5 ms·

As an engineer with a math degree, this all seems like unnecessary complexity, imposed by a pro-complexity politician in the interest of preventing feigned-natu

As an engineer with a math degree, this all seems like unnecessary complexity, imposed by a pro-complexity politician in the interest of preventing feigned-natural-selection of markets from evolving a proper fit solution. What am i missing?

flyingfences 7y ago
You're missing the fact that it's actually in the interest of pandering to voters with no understanding of technology or economics.
smacktoward 7y ago
The part where 20 years of natural selection by markets has resulted in a few ginormous companies owning the Net?
- fbonetti 7y ago
  Yahoo "owned" the net not that long ago, now they're completely irrelevant. Microsoft "owned" the browser market with Internet Explorer not that long ago, now people cringe when they have to use IE. MySpace was at one time the most visited social media site in the world, now it's merely a quirky bit of internet history. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. do not "own" anything. They are businesses that exist in a fiercely competitive environment in which consumers have zero loyalty and will gladly switch to the next hot thing at the drop of a hat. These businesses are successful because they continually innovate and deliver products that people want. There's no guarantee that any of these companies will still be around in a decade, much less "own" the market they operate in.
  - cguess 7y ago
    > Microsoft "owned" the browser market with Internet Explorer not that long ago And monopoly regulation put an end to that and allowed Netscape to come in and make it a competition.
    - pitaj 7y ago
      That a handy assertion, but what replaced IE was not Netscape, but Firefox and later Chrome. IE6, IE7, and IE8 had massive market share up until recently. Now Chrome is the king.
    - fbonetti 7y ago
      Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer for free into its operating system, whereas Netscape Navigator was not free at the time. This was deemed "unfair" because Navigator was Netscape's flagship product, so if users were given a free alternative, Netscape would be put out of business. It was really an absurd case considering that 100% of internet users use a free browser these days.
    - pb7 7y ago
      Where is Netscape now?
      - jjtheblunt 7y ago
        Mozilla is its offspring, isn't it?
    - wcunning 7y ago
      A "competition" where MS owned the market with IE at 90% right up until Google ate their lunch with Chrome and became the 90% player. Google probably could have done that without the monopoly action, and now we need that action against Chrome because the real issue is the influence the 90% player has on the open standards, not the regulable bundling with operating systems.
    - jlarocco 7y ago
      Sorry, but that's backwards. Netscape was selling their browser before Microsoft got smacked down by the DOJ. In fact, Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows was some of the strongest evidence showing that they were abusing their market position. By bundling a free alternative they basically destroyed the market of for-pay web browsers, and killed off Netscape while they were at it.
  - pitaj 7y ago
    Don't forget MySpace.
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  yeah but is that just a snapshot of a process before a "refactoring" that would occur naturally? i mean, i don't know the answer, but wonder that question.
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  I am guessing/wondering if they really own the net, in the sense that they can squash any would-be competitors, in which case breaking them up is (in the US) an application of antitrust legislation?
anarchy8 7y ago
Apparently everything.
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  Sarcasm points for sure, but really I do wonder if the dominance is truly dominant, as customers are only loyal until competitors arise, no?
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Well, the argument is that competition gets bought up before it can rival them - ie Instagram, Whatsapp, Waze, etc.
    - jjtheblunt 7y ago
      In the US, the federal trade commission (FTC) i think has to approve those purchases, to prevent exactly what Facebook got away with.
    - nemo44x 7y ago
      It's a nonsense argument. Companies tried to buy Google and they didn't sell. Yahoo (among others) tried to buy Facebook and they didn't sell. There will come along a startup with a visionary founder who doesn't want to sell and they will topple one of these giants with better tech. There have been quite a few technology IPO's over the last couple years and I'm sure many of these companies were approached by incumbents but did not sell. And some of these companies will become giant slayers.
burkaman 7y ago
Capitalism is, in theory, supposed to result in the most efficient allocation of resources. I assume this is what you meant by "proper fit solution". What you are missing is that there is very little relation between the most efficient allocation of resources and the most desirable society. Also, even if we wanted unregulated capitalism and natural selection of markets, we would need to first eliminate the existing monopolies, oligopolies, and externalities, since they all cause market failure.
- pitaj 7y ago
  The "most desirable society" is subjective. Value is subjective. Trade, and the market, is based on that fact. Trade in the market creates wealth. The efficiency of the market lowers the costs of goods. These two things work together to make everyone richer. > Also, even if we wanted unregulated capitalism and natural selection of markets, we would need to first eliminate the existing monopolies, oligopolies, and externalities, since they all cause market failure. Market failures are only made worse by government intervention. Unforeseen negative consequences distort the market which causes more problems.
  - burkaman 7y ago
    > The "most desirable society" is subjective. Yes, I agree. That's basically why politics exists. > Market failures are only made worse by government intervention. This is a blanket statement that doesn't really make sense. There is no way to correct externalities without regulation, right? Genuine question, I am obviously not an economist. Government intervention distorts the market, which is desirable in some cases. This seems like a pretty uncontroversial statement. There would be a market for paid assassinations, but we've made that market "worse" by outlawing them. I feel like it's impossible to argue that the market is always "right". > Unforeseen negative consequences distort the market which causes more problems. Government intervention doesn't have to be unforeseen. Good regulations are announced in advance, and businesses are informed during the legislation process and given guidelines to adapt and comply.
    - pitaj 7y ago
chris11 7y ago
I think that a lack of regulation can make markets less free. Natural monopolies exist, and Peter Thiel talks about how startups need to create a monopoly. Consumer choice in broadband providers is a great example of this.
- pitaj 7y ago
  Consumer choice in broadband is restricted mainly by regulatory capture. Consider the trouble Google Fiber had to actually get into cities because they were constantly fighting red tape brought about by telecoms.
pgcj_poster 7y ago
As a Senior Software Architect with a PhD in Computational Hermeneutics, you can take my word for it: Elizabeth Warren is a pro-ontology politician with no understanding of poisson distributions or Bayesian inference. Her solutions are stochastic and would appear puerile to an individual in the right-tail of the IQ distribution, such as myself.
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  :)

