3 ms·

> Here on HN you have neoliberal truisms like this being repeated, at the same time as articles about celebrated icons of American capitalism clearly stating th

> Here on HN you have neoliberal truisms like this being repeated, at the same time as articles about celebrated icons of American capitalism clearly stating that in business they always seek to establish monopolies and that competition is for losers. The fact that you don't understand how those are literally two sides of the same coin shows how limited your understanding of economics is. Competition driving down prices is precisely why as a businessman I want to avoid it and establish a monopoly. Since you lack even the critical thinking skills or economic understanding to see how monopoly benefiting businesses and hurting consumers is entirely self-consistent, it's not really worth arguing with you much more. I'll just point out that we have numerous examples of competition benefiting consumers. For example, airline deregulation has led to a sharp reduction in ticket prices. In the unfortunate cases where supposed "privatization" has had ill effects, if you look below the surface it's usually the case that the underlying market is anything but free. For example, internet service where only incumbent providers are allowed to offer operate and new entrants are barred from entrance while costs are subsidized by taxpayers. I suspect that the Australian telecommunications industry falls into that category.

contingencies 10y ago
two sides of the same coin Actually, I was describing the progression from government run to "competition wins!" to commercial actors to commercial actors barring competition. Net result: effectively replaced something government owned (accountable to people, non-profit motive) with something privately operated (accountable to investors, sole profit motive). But you seem to have missed that, instead spending three paragraphs attacking your perception of my person.
- morgante 10y ago
  Where is this eloquent description of that? All you did was try to imply that monopoly-seeking and competition are incompatible. Incentives are fundamental to human behavior. Corporations will automatically try to seek a monopoly position, but if the government isn't involved they can only maintain it until a superior alternative is created (see: Facebook supplanting MySpace).

contingencies 10y ago

two sides of the same coin Actually, I was describing the progression from government run to "competition wins!" to commercial actors to commercial actors barring competition. Net result: effectively replaced something government owned (accountable to people, non-profit motive) with something privately operated (accountable to investors, sole profit motive). But you seem to have missed that, instead spending three paragraphs attacking your perception of my person.

morgante 10y ago
Where is this eloquent description of that? All you did was try to imply that monopoly-seeking and competition are incompatible. Incentives are fundamental to human behavior. Corporations will automatically try to seek a monopoly position, but if the government isn't involved they can only maintain it until a superior alternative is created (see: Facebook supplanting MySpace).