13 ms·
Might explain why winners of free market capitalism want to institute measures (laws, regulations) to keep others from achieving the same level of winning.
by danvoell 11y ago
Might explain why winners of free market capitalism want to institute measures (laws, regulations) to keep others from achieving the same level of winning.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoPart of the same psychology. Like Lance Armstrong, they begin by rationalizing "I just want to level the playing field". Then they take acts to elevate themselves well above the field.
- ickwabe 11y agoJoe Rogan interviewed Lance Armstrong in depth and Armstrong talks in detail about how he got to the point of justifying "juicing" to himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEfSdPz1WtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEfSdPz1WtA
- maxxxxx 11y agoRogan was way too nice with Armstrong IMO.
- minikites 11y agoThis is why we need strong labor protections like unions.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tomp 11y ago> Might explain why winners of free market capitalism want to institute measures (laws, regulations) to keep others from achieving the same level of winning. I don't think that's an accurate description of reality. My take is that everybody wants to institute measures that benefit them and hinder others... but the "winners" (i.e. the rich) have comparatively more political power and thus also more success forcing these measures through.
- dec0dedab0de 11y agoMy take is that everybody wants to institute measures that benefit them and hinder others Maybe I'm not living in the real world, but I sincerely doubt that most people would like to hinder others.
- michaelt 11y agoMost people probably don't think of the things they support as "hindering others" - they think of it as "making the market take externalities into account" or "preserving the character of the neighbourhood" or "ensuring safety for customers of our industry" or "bringing our short-term incentives in line with our long-term incentives"
- evanpw 11y ago"protecting American jobs"
- anigbrowl 11y agoTaking externalities into account isn't hindering others, since the externality is by definition an unwanted imposition pf costs on a third party that didn't exist prior to the economic activity that generated it. I fail to see how this is different from an unpaid bill, and Nobel laureate Ronald Coase has rather convincingly argued* that the costs of mitigation in advance or in arrears ends up being the same, but that the transaction costs of enforcing property rights against externalities are a sufficient barrier to many pollutees that polluters are often willing to gamble on others' inability to adequately enforce their rights and pocket the resulting savings. * in The Problem of Social Cost, an unusually readable essay for the field of economics.
- bduerst 11y agoIt's rational when the hindrance means fulfilling self interests. I've been in competitive workplaces where people would try to get your project shot down because it could compete for resources with their own.
- tomp 11y ago
- neonhomer 11y agoMost of the winners have won through illegal actions or government collusion. That's not free market capitalism.