flyingfences 7y ago

You're missing the fact that it's actually in the interest of pandering to voters with no understanding of technology or economics.

smacktoward 7y ago

The part where 20 years of natural selection by markets has resulted in a few ginormous companies owning the Net?

fbonetti 7y ago
Yahoo "owned" the net not that long ago, now they're completely irrelevant. Microsoft "owned" the browser market with Internet Explorer not that long ago, now people cringe when they have to use IE. MySpace was at one time the most visited social media site in the world, now it's merely a quirky bit of internet history. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. do not "own" anything. They are businesses that exist in a fiercely competitive environment in which consumers have zero loyalty and will gladly switch to the next hot thing at the drop of a hat. These businesses are successful because they continually innovate and deliver products that people want. There's no guarantee that any of these companies will still be around in a decade, much less "own" the market they operate in.
- cguess 7y ago
  > Microsoft "owned" the browser market with Internet Explorer not that long ago And monopoly regulation put an end to that and allowed Netscape to come in and make it a competition.
  - pitaj 7y ago
    That a handy assertion, but what replaced IE was not Netscape, but Firefox and later Chrome. IE6, IE7, and IE8 had massive market share up until recently. Now Chrome is the king.
  - fbonetti 7y ago
    Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer for free into its operating system, whereas Netscape Navigator was not free at the time. This was deemed "unfair" because Navigator was Netscape's flagship product, so if users were given a free alternative, Netscape would be put out of business. It was really an absurd case considering that 100% of internet users use a free browser these days.
  - pb7 7y ago
    Where is Netscape now?
    - jjtheblunt 7y ago
      Mozilla is its offspring, isn't it?
  - wcunning 7y ago
    A "competition" where MS owned the market with IE at 90% right up until Google ate their lunch with Chrome and became the 90% player. Google probably could have done that without the monopoly action, and now we need that action against Chrome because the real issue is the influence the 90% player has on the open standards, not the regulable bundling with operating systems.
  - jlarocco 7y ago
    Sorry, but that's backwards. Netscape was selling their browser before Microsoft got smacked down by the DOJ. In fact, Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows was some of the strongest evidence showing that they were abusing their market position. By bundling a free alternative they basically destroyed the market of for-pay web browsers, and killed off Netscape while they were at it.
- pitaj 7y ago
  Don't forget MySpace.
jjtheblunt 7y ago
yeah but is that just a snapshot of a process before a "refactoring" that would occur naturally? i mean, i don't know the answer, but wonder that question.
jjtheblunt 7y ago
I am guessing/wondering if they really own the net, in the sense that they can squash any would-be competitors, in which case breaking them up is (in the US) an application of antitrust legislation?

