7 ms·

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate contro

by tdmule 8y ago

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.

psyc 8y ago
I believe we are going to find it increasingly essential to view corporations as a second government that has a particular relationship with the nominal one.
- theseatoms 8y ago
  The key difference is that you can opt out of your relationship with one, but not the other. At least they tend to lock horns. To the extent that the two collaborate, we should be suspicious.
  - pohl 8y ago
    The choice of opting out only exists where competition exists. Without a government to keep corporations in check, your ability to opt out would evaporate.
    - gwright 8y ago
      And yet a powerful government is really good using its power to limit competition, discourage competitors, protect incumbents, and so on.
      - noobermin 8y ago
        A powerful government is also really good at using its power to increase competition, encourage competitors, protect new comers, and so on. And a powerful government in command of its people will do more of that.
        gwright 8y ago
        What government "power" is required to 'encourage competitors'? If there is business opportunity the market will attract participants all by itself without any need for government intervention. In my experience, government incentives are generally misguided and force mis-allocation of resources. That is to say the government is distorting the market to favor activity that wouldn't otherwise be attractive to a business.
        galvin 8y ago
        Net neutrality would be a good example.
        theseatoms 8y ago
        In what sense? ISPs are government-granted monopolies in the first place. More on the issue: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju...
      - adamlett 8y ago
        Yes, imagine how much more competition there would be on the pharmaceutical market, say, if governments didn’t discourage innovation by demanding that products be tested and safe. Think of barriers to entry it creates in the chemical industry that waste must be discarded of in highly regulated (and expensive!) ways. Not to think of air travel, which is so regulated that I doubt we’ll ever see a startup in that market ever again. /s
        gwright 8y ago
        This seems to me to be the trap of a false choice between regulatory power without bounds vs no regulation at all. A much more interesting discussion would be about the proper scope of regulation. To take your example regarding pharmaceuticals, instead of mandating a particular regime of testing and efficacy, why couldn't the government require products that have not passed that particular hurdle be labeled as such?
        joncrocks 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
- therealdrag0 8y ago
  This podcast, about workers rights and how companies are basically private governments, is really interesting: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/02/elizabeth_ander.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/02/elizabeth_ander.htm...
theseatoms 8y ago
What sorts of instances of corporate control are you thinking of here? Most examples that come to my mind involve corporations wielding the power of the state over people.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  Control of mineral resources, for example. Mining and oil/gas companies are already some of the largest corporations in existence. These are capital-intensive businesses where small entities often can't survive market downturns. Small resource owners get acquired by bigger ones during periods of financial distress, or juniors pre-emptively try to join forces with established companies as soon as they have a proven project to develop. The "natural" tendency, in absence of limits imposed by states, would be to reap maximum economies of scale, control over pricing, and resilience to downturn by combining extractive businesses without limit. A handful of giant corporations could acquire a commanding position over every mineral commodity required by industrial civilization. OPEC could be a very effective price-setter indeed were it a transnational corporation with unified ownership. Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members. If you picture eliminating the state altogether, including its enforcement of property rights and contracts, then I concede that the powers attendant to wealth would no longer involve a de jure state. I think that the powers of concentrated wealth would remain nonetheless. Wealth would hire private guards to exclude others from their mines instead of using the law enforcement apparatus of a state, for example.
  - theseatoms 8y ago
    > Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members. So, "competition"? Cartels in general are unstable because of these internal competitive forces. I get that corporations with large market share can set prices in the short term. But every resource has a substitute. Even oil. So even price-setters have to operate within limits or risk their power being marginalized. I am picturing the elimination of the state. And I agree that one can enforce his own property rights.

by tdmule 8y ago

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.

psyc 8y ago

I believe we are going to find it increasingly essential to view corporations as a second government that has a particular relationship with the nominal one.

theseatoms 8y ago
The key difference is that you can opt out of your relationship with one, but not the other. At least they tend to lock horns. To the extent that the two collaborate, we should be suspicious.
- pohl 8y ago
  The choice of opting out only exists where competition exists. Without a government to keep corporations in check, your ability to opt out would evaporate.
  - gwright 8y ago
    And yet a powerful government is really good using its power to limit competition, discourage competitors, protect incumbents, and so on.
    - noobermin 8y ago
      A powerful government is also really good at using its power to increase competition, encourage competitors, protect new comers, and so on. And a powerful government in command of its people will do more of that.
      - gwright 8y ago
        What government "power" is required to 'encourage competitors'? If there is business opportunity the market will attract participants all by itself without any need for government intervention. In my experience, government incentives are generally misguided and force mis-allocation of resources. That is to say the government is distorting the market to favor activity that wouldn't otherwise be attractive to a business.
        galvin 8y ago
        Net neutrality would be a good example.
        theseatoms 8y ago
        In what sense? ISPs are government-granted monopolies in the first place. More on the issue: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju...
    - adamlett 8y ago
      Yes, imagine how much more competition there would be on the pharmaceutical market, say, if governments didn’t discourage innovation by demanding that products be tested and safe. Think of barriers to entry it creates in the chemical industry that waste must be discarded of in highly regulated (and expensive!) ways. Not to think of air travel, which is so regulated that I doubt we’ll ever see a startup in that market ever again. /s
      - gwright 8y ago
        This seems to me to be the trap of a false choice between regulatory power without bounds vs no regulation at all. A much more interesting discussion would be about the proper scope of regulation. To take your example regarding pharmaceuticals, instead of mandating a particular regime of testing and efficacy, why couldn't the government require products that have not passed that particular hurdle be labeled as such?
        joncrocks 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
therealdrag0 8y ago
This podcast, about workers rights and how companies are basically private governments, is really interesting: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/02/elizabeth_ander.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/02/elizabeth_ander.htm...

theseatoms 8y ago

What sorts of instances of corporate control are you thinking of here? Most examples that come to my mind involve corporations wielding the power of the state over people.

philipkglass 8y ago
Control of mineral resources, for example. Mining and oil/gas companies are already some of the largest corporations in existence. These are capital-intensive businesses where small entities often can't survive market downturns. Small resource owners get acquired by bigger ones during periods of financial distress, or juniors pre-emptively try to join forces with established companies as soon as they have a proven project to develop. The "natural" tendency, in absence of limits imposed by states, would be to reap maximum economies of scale, control over pricing, and resilience to downturn by combining extractive businesses without limit. A handful of giant corporations could acquire a commanding position over every mineral commodity required by industrial civilization. OPEC could be a very effective price-setter indeed were it a transnational corporation with unified ownership. Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members. If you picture eliminating the state altogether, including its enforcement of property rights and contracts, then I concede that the powers attendant to wealth would no longer involve a de jure state. I think that the powers of concentrated wealth would remain nonetheless. Wealth would hire private guards to exclude others from their mines instead of using the law enforcement apparatus of a state, for example.
- theseatoms 8y ago
  > Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members. So, "competition"? Cartels in general are unstable because of these internal competitive forces. I get that corporations with large market share can set prices in the short term. But every resource has a substitute. Even oil. So even price-setters have to operate within limits or risk their power being marginalized. I am picturing the elimination of the state. And I agree that one can enforce his own property rights.