5 ms·

> Business on the other side, tend to be punished by the markets when misbehaving and then course-correct. That only happens when there are regulations to run

> Business on the other side, tend to be punished by the markets when misbehaving and then course-correct. That only happens when there are regulations to run afoul of and/or a company is not a monopoly. Without government companies would be free to pollute the environment, cheat customers, and abuse workers to breaking point. The market wouldn't punish those companies if all the companies in the market were doing the same kinds of things, which is what would happen if said bad behavior was profitable. "Oh you don't disagree with Exxon poisoning community water supplies and using a private army to seize land from indigenous people? Tough luck, Shell and BP are doing the same thing." Yeah most governments leave a lot to desire in efficiency, fairness, effectiveness, etc. But a world where corporations are the only ones who set the rules would be far worse.

nickpp 8y ago
The only monopolies are government-granted, otherwise startups quickly eat their lunch. They use each misbehavior of another corporation as a competitive advantage. See Apple vs Facebook in privacy stance. But governments, they are monopolistic by definition. And the answer to no one. Army? Seizing land? Pollution??? Well the people of Africa could tell you some stories about their governments... Or maybe you remember the USA govt detonating countless nuclear weapons over the USA soil...
- shamsalmon 8y ago
  This is a libertarian fantasy. Large companies can stay solvent by undercutting smaller companies and killing their business. This is what would happen if we were to remove regulations and restrictions. You wouldn't end up with a perfect competition utopia you end up with a dystopian garbage reality where the business elite control even more than they already do.
  - nickpp 8y ago
    And yet we are having this conversation on a site dedicated to this "libertarian fantasy", with countless examples of startups disrupting large, existing companies. Reality contradicts your "dystopia".
    - oarsinsync 8y ago
      > This is what would happen if we were to remove regulations and restrictions. You wouldn't end up with a perfect competition utopia you end up with a dystopian garbage reality where the business elite control even more than they already do. Reality has a number of regulations and restrictions. The dystopia GP describes is a world without these regulations and restrictions, not the reality we inhabit today.
      - nickpp 8y ago
        Funny enough, startups and competition thrive exactly in those pockets of reality with less restrictions and regulations, while large companies and monopolies rule the heavily regulated markets.
        shamsalmon 8y ago
        Large companies rule every market. Startups thrive in niches, not pockets with less restrictions and regulations. Once a market is established it becomes incredibly hard for new companies to enter and compete not matter the regulations as larger companies can take advantage of scale. Perfect competition exists almost no where, and you should read up on the conditions when it is allowed to take place. Regulations are part of the equation, but not nearly all of it.
        nickpp 8y ago
        Large companies ARE startups who became successful. Until they are dethroned in turn by other startups. Large companies are relatively easy to disrupt, since they usually respond slowly to market changes and they are much less efficient than a lean startup. The "advantages of scale" you are so fixated on are just a small part of the whole picture and what large corps gain at scale, they lose at management costs and through lack of innovation It is a natural process, with countless examples all around us. A healthy process too, since it promotes competition and innovation. But this process is interrupted by regulation. Regulation protects the incumbents, that is why large companies love it. They'd rather regulate than innovate. Indeed, when startups aren’t allowed to compete (by governments) large companies dominate and the market stagnates.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  This is Hacker News, so this is somewhat relevant. How in the world was Microsoft's monopoly on the PC operating system market a decade ago, a government granted monopoly?
  - nickpp 8y ago
    It wasn't. So they the competition quickly routed around them and made them irrelevant. Where's Microsoft "monopoly" today? In a free market a monopolistic company is just an invitation for the competition to a rich easily accessible lunch. The (naturally occurring) monopoly is short-lived. Unless there is regulation. Regulation raises the barrier of entry, discourages start-ups and thus protects the monopolistic company from the competition. It's quite logical, really.
    - darpa_escapee 8y ago
      > It wasn't. It was ruled in 2001 that Microsoft, indeed, had a monopoly on the PC operating system market which they used to overtake the browser market. They did this through private contracts with OEMs and distributors such that all PCs sold to customers were to include Windows and only Windows. > Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others. [1] > So they the competition quickly routed around them and made them irrelevant. That's certainly true for some of their products, such as Internet Explorer, but certainly not for Windows on the desktop. The PC operating system market is not the server or mobile OS market. > Where's Microsoft "monopoly" today? They own the PC operating system market. > Unless there is regulation. Regulation raises the barrier of entry, discourages start-ups and thus protects the monopolistic company from the competition. Microsoft created barriers of entry into both the PC operating system and browser markets through anti-competitive tactics. If by government regulation, you mean "court enforced contracts", I'd agree with your premise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp._(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
stale2002 8y ago
No, if a corporation behaves poorly then I can buy from a different corporation. It has nothing to do with regulations.
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  You’re not the Equifax customer. Equifax arguably behaved poorly with its security breaches that have long term implications for millions, and even more so with their disclosure. What other corporation are you going to buy from, when you’re not the customer in the first place, but have been commoditised to be their product? How do you protect the product, if the corporation and it’s customers have no incentive to do so themselves?