anarchy8 7y ago

Apparently everything.

jjtheblunt 7y ago
Sarcasm points for sure, but really I do wonder if the dominance is truly dominant, as customers are only loyal until competitors arise, no?
- icebraining 7y ago
  Well, the argument is that competition gets bought up before it can rival them - ie Instagram, Whatsapp, Waze, etc.
  - jjtheblunt 7y ago
    In the US, the federal trade commission (FTC) i think has to approve those purchases, to prevent exactly what Facebook got away with.
  - nemo44x 7y ago
    It's a nonsense argument. Companies tried to buy Google and they didn't sell. Yahoo (among others) tried to buy Facebook and they didn't sell. There will come along a startup with a visionary founder who doesn't want to sell and they will topple one of these giants with better tech. There have been quite a few technology IPO's over the last couple years and I'm sure many of these companies were approached by incumbents but did not sell. And some of these companies will become giant slayers.

burkaman 7y ago

Capitalism is, in theory, supposed to result in the most efficient allocation of resources. I assume this is what you meant by "proper fit solution". What you are missing is that there is very little relation between the most efficient allocation of resources and the most desirable society. Also, even if we wanted unregulated capitalism and natural selection of markets, we would need to first eliminate the existing monopolies, oligopolies, and externalities, since they all cause market failure.

pitaj 7y ago
The "most desirable society" is subjective. Value is subjective. Trade, and the market, is based on that fact. Trade in the market creates wealth. The efficiency of the market lowers the costs of goods. These two things work together to make everyone richer. > Also, even if we wanted unregulated capitalism and natural selection of markets, we would need to first eliminate the existing monopolies, oligopolies, and externalities, since they all cause market failure. Market failures are only made worse by government intervention. Unforeseen negative consequences distort the market which causes more problems.
- burkaman 7y ago
  > The "most desirable society" is subjective. Yes, I agree. That's basically why politics exists. > Market failures are only made worse by government intervention. This is a blanket statement that doesn't really make sense. There is no way to correct externalities without regulation, right? Genuine question, I am obviously not an economist. Government intervention distorts the market, which is desirable in some cases. This seems like a pretty uncontroversial statement. There would be a market for paid assassinations, but we've made that market "worse" by outlawing them. I feel like it's impossible to argue that the market is always "right". > Unforeseen negative consequences distort the market which causes more problems. Government intervention doesn't have to be unforeseen. Good regulations are announced in advance, and businesses are informed during the legislation process and given guidelines to adapt and comply.
  - pitaj 7y ago

chris11 7y ago

I think that a lack of regulation can make markets less free. Natural monopolies exist, and Peter Thiel talks about how startups need to create a monopoly. Consumer choice in broadband providers is a great example of this.

pitaj 7y ago
Consumer choice in broadband is restricted mainly by regulatory capture. Consider the trouble Google Fiber had to actually get into cities because they were constantly fighting red tape brought about by telecoms.

pgcj_poster 7y ago

As a Senior Software Architect with a PhD in Computational Hermeneutics, you can take my word for it: Elizabeth Warren is a pro-ontology politician with no understanding of poisson distributions