn't say otherwise.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#427

Post by s1artibartfast »

tathougies wrote: post #416
s1artibartfast wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im open to lessinging restrictings on accredited investors to allow more access. That said, it is worth pointing out that public investors do have access to primary market IPOs. That said, I do think this is somewhat beside the point of how capital gains should be taxed. I think that stock appreciation profit should be taxed at least as high as personal income.

> I think that stock appreciation profit should be taxed at least as high as personal income. I don't understand why... if I invest money I worked to earn, the profit from putting that money to use should be taxed three times: once while paying the employee the company hires to carry out business, twice after profit is calculated and corporate income tax taken, and then thrice when they tax me for the dividend. Surel…

>I don't understand why... if I invest money I worked to earn, the profit from putting that money to use should be taxed three times: once while paying the employee the company hires to carry out business, twice after profit is calculated and corporate income tax taken, and then thrice when they tax me for the dividend. Surely twice is enough?

My point is that if you are investing in a secondary market, you are not putting that money to use. It goes into the pocket of whoever sold you the stock and the company doesn't see a dime from the transaction.

If we must have taxes, I would rather have them not come from earned income (like a job), which takes labor and creates value. Income from the secondary market require no labor, and create no value.

If you believe rewarding and incentivizing value creation is more moral and socially desirable. Rewarding individuals for simply possessing assets is at best neutral.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#428

Post by treyfitty »

downerending wrote: post #411
deegles wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should everyone have to work? We are 100% capable of creating a society where everyone's basic needs are met with the automation and technology we have today. The idea that a person is only worth something if they work needs to be deeply reexamined.

I don't know about the should part, but I think everyone needs a reason to get out of bed in the morning, to know that they're contributing to their family and their society as a whole. Imagine how unpleasant it would ultimately be to be told that your needs would be well met, but you would no longer be allowed to carry out productive work.

I’ve been on paternity leave for 4 months out of 6 just playing with my kids. It’s awesome.

I would love to not work and just play with my kids.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#429

Post by thrwaway69 »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #414
thrwaway69 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military outnumber people on tanks/drones/helicopers/missiles/secret weapons by 1:0.

Yeah, and a couple of guys with old russian AK-47s in Afghanistan keep fucking us for years.

Maybe because someone wants them to exist for justification of cough something else.

Re: Declining worker power vs. rising monopoly power: explaining recent macro trends

#430

Post by jtr1 »

andrekandre wrote: post #373
zby wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know - there are cooperatives - it is not like you need to risk your life to work at one. Somehow they are not that popular. There are also partnerships - which are kind of close to cooperatives, when they employ only the partners and for example outsource office cleaning and stuff. In some industries they do pretty well - for example in law. Why cooperatives do poorly? Maybe people usually are not very good…

cooperatives dont necessarily "do worse" but they do face unique challenges compared to non-coops, the biggest being raising capital https://www.co-oplaw.org/finances-tax/financing/

In my limitied view, this seems to be one of the biggest obstacles. I'm heartened to see new cooperative investment funds coming online, like Evergreen Cooperatives (http://www.evgoh.com) and accelerators, like Start.coop (very new)
Post reply on HN