nickpp 8y ago

The only monopolies are government-granted, otherwise startups quickly eat their lunch. They use each misbehavior of another corporation as a competitive advantage. See Apple vs Facebook in privacy stance. But governments, they are monopolistic by definition. And the answer to no one. Army? Seizing land? Pollution??? Well the people of Africa could tell you some stories about their governments... Or maybe you remember the USA govt detonating countless nuclear weapons over the USA soil...

shamsalmon 8y ago
This is a libertarian fantasy. Large companies can stay solvent by undercutting smaller companies and killing their business. This is what would happen if we were to remove regulations and restrictions. You wouldn't end up with a perfect competition utopia you end up with a dystopian garbage reality where the business elite control even more than they already do.
- nickpp 8y ago
  And yet we are having this conversation on a site dedicated to this "libertarian fantasy", with countless examples of startups disrupting large, existing companies. Reality contradicts your "dystopia".
  - oarsinsync 8y ago
    > This is what would happen if we were to remove regulations and restrictions. You wouldn't end up with a perfect competition utopia you end up with a dystopian garbage reality where the business elite control even more than they already do. Reality has a number of regulations and restrictions. The dystopia GP describes is a world without these regulations and restrictions, not the reality we inhabit today.
    - nickpp 8y ago
      Funny enough, startups and competition thrive exactly in those pockets of reality with less restrictions and regulations, while large companies and monopolies rule the heavily regulated markets.
      - shamsalmon 8y ago
        Large companies rule every market. Startups thrive in niches, not pockets with less restrictions and regulations. Once a market is established it becomes incredibly hard for new companies to enter and compete not matter the regulations as larger companies can take advantage of scale. Perfect competition exists almost no where, and you should read up on the conditions when it is allowed to take place. Regulations are part of the equation, but not nearly all of it.
        nickpp 8y ago
        Large companies ARE startups who became successful. Until they are dethroned in turn by other startups. Large companies are relatively easy to disrupt, since they usually respond slowly to market changes and they are much less efficient than a lean startup. The "advantages of scale" you are so fixated on are just a small part of the whole picture and what large corps gain at scale, they lose at management costs and through lack of innovation It is a natural process, with countless examples all around us. A healthy process too, since it promotes competition and innovation. But this process is interrupted by regulation. Regulation protects the incumbents, that is why large companies love it. They'd rather regulate than innovate. Indeed, when startups aren’t allowed to compete (by governments) large companies dominate and the market stagnates.
darpa_escapee 8y ago
This is Hacker News, so this is somewhat relevant. How in the world was Microsoft's monopoly on the PC operating system market a decade ago, a government granted monopoly?
- nickpp 8y ago
  It wasn't. So they the competition quickly routed around them and made them irrelevant. Where's Microsoft "monopoly" today? In a free market a monopolistic company is just an invitation for the competition to a rich easily accessible lunch. The (naturally occurring) monopoly is short-lived. Unless there is regulation. Regulation raises the barrier of entry, discourages start-ups and thus protects the monopolistic company from the competition. It's quite logical, really.
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago
    > It wasn't. It was ruled in 2001 that Microsoft, indeed, had a monopoly on the PC operating system market which they used to overtake the browser market. They did this through private contracts with OEMs and distributors such that all PCs sold to customers were to include Windows and only Windows. > Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others. [1] > So they the competition quickly routed around them and made them irrelevant. That's certainly true for some of their products, such as Internet Explorer, but certainly not for Windows on the desktop. The PC operating system market is not the server or mobile OS market. > Where's Microsoft "monopoly" today? They own the PC operating system market. > Unless there is regulation. Regulation raises the barrier of entry, discourages start-ups and thus protects the monopolistic company from the competition. Microsoft created barriers of entry into both the PC operating system and browser markets through anti-competitive tactics. If by government regulation, you mean "court enforced contracts", I'd agree with your premise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp._(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...

stale2002 8y ago

No, if a corporation behaves poorly then I can buy from a different corporation. It has nothing to do with regulations.

oarsinsync 8y ago
You’re not the Equifax customer. Equifax arguably behaved poorly with its security breaches that have long term implications for millions, and even more so with their disclosure. What other corporation are you going to buy from, when you’re not the customer in the first place, but have been commoditised to be their product? How do you protect the product, if the corporation and it’s customers have no incentive to do so themselves?