5 ms·

> What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. That seems like the opposite of a solution. For such a system to work one

by JackFr 10y ago

> What you need is a heavily regulated market that prevents exactly this behaviour. That seems like the opposite of a solution. For such a system to work one has to believe that that the regulatory apparatus is staffed with monks who are unaffected by the temptations of wealth, power and vanity that other humans are subject to and that 'regulatory capture' isn't a real thing. Further that the price mechanism as an information channel is worthless, and that corrupting it with noise will have negligable effect on efficiency and technological development will remain at at least the same levels we enjoy now.

acdha 10y ago
You're acting like rules and oversight don't exist. Regulatory capture is a real problem but that means you need to take measures to prevent it, not give up on the concept — just as the threat of embezzlement doesn't mean we gave up on banking.
enraged_camel 10y ago
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, regulations aren't perfect. Yes, regulatory capture is a problem. Neither of those things is a reason to not have regulations. >>that corrupting it with noise will have negligable effect on efficiency and technological development What really hurts efficiency and technological development is monopolies. A company that is a monopoly has very little reason to innovate. We see this all over America with Internet Service Providers. They only improve their service levels if they fear competition (like what happened with Google Fiber).
- valuearb 10y ago
  ISPs is an anecdote, economies of scale in most business means products are much cheaper if provided by large companies, so where is the cutoff between "monopolies" and simple economies of scale? The author claims 6 seed companies are worse than hundreds of seed companies, but doesn't give a single fact to support that claim.
  - eberkund 10y ago
    You bring up an important point. I have thought about this issue a lot. For ISPs the problem is that companies tend to expand. So where 20 years ago an ISP might have been a small regional provider. Things have consolidated and expanded so now that same company owns almost the entire infrastructure and many other services that depend on it. They can also bundle services together to make it harder for a new competitor to enter.
    - nebabyte 10y ago
      > For ISPs the problem is that companies tend to expand. Not cooperatives. Co-ops tend to focus on their region, and have neither a reason to push into other territories, nor usually the foothold to do so as easily as in their own region. "Farming out" your lines to outsiders then deciding that you don't want further construction efforts because 'the cables are already there' - effectively giving them a monopoly over your region - is what got us into this mess in the first place.
  - shkkmo 10y ago
    > so where is the cutoff between "monopolies" and simple economies of scale? If a market is closed to new entrants purely because the economies of scale make the established players products cheaper, then that is one thing. That is rarely the case. Usually, as described here, there are also deliberate attempts by the established players to exclude new entrants via other means. "The primary supplier of syringes, which controlled 80 percent of the market, structured an arrangement with a vast network of hospitals that essentially closed our industry to new firms for good." > The author claims 6 seed companies are worse than hundreds of seed companies, but doesn't give a single fact to support that claim. Yes, he does: "The result is that the farmer’s share of each retail dollar of food has been collapsing, while consumers pay either the same or higher prices. Mega-corporations in the middle exploit their dominant market positions to reap all the profits."
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    Extremely strong economies of scale are probably the single biggest argument for government monopolies in my opinion. That being said, governments are horrible at providing end-user level service, so it would make sense for them to lease out capacity to private firms who service end users.
- nebabyte 10y ago
  He's not arguing for perfect, he's arguing for sustainable. No system of regulations you build won't eventually be corrupted because (exactly as he says) there exists no neutral desireless arbiters in our world to enforce them. No system of regulations you build WON'T get you back here eventually. [0] [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=2It2HRGGtCk https://youtube.com/watch?v=2It2HRGGtCk
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>No system of regulations you build won't eventually be corrupted because (exactly as he says) there exists no neutral desireless arbiters in our world to enforce them. I don't believe that. Al Capone was notorious for bribing the police and the judges, or intimidating them and their families if bribery failed, to the point where many people thought he was invincible. That turned out to be incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement) There exist people in the world with strong moral standards and fearless attitudes. We just need to identify them and put them in the right positions.
    - flyingfences 10y ago
      > We just need to identify them and put them in the right positions. Such an approach hinges on the presumption that the people doing the identifying and appointing are also virtuous and non-corruptible. Any attempt at a guarantee of the neutrality of the arbiters and enforcers will quickly descend into a Seussian "who's watching the watch watchers?" scenario.
      - enraged_camel 10y ago
        I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm just saying Eliot Ness's example proved that it's possible, even in an environment rife with corruption (Prohibition-era Chicago).
        flyingfences 10y ago
didibus 10y ago
The same people you trust with regulating, you trust are going to regulate against regulations. There's going to be an arbiter no matter what. The way we make sure he's not corrupt is through democracy. By limiting his time in power, and having the people choose his replacement. The problem with monopolies is that they begin to approach government like control over one or more dimensions of society, but we have no corruption control on them.
coldtea 10y ago
>For such a system to work one has to believe that that the regulatory apparatus is staffed with monks who are unaffected by the temptations of wealth, power and vanity that other humans are subject to and that 'regulatory capture' isn't a real thing. That's only if we demand unreasonable effectiveness of such a system. In practice, it only requires that the people (consumers etc) can influence government and policy more than conglomerates and big private interests can.
virmundi 10y ago
This is why I'm pro lynch mob. Allow a free market with few if any regulations. Also allow for common violence if a company strays too far from customs. If a CEO is shown to pollute the water ways there is always an AR15 out there. Few people fear violence since they know the law is weak.
- adwn 10y ago
  > Also allow for common violence if a company strays too far from customs. If a CEO is shown to pollute the water ways there is always an AR15 out there. I come to HN so that I don't have to read such stupid, knee-jerk, badly thought through opinions. If you have to, post this in a Facebook comment thread, but not here. What do you think would be the consequences of legally allowing lynching? And I mean all consequences, not just the ones you intend?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by JackFr 10y ago

acdha 10y ago

You're acting like rules and oversight don't exist. Regulatory capture is a real problem but that means you need to take measures to prevent it, not give up on the concept — just as the threat of embezzlement doesn't mean we gave up on banking.

enraged_camel 10y ago

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, regulations aren't perfect. Yes, regulatory capture is a problem. Neither of those things is a reason to not have regulations. >>that corrupting it with noise will have negligable effect on efficiency and technological development What really hurts efficiency and technological development is monopolies. A company that is a monopoly has very little reason to innovate. We see this all over America with Internet Service Providers. They only improve their service levels if they fear competition (like what happened with Google Fiber).

valuearb 10y ago
ISPs is an anecdote, economies of scale in most business means products are much cheaper if provided by large companies, so where is the cutoff between "monopolies" and simple economies of scale? The author claims 6 seed companies are worse than hundreds of seed companies, but doesn't give a single fact to support that claim.
- eberkund 10y ago
  You bring up an important point. I have thought about this issue a lot. For ISPs the problem is that companies tend to expand. So where 20 years ago an ISP might have been a small regional provider. Things have consolidated and expanded so now that same company owns almost the entire infrastructure and many other services that depend on it. They can also bundle services together to make it harder for a new competitor to enter.
  - nebabyte 10y ago
    > For ISPs the problem is that companies tend to expand. Not cooperatives. Co-ops tend to focus on their region, and have neither a reason to push into other territories, nor usually the foothold to do so as easily as in their own region. "Farming out" your lines to outsiders then deciding that you don't want further construction efforts because 'the cables are already there' - effectively giving them a monopoly over your region - is what got us into this mess in the first place.
- shkkmo 10y ago
  > so where is the cutoff between "monopolies" and simple economies of scale? If a market is closed to new entrants purely because the economies of scale make the established players products cheaper, then that is one thing. That is rarely the case. Usually, as described here, there are also deliberate attempts by the established players to exclude new entrants via other means. "The primary supplier of syringes, which controlled 80 percent of the market, structured an arrangement with a vast network of hospitals that essentially closed our industry to new firms for good." > The author claims 6 seed companies are worse than hundreds of seed companies, but doesn't give a single fact to support that claim. Yes, he does: "The result is that the farmer’s share of each retail dollar of food has been collapsing, while consumers pay either the same or higher prices. Mega-corporations in the middle exploit their dominant market positions to reap all the profits."
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  Extremely strong economies of scale are probably the single biggest argument for government monopolies in my opinion. That being said, governments are horrible at providing end-user level service, so it would make sense for them to lease out capacity to private firms who service end users.
nebabyte 10y ago
He's not arguing for perfect, he's arguing for sustainable. No system of regulations you build won't eventually be corrupted because (exactly as he says) there exists no neutral desireless arbiters in our world to enforce them. No system of regulations you build WON'T get you back here eventually. [0] [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=2It2HRGGtCk https://youtube.com/watch?v=2It2HRGGtCk
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>No system of regulations you build won't eventually be corrupted because (exactly as he says) there exists no neutral desireless arbiters in our world to enforce them. I don't believe that. Al Capone was notorious for bribing the police and the judges, or intimidating them and their families if bribery failed, to the point where many people thought he was invincible. That turned out to be incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement) There exist people in the world with strong moral standards and fearless attitudes. We just need to identify them and put them in the right positions.
  - flyingfences 10y ago
    > We just need to identify them and put them in the right positions. Such an approach hinges on the presumption that the people doing the identifying and appointing are also virtuous and non-corruptible. Any attempt at a guarantee of the neutrality of the arbiters and enforcers will quickly descend into a Seussian "who's watching the watch watchers?" scenario.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm just saying Eliot Ness's example proved that it's possible, even in an environment rife with corruption (Prohibition-era Chicago).
      - flyingfences 10y ago

didibus 10y ago

The same people you trust with regulating, you trust are going to regulate against regulations. There's going to be an arbiter no matter what. The way we make sure he's not corrupt is through democracy. By limiting his time in power, and having the people choose his replacement. The problem with monopolies is that they begin to approach government like control over one or more dimensions of society, but we have no corruption control on them.

coldtea 10y ago

>For such a system to work one has to believe that that the regulatory apparatus is staffed with monks who are unaffected by the temptations of wealth, power and vanity that other humans are subject to and that 'regulatory capture' isn't a real thing. That's only if we demand unreasonable effectiveness of such a system. In practice, it only requires that the people (consumers etc) can influence government and policy more than conglomerates and big private interests can.

virmundi 10y ago

This is why I'm pro lynch mob. Allow a free market with few if any regulations. Also allow for common violence if a company strays too far from customs. If a CEO is shown to pollute the water ways there is always an AR15 out there. Few people fear violence since they know the law is weak.

adwn 10y ago
> Also allow for common violence if a company strays too far from customs. If a CEO is shown to pollute the water ways there is always an AR15 out there. I come to HN so that I don't have to read such stupid, knee-jerk, badly thought through opinions. If you have to, post this in a Facebook comment thread, but not here. What do you think would be the consequences of legally allowing lynching? And I mean all consequences, not just the ones you intend?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]