5 ms·

This is a rare situation / age we're in, because we haven't seen these levels of income inequality in a long time. To the degree to which I would apply labels

This is a rare situation / age we're in, because we haven't seen these levels of income inequality in a long time. To the degree to which I would apply labels to myself, I'm a capitalist, and I'm a libertarian. I don't trust our corrupt political system anymore, and I certainly don't think the government has the ability to help society as much as it hurts it, at least most of the time. Because of this, I think that any extra taxation that the government levies will commensurately damage our society. That said, I can't help but think that our entire economy has been swept out from under our feet by the financial sector. It's not tech companies and supposedly "rich" tech founders that capture our economy. It's VCs. A VC can give a company that would otherwise be insolvent the capital it needs to capture an entire market, and then raise the prices. We see it time and time again. We're trained to believe that, without VC, the tech industry would somehow be stifled. This is simply untrue. Without VC, a lot of our "side" projects that create true innovation would have a chance at success. The reason many of them don't is because they're up against the same thing from a VC-backed competitor. Except, the VC-backed version is cheaper (or free), is backed by an unsustainable, large team of skilled developers, and doesn't care that it's hemorrhaging money, because once it creates a monopoly it will pay dividends for life to the very few who own it.

jondubois 11y ago
What you wrote is exactly what I've been thinking about over the past year. Especially the part about VCs - That's my life's story. I would upvote this with all my karma if I could. Very well said.
badsock 11y ago
I'm very much on the other side of the political spectrum, but I would have a lot more appreciation for libertarianism if someone could come up with a credible, practical solution for making monopolies (or monopolistic behaviour) rare or impossible. With the proviso that it acknowledges the reality that monopolies form even in the absence of government influence.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  With the proviso that it acknowledges the reality that monopolies form even in the absence of government influence. If I remember back to my anarchist philosophy, that is ceding too much ground. Patents, access to cheap capital, "artificial" interest rates etc... are all government influence that large companies can take advantage of to become monopolistic. Without those the argument goes, that firms would never get so big because competition would sprout up immediately to cut into their market dominance. If you look at Standard Oil or Bell System, the case studies for all monopolies, they all hinged on some government grated protection. In Bell's case it was initially a patent and then subsequently "legally sanctioned regulated monopoly." In the case of Standard Oil they utilized Trusts, which were legally recognized forms of distributing ownership to stay within the law. So unfettered capitalism might not lead to long and enduring monopolies, but it would be much nastier and competition much more fierce because the systems on which business is built today would have to go away in total - to include regulated banking, infrastructure standards etc... The question should instead be: Is the world in which there is no regulation one that you would actually want to live in? I would argue no. edit: Note that I don't agree with this view, it is however the argument that is made.
  - marklgr 11y ago
    > Without those the argument goes, that firms would never get so big because competition would sprout up immediately to cut into their market dominance. That's how the argument goes, but this is neither a proof nor an observation--just a piece of economic theory, and there are others going against it.
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      Yes well, I don't think anyone would argue that success breeds competition. Just look at the "hoverboard" market, or any product for that matter, for proof of that.
      - marklgr 11y ago
        This does not mean the competition will always, necessarily be strong enough to prevent the formation of a monopoly.
marklgr 11y ago
It sounds like you're a libertarian somewhat "by default", as you say you don't trust the political system anymore. But, to be fair, shouldn't you compare "mediocre/bad government" vs "mediocre/bad libertarianism"? Both could be as bad, so that would not be a decisive reason to prefer one vs the other. Or the latter might even be worse than the former.
galfarragem 11y ago
Soon or later, with the "appification" of economy, an anti-monopoly law must appear (maybe with the form of basic income?). On the long run, doesn't seem sustainable for society to have "monopoly creators" ruling under some form of oligarchy.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jondubois 11y ago

What you wrote is exactly what I've been thinking about over the past year. Especially the part about VCs - That's my life's story. I would upvote this with all my karma if I could. Very well said.

badsock 11y ago

I'm very much on the other side of the political spectrum, but I would have a lot more appreciation for libertarianism if someone could come up with a credible, practical solution for making monopolies (or monopolistic behaviour) rare or impossible. With the proviso that it acknowledges the reality that monopolies form even in the absence of government influence.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
With the proviso that it acknowledges the reality that monopolies form even in the absence of government influence. If I remember back to my anarchist philosophy, that is ceding too much ground. Patents, access to cheap capital, "artificial" interest rates etc... are all government influence that large companies can take advantage of to become monopolistic. Without those the argument goes, that firms would never get so big because competition would sprout up immediately to cut into their market dominance. If you look at Standard Oil or Bell System, the case studies for all monopolies, they all hinged on some government grated protection. In Bell's case it was initially a patent and then subsequently "legally sanctioned regulated monopoly." In the case of Standard Oil they utilized Trusts, which were legally recognized forms of distributing ownership to stay within the law. So unfettered capitalism might not lead to long and enduring monopolies, but it would be much nastier and competition much more fierce because the systems on which business is built today would have to go away in total - to include regulated banking, infrastructure standards etc... The question should instead be: Is the world in which there is no regulation one that you would actually want to live in? I would argue no. edit: Note that I don't agree with this view, it is however the argument that is made.
- marklgr 11y ago
  > Without those the argument goes, that firms would never get so big because competition would sprout up immediately to cut into their market dominance. That's how the argument goes, but this is neither a proof nor an observation--just a piece of economic theory, and there are others going against it.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    Yes well, I don't think anyone would argue that success breeds competition. Just look at the "hoverboard" market, or any product for that matter, for proof of that.
    - marklgr 11y ago
      This does not mean the competition will always, necessarily be strong enough to prevent the formation of a monopoly.

marklgr 11y ago

It sounds like you're a libertarian somewhat "by default", as you say you don't trust the political system anymore. But, to be fair, shouldn't you compare "mediocre/bad government" vs "mediocre/bad libertarianism"? Both could be as bad, so that would not be a decisive reason to prefer one vs the other. Or the latter might even be worse than the former.

galfarragem 11y ago

Soon or later, with the "appification" of economy, an anti-monopoly law must appear (maybe with the form of basic income?). On the long run, doesn't seem sustainable for society to have "monopoly creators" ruling under some form of oligarchy.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]