4 ms·

| In my ideal world, it wouldn't matter what ideas companies have. All that matters is the "needs" of customers your "ideal world" is actually (surprisingly) t

| In my ideal world, it wouldn't matter what ideas companies have. All that matters is the "needs" of customers your "ideal world" is actually (surprisingly) the world of free market capitalism. You see, most "free market" "private sector" types base their views on microeconomics, "let the market decide" what "the market clearing price" is, there will be no shortages, price gouging is a signal to competitors and new market entrants... But they forget that microeconomic theory is entirely based on some assumptions and axioms, one of which is "perfect (symmetric) information", buyers, sellers, competitors, and investors are assumed to all share the same information, no secrets, and without that openness, the market will never find the market clearing price. creating wealth is not the raison d'etre of free market capitalism; cheap and abundant goods and services for consumers is

amelius 10y ago
> your "ideal world" is actually (surprisingly) the world of free market capitalism I don't think this is true. In this world, companies keep business ideas for themselves, so they can try to be first to market, which is more important than almost anything else (even to a large extent product quality). On the other hand, potential customers don't ever publish their needs, they just don't seem to know what they want until somebody tells it to them.
- EveSmith 10y ago
  1. I completely understand what you mean. You missed a "higher level" point I was making. 2. in this world, companies keep business ideas for themselves and customers don't publish their needs 3. in this world (where companies keep ideas for themselves and customers don't publish needs) we also have websites like HN where libertarians tell us about the glories of free-market capitalism because it creates both wealth and cool new innovations if only the govt would get out of the way 4. they justify their beliefs on the bedrock foundation of microeconomic ideals and point to Silicon Valley unicorns as the apotheosis of free market capitalism 5. I'm simply pointing out that the assumptions of microeconomic theory entail a good bit of-what-I-will-call "informational socialist ideal assumptions" that are incompatible with disruptive unicorn wealth creation, and where you point to unicorns I see "market failures" (that's microeconomics for the failure of a market, not the failure of companies within the market) 6. The ideal you talked about is compatible with the idealized assumptions of microeconomics, and if free market champions were championing actual free market microeconomics, we would have something closer to your ideal. 7. To put it a different way: Nobody talks about the dry cleaner/auto repair shop etc. "being first to market" or keeping their product mix a secret, and life is good the way most people earn their livings. We don't need to rig our economic system to be friendly to Bill Gates getting rich, he never did anything innovative except monopolize a microcomputer revolution that was already happening. 8. Innovation would still take place (more!) as Zuck, Gates, Jobs, Brin... they'd have been perfectly happy walking away with $50 million. The billions represent damage to our economy. 9. This is not my opinion or personal ethics. This a bedrock of microeconomics, dead weight loss.

amelius 10y ago

> your "ideal world" is actually (surprisingly) the world of free market capitalism I don't think this is true. In this world, companies keep business ideas for themselves, so they can try to be first to market, which is more important than almost anything else (even to a large extent product quality). On the other hand, potential customers don't ever publish their needs, they just don't seem to know what they want until somebody tells it to them.

EveSmith 10y ago
1. I completely understand what you mean. You missed a "higher level" point I was making. 2. in this world, companies keep business ideas for themselves and customers don't publish their needs 3. in this world (where companies keep ideas for themselves and customers don't publish needs) we also have websites like HN where libertarians tell us about the glories of free-market capitalism because it creates both wealth and cool new innovations if only the govt would get out of the way 4. they justify their beliefs on the bedrock foundation of microeconomic ideals and point to Silicon Valley unicorns as the apotheosis of free market capitalism 5. I'm simply pointing out that the assumptions of microeconomic theory entail a good bit of-what-I-will-call "informational socialist ideal assumptions" that are incompatible with disruptive unicorn wealth creation, and where you point to unicorns I see "market failures" (that's microeconomics for the failure of a market, not the failure of companies within the market) 6. The ideal you talked about is compatible with the idealized assumptions of microeconomics, and if free market champions were championing actual free market microeconomics, we would have something closer to your ideal. 7. To put it a different way: Nobody talks about the dry cleaner/auto repair shop etc. "being first to market" or keeping their product mix a secret, and life is good the way most people earn their livings. We don't need to rig our economic system to be friendly to Bill Gates getting rich, he never did anything innovative except monopolize a microcomputer revolution that was already happening. 8. Innovation would still take place (more!) as Zuck, Gates, Jobs, Brin... they'd have been perfectly happy walking away with $50 million. The billions represent damage to our economy. 9. This is not my opinion or personal ethics. This a bedrock of microeconomics, dead weight loss.