5 ms·

This includes a cynical view of capitalism, too.

by coreyp_1 7y ago

whatshisface 7y ago
Software is full of tiny monopolies and it's standard consensus that monopolies cause the market to fail.
- zepto 7y ago
  There’s no such thing as a tiny monopoly.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    An example of a tiny monopoly would be a program with no alternatives that performed a task worth a few thousand bucks to 20 people on Earth. It doesn't have to be Standard Oil for monopoly pricing to take effect, if the market is small enough the mere fact that two vendors couldn't survive at the same time would be enough to keep out competition. Another example would be proprietary data formats, if your program is the only thing in the world that writes and reads an Oracle database, you can charge monopoly prices to anyone who has an Oracle database - and unsurprisingly, Oracle does.
    - zepto 7y ago
      There is no monopoly in either case you describe. In both cases there is competition from other solutions. People can and do migrate away from Oracle all the time, and that does constrain the price. Your other example is obviously not a monopoly since the supplier has no pricing power.
    - kazinator 7y ago
      The alternative is for those 20 people to learn to code, or spread the word that they are looking to pay for an alternative. A monopoly occurs when competition is actively prevented, in spite of its ample competitive ability. The monopolist uses its power to block the entry of new competition, even if that competition has the product, know-how and so forth. In some cases monopolies are geographical, like utility companies. Another utility company is just as capable, but it and its wiring/plumbing is in another district. The mere difficulty of mustering a viable competitive effort (e.g. it being difficult to write a replacement program that those 20 people are willing to use instead) is not a monopolistic entry barrier.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Of course there is. What else would you call a company store in a remote logging camp? When the market is small, a monopoly can be small.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Is that camp the only one in the world?
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        Do you think it is?
        zepto 7y ago
        Of course not and therefore there is no monopoly.
phkahler 7y ago
Self preservation or self interest is important. You can't really do much for others if you dont have your own stuff together. Having said that, modern capitalism is moving toward pure self interest and even exploitation of others. The author correctly identified the one freedom the GPL denies - the freedom to exploit the work of others purely for your own gain.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  capitalism was always about exploitation of others
  - briandear 7y ago
    Capitalism is about providing others with products and services they want.
    - TuringTest 7y ago
      Both assertions are not incompatible.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      No, capitalism is about enriching yourself by, among other ways, providing others with products and services they want. There's a slight but important difference between providing people what they want/need in exchange for money, vs. trying to make people give you maximum amount of money for minimum value provided. A lot of the problems attributed to capitalism are consequences of companies doing the latter rather than former. Instead of serving customers, they mine them. The current euphemism for that is "monetizing".
    - pas 7y ago
      Capitalism is not "about" anything really. It's a description that sometimes applies (if private individuals can own (and buy/sell) equity, and operate the means of production for profit) to economies. Of course there are good and bad parts, of course there are good and bad implementations/representations/manifestations of such big concepts. For example using a price system and voluntary exchange is usually a great way to get clear signals about what people want and value. But if the market is in a pathological state (monopoly, oligopoly, or monopsony, high barriers to entry, etc.), then the market becomes exploitative. Is this the systems's fault? Well, maybe, but it's not because people can own equity/machines, it's because that particular system/market is fucked due to various reasons. (Either due to historic reasons, eg. enormous income inequality led to a small clique of people owning all/most of capital coupled with a political system that wasn't able to represent the capitally-disadvantaged; or due to other failure of politics - eg. a group consolidated power into a totalitarian system which then dismantled competition.)

This includes a cynical view of capitalism, too.

whatshisface 7y ago

Software is full of tiny monopolies and it's standard consensus that monopolies cause the market to fail.

zepto 7y ago
There’s no such thing as a tiny monopoly.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  An example of a tiny monopoly would be a program with no alternatives that performed a task worth a few thousand bucks to 20 people on Earth. It doesn't have to be Standard Oil for monopoly pricing to take effect, if the market is small enough the mere fact that two vendors couldn't survive at the same time would be enough to keep out competition. Another example would be proprietary data formats, if your program is the only thing in the world that writes and reads an Oracle database, you can charge monopoly prices to anyone who has an Oracle database - and unsurprisingly, Oracle does.
  - zepto 7y ago
    There is no monopoly in either case you describe. In both cases there is competition from other solutions. People can and do migrate away from Oracle all the time, and that does constrain the price. Your other example is obviously not a monopoly since the supplier has no pricing power.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    The alternative is for those 20 people to learn to code, or spread the word that they are looking to pay for an alternative. A monopoly occurs when competition is actively prevented, in spite of its ample competitive ability. The monopolist uses its power to block the entry of new competition, even if that competition has the product, know-how and so forth. In some cases monopolies are geographical, like utility companies. Another utility company is just as capable, but it and its wiring/plumbing is in another district. The mere difficulty of mustering a viable competitive effort (e.g. it being difficult to write a replacement program that those 20 people are willing to use instead) is not a monopolistic entry barrier.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Of course there is. What else would you call a company store in a remote logging camp? When the market is small, a monopoly can be small.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Is that camp the only one in the world?
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Do you think it is?
      - zepto 7y ago
        Of course not and therefore there is no monopoly.

phkahler 7y ago

Self preservation or self interest is important. You can't really do much for others if you dont have your own stuff together. Having said that, modern capitalism is moving toward pure self interest and even exploitation of others. The author correctly identified the one freedom the GPL denies - the freedom to exploit the work of others purely for your own gain.

kiliantics 7y ago
capitalism was always about exploitation of others
- briandear 7y ago
  Capitalism is about providing others with products and services they want.
  - TuringTest 7y ago
    Both assertions are not incompatible.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    No, capitalism is about enriching yourself by, among other ways, providing others with products and services they want. There's a slight but important difference between providing people what they want/need in exchange for money, vs. trying to make people give you maximum amount of money for minimum value provided. A lot of the problems attributed to capitalism are consequences of companies doing the latter rather than former. Instead of serving customers, they mine them. The current euphemism for that is "monetizing".
  - pas 7y ago
    Capitalism is not "about" anything really. It's a description that sometimes applies (if private individuals can own (and buy/sell) equity, and operate the means of production for profit) to economies. Of course there are good and bad parts, of course there are good and bad implementations/representations/manifestations of such big concepts. For example using a price system and voluntary exchange is usually a great way to get clear signals about what people want and value. But if the market is in a pathological state (monopoly, oligopoly, or monopsony, high barriers to entry, etc.), then the market becomes exploitative. Is this the systems's fault? Well, maybe, but it's not because people can own equity/machines, it's because that particular system/market is fucked due to various reasons. (Either due to historic reasons, eg. enormous income inequality led to a small clique of people owning all/most of capital coupled with a political system that wasn't able to represent the capitally-disadvantaged; or due to other failure of politics - eg. a group consolidated power into a totalitarian system which then dismantled competition.)