5 ms·

> Some people worry about monopolies, but I don't - they only have power when I choose to give them my money So if you live in rural Alabama and only Comcast s

by tabeth 9y ago

> Some people worry about monopolies, but I don't - they only have power when I choose to give them my money So if you live in rural Alabama and only Comcast services your area, because they're a monopoly, and your tech job requires internet what are you to do as an individual? 1) Further the monopoly and buy Comcast internet 2) Decide to not have internet and inevitably lose your job 3) Try to compete, but fail to have the start-up costs as you're a small player.

curiousgeorgio 9y ago
Comcast isn't the problem, but the regulations making it more difficult for competitors to operate in many local markets are a problem. The governments are literally creating the anticompetitive problems you describe.
- tabeth 9y ago
  That's irrelevant. You said that you don't worry about monopolies. They're clearly a problem, regardless of why they exist.
  - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
    It sounds like you're only looking at half of what I said. I don't worry about monopolies themselves because if the market were left alone, they wouldn't be a problem. But I do worry about anticompetitive practices enabled by unnecessary regulation. That's exactly what is allowing Comcast to abuse power in certain markets. Hence, the problem lies not in monopolies, but in the government.
    - tabeth 9y ago
      Again, both monopolies and the government can be problematic. It isn't necessarily one or the other.
      - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        If governments didn't create those problems, those problems wouldn't exist, so the blame should be placed at the cause rather than on the consequence. The disagreement stems from a difference in understanding of what companies are and what their responsibilities should be. Some people mistakenly believe companies should serve society out of a sense of moral obligation, regardless of profits. It's a nice idea in theory, but that's not how a free and fair market operates. History has shown that companies serve society best when profit incentives are left to the market. If consumers care about intangible contributions to society (or "goodwill") such as helping local communities, reducing environmental impact, etc., then profits from consumers' buying choices will naturally end up in the hands of companies that perform best in those areas. If other qualities are more desirable to consumers, the companies that deliver those qualities will capture more market share. In other words, companies should be held to the law (which ideally exists to protect individual property rights, not much more). Beyond that, we as consumers have direct influence on which companies survive or fail based on the votes of our dollars. As soon as governments try to intervene and force different social benefits than those demanded by consumers, things get worse. The core profit-seeking incentives for companies remain in effect, but they now have incentives to work around regulation in the most efficient ways possible. As regulation tends to favor some companies more than others (as a result of ever-present loopholes and lobbying - or to put it differently, the government's unavoidable tendency to follow money and choose winners), those legislative efforts usually end up only making the situation worse.
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        So... If there is a problem, its cause is government, no matter what the problem is and no matter what empirical observation says about the cause. And... In a "free" market, it is impossible for a monopoly to develop. And... There is no middle ground between laissez-faire utopia, and North Korea. You certainly seem like a rigorous and intellectually honest interlocutor.
        curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        If we're talking about intellectual honesty, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I didn't say any of those things.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      > ...if the market were left alone, they wouldn't be a problem. That's an interesting claim. What evidence do you have that supports it?
      - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        Historically, if we look at societies with more market freedom vs those with more government control, it's pretty clear which ones do better. If you don't believe that, you may want to try living in Venezuela or North Korea.
        sidlls 9y ago
        It's not at all clear actually.
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        On the other hand you have lack of regulation leading to blood diamonds and The Jungle. Clearly autocracy isn't optimal, but it appears that neither is a totally free market.
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  > Comcast isn't the problem, but the regulations... ... and guess who had a hand in actually crafting those ridiculous regulations? Comcast.
  - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
    Should we blame Comcast for attempting to maximize their own profits in legal ways (the purpose for which their company exists)? Or is it the government's fault for allowing lobbyists to exert that kind of control over legislation? One of the two organizations has the power to create and enforce laws; the other does not.
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      Well, no, as it turns out Comcast is also entirely capable of creating laws, thats the problem.
      - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        Hmmm, I'm not aware of that change to the constitution.
        crispyambulance 9y ago
        No change is necessary. Anybody can "write the law" and have their well-compensated politician do the formalities. More advanced players will simply put their stooge in an office of power (see Ajit Pai).
        curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        If legislators are so easily influenced by those with money, how is that not a failure of government? If a criminal gets caught and blames his peers for being a poor influence, do you suppose he should go free because he can't help being influenced to commit crime? Why then should we act as if the problem lies in the companies and special interest groups attempting to influence government? Do you (as many other do) really think the best course of action involves more legislation from those we know can't be trusted? Or do you expect companies to simply "shape up" because a group of people wag a finger at them? The bigger the government becomes, the easier it is for these kinds of things to fly under the radar. As government grows, so does its power, and as power grows, so do the incentives to infiltrate and control that power. If you'd like it to stop, reduce the size of the organization ultimately responsible rather than add fuel to the fire.

