4 ms·
Market Manipulation, the 1780s Way
- dredmorbius 11y agoThis is quite a fascinating historical exploration of market-cornering, with ways and means (and limits) to same. It comes only a decade after Adam Smith's possibly infamous, and much-misrepresented book on the question of Nations and their Wealth, Inqueries therewith as to cause and nature. It's also notable that the single and solitary mention of "free market" in Smith comes as a counterpoint to similar such commercially-initiated market constraints (here: woollens trade in England, with cheap imports of raw wool and prohibitions on finished goods imports) favouring woollens manufacturers.
- wavefunction 11y agoA nice post. I think you will find Adam Smith in the fashion you described because Adam Smith ultimately sympathized with labor rather than capital, from my repeated readings of his works. Perhaps it was his familiarity with the privileged sort combined with his Scottish naissance which rendered him thus, but likely that's only my own wishful thinking.
- x5n1 11y agoWhy would anyone sympathize with capital over labor? At the end of the day why anyone does is efficiency. Other than that capital is simply a means to coerce labor to do work. Why would anyone side with coercion rather than the people? People worship those with capital as if there is something really special about them. At the end of the day I have observed 1/2 and 1/2, some people are really special others just lucked into capital because of the situation. There is no virtue to gaining capital and it does not say all that much about its holder.
- golergka 11y agoCapital is about risk, not coercion.
- x5n1 11y agoI have 1 billion dollars. I spend maybe 20 million in 10 startups, I diversify the risk. How much risk have I taken?
- golergka 11y agoMore risk than any of workers employed in these startups have taken, unless they are compensated with equity.
- confluence 11y agoA worker employed at a startup is entirely dependent upon the startup for the majority of his income. An employee is in general all in with their company in most locations, which is why changing jobs is difficult. An employee takes on more risk, simply because everything matters more to them, than it does to the owner, you can easily drop X amount and not feel a thing.
- golergka 11y agoHow is depending on a company for income a risk? You don't lose anything if company closes, you just find another job. And I don't think that "feeling a thing" is relevant here; regardless of whether your net worth a million or a billion, when a company you invested in closes, you lose the same amount of money — unlike employees who got compensated for their time and work regardless.
- confluence 11y ago> How is depending on a company for income a risk? You don't lose anything if company closes, you just find another job. Of course, you lose absolutely nothing. Well apart from your income. I mean that's about all you are risking. Oh but of course, you will immediately find a job after you are fired, without any kind of lead time. And sure, there is no chance you might ever go unemployed for longer than a week. I mean unless there is some kind of industry wide down turn which dries up all positions you could have taken. But that never happens. > And I don't think that "feeling a thing" is relevant here; regardless of whether your net worth a million or a billion, when a company you invested in closes, you lose the same amount of money — unlike employees who got compensated for their time and work regardless. Ah but of course. The billionaires take on so much risk, what with putting 1% of their assets on each bet. Truly enormous the amount of risk they take. Meanwhile all an employee is risking if a company goes belly up is funding for their entire family. No biggie. You don't understand risk. Period.