4 ms·

And then using its monopoly power to demand their suppliers take action against Amazon's monopoly power. We really are slipping into the 1870s.

greggyb 9y ago
I dunno, sounds almost like competition when you put it that way.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Our economy is based on the idea that David can defeat Goliath. Seeing two Goliaths commanding armies of Davids into each other and calling it competition is a pretty strange corruption of that idea.
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    > Seeing two Goliaths commanding armies of Davids into each other and calling it competition is a pretty strange corruption of that idea. But it is a better "military" tactic than an economy based on David defeating Goliath.
  - ajarmst 9y ago
    I don't think that's a very good analogy, but I'll bite. The economy doesn't really need David to have a good shot at defeating Goliath. It does need David and Goliath to compete on the same field, with the same rules, and for Goliath to not do things like corner the market on rocks. Of course, a pure market economy doesn't really have any rules like that, it's just that it can get pretty nasty if we don't have them (not to mention basic rules like 'no using babies as ammunition' and 'you're allowed to have an army, but you have to feed them'). We discovered this during the industrial revolution, and the modern liberal democracy and ideas around fair play, consumer protection, competition as an important mechanism in a market economy, etc. grew out of what we learned. Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason, we seem to be systematically dismantling most of those protections, despite knowing exactly what's going to happen. (Hint: it rhymes with 'huge, uncontrollable corporate behemoths owning all the means of production, channels of communication, and legislative agendas'). Of course, every generation seems to have its insane economic ideas. My great-grandparents had Communism. We have whatever you call the squirming progeny of identity politics brutally inseminated by Reaganomics.
- ue_ 9y ago
  The idea that competition is some kind of holy grail which we must as a society aspire to maintain, I think, is very narrow minded and suffering from tunnel vision.
  - ajarmst 9y ago
    You don't have to see competition as some sort of "holy grail" in order to perceive it as almost invariably better than its absence (from a consumer perspective) in a market economy.
    - tatersolid 9y ago
      And to preempt a rejoinder, a market economy has proven invariably better than the alternative. Remember, the Soviet Union collapsed because nobody wanted to wear Bulgarian shoes.
      - ue_ 9y ago
        There have been advances in economic planning since the time of the USSR, even during the time of the USSR research was being done on technocratic planning systems, however they were never realised, partially due to lack of sufficient hardware and Soviet bureaucracy. For a good read on modern methods, take a look at Paul Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism in which he proposes calculation in kind paired with linear programming methods. It's worth noting that the USSR's model was also ridiculously inflexible, and the whole idea of a "5 year plan" probably sounded silly back then too.

greggyb 9y ago

I dunno, sounds almost like competition when you put it that way.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Our economy is based on the idea that David can defeat Goliath. Seeing two Goliaths commanding armies of Davids into each other and calling it competition is a pretty strange corruption of that idea.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  > Seeing two Goliaths commanding armies of Davids into each other and calling it competition is a pretty strange corruption of that idea. But it is a better "military" tactic than an economy based on David defeating Goliath.
- ajarmst 9y ago
  I don't think that's a very good analogy, but I'll bite. The economy doesn't really need David to have a good shot at defeating Goliath. It does need David and Goliath to compete on the same field, with the same rules, and for Goliath to not do things like corner the market on rocks. Of course, a pure market economy doesn't really have any rules like that, it's just that it can get pretty nasty if we don't have them (not to mention basic rules like 'no using babies as ammunition' and 'you're allowed to have an army, but you have to feed them'). We discovered this during the industrial revolution, and the modern liberal democracy and ideas around fair play, consumer protection, competition as an important mechanism in a market economy, etc. grew out of what we learned. Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason, we seem to be systematically dismantling most of those protections, despite knowing exactly what's going to happen. (Hint: it rhymes with 'huge, uncontrollable corporate behemoths owning all the means of production, channels of communication, and legislative agendas'). Of course, every generation seems to have its insane economic ideas. My great-grandparents had Communism. We have whatever you call the squirming progeny of identity politics brutally inseminated by Reaganomics.
ue_ 9y ago
The idea that competition is some kind of holy grail which we must as a society aspire to maintain, I think, is very narrow minded and suffering from tunnel vision.
- ajarmst 9y ago
  You don't have to see competition as some sort of "holy grail" in order to perceive it as almost invariably better than its absence (from a consumer perspective) in a market economy.
  - tatersolid 9y ago
    And to preempt a rejoinder, a market economy has proven invariably better than the alternative. Remember, the Soviet Union collapsed because nobody wanted to wear Bulgarian shoes.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      There have been advances in economic planning since the time of the USSR, even during the time of the USSR research was being done on technocratic planning systems, however they were never realised, partially due to lack of sufficient hardware and Soviet bureaucracy. For a good read on modern methods, take a look at Paul Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism in which he proposes calculation in kind paired with linear programming methods. It's worth noting that the USSR's model was also ridiculously inflexible, and the whole idea of a "5 year plan" probably sounded silly back then too.