by tabeth 9y ago

curiousgeorgio 9y ago

Comcast isn't the problem, but the regulations making it more difficult for competitors to operate in many local markets are a problem. The governments are literally creating the anticompetitive problems you describe.

tabeth 9y ago
That's irrelevant. You said that you don't worry about monopolies. They're clearly a problem, regardless of why they exist.
- curiousgeorgio 9y ago
  It sounds like you're only looking at half of what I said. I don't worry about monopolies themselves because if the market were left alone, they wouldn't be a problem. But I do worry about anticompetitive practices enabled by unnecessary regulation. That's exactly what is allowing Comcast to abuse power in certain markets. Hence, the problem lies not in monopolies, but in the government.
  - tabeth 9y ago
    Again, both monopolies and the government can be problematic. It isn't necessarily one or the other.
    - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
      If governments didn't create those problems, those problems wouldn't exist, so the blame should be placed at the cause rather than on the consequence. The disagreement stems from a difference in understanding of what companies are and what their responsibilities should be. Some people mistakenly believe companies should serve society out of a sense of moral obligation, regardless of profits. It's a nice idea in theory, but that's not how a free and fair market operates. History has shown that companies serve society best when profit incentives are left to the market. If consumers care about intangible contributions to society (or "goodwill") such as helping local communities, reducing environmental impact, etc., then profits from consumers' buying choices will naturally end up in the hands of companies that perform best in those areas. If other qualities are more desirable to consumers, the companies that deliver those qualities will capture more market share. In other words, companies should be held to the law (which ideally exists to protect individual property rights, not much more). Beyond that, we as consumers have direct influence on which companies survive or fail based on the votes of our dollars. As soon as governments try to intervene and force different social benefits than those demanded by consumers, things get worse. The core profit-seeking incentives for companies remain in effect, but they now have incentives to work around regulation in the most efficient ways possible. As regulation tends to favor some companies more than others (as a result of ever-present loopholes and lobbying - or to put it differently, the government's unavoidable tendency to follow money and choose winners), those legislative efforts usually end up only making the situation worse.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        So... If there is a problem, its cause is government, no matter what the problem is and no matter what empirical observation says about the cause. And... In a "free" market, it is impossible for a monopoly to develop. And... There is no middle ground between laissez-faire utopia, and North Korea. You certainly seem like a rigorous and intellectually honest interlocutor.
        curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        If we're talking about intellectual honesty, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I didn't say any of those things.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    > ...if the market were left alone, they wouldn't be a problem. That's an interesting claim. What evidence do you have that supports it?
    - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
      Historically, if we look at societies with more market freedom vs those with more government control, it's pretty clear which ones do better. If you don't believe that, you may want to try living in Venezuela or North Korea.
      - sidlls 9y ago
        It's not at all clear actually.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        On the other hand you have lack of regulation leading to blood diamonds and The Jungle. Clearly autocracy isn't optimal, but it appears that neither is a totally free market.
crispyambulance 9y ago
> Comcast isn't the problem, but the regulations... ... and guess who had a hand in actually crafting those ridiculous regulations? Comcast.
- curiousgeorgio 9y ago
  Should we blame Comcast for attempting to maximize their own profits in legal ways (the purpose for which their company exists)? Or is it the government's fault for allowing lobbyists to exert that kind of control over legislation? One of the two organizations has the power to create and enforce laws; the other does not.
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    Well, no, as it turns out Comcast is also entirely capable of creating laws, thats the problem.
    - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
      Hmmm, I'm not aware of that change to the constitution.
      - crispyambulance 9y ago
        No change is necessary. Anybody can "write the law" and have their well-compensated politician do the formalities. More advanced players will simply put their stooge in an office of power (see Ajit Pai).
        curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        If legislators are so easily influenced by those with money, how is that not a failure of government? If a criminal gets caught and blames his peers for being a poor influence, do you suppose he should go free because he can't help being influenced to commit crime? Why then should we act as if the problem lies in the companies and special interest groups attempting to influence government? Do you (as many other do) really think the best course of action involves more legislation from those we know can't be trusted? Or do you expect companies to simply "shape up" because a group of people wag a finger at them? The bigger the government becomes, the easier it is for these kinds of things to fly under the radar. As government grows, so does its power, and as power grows, so do the incentives to infiltrate and control that power. If you'd like it to stop, reduce the size of the organization ultimately responsible rather than add fuel to the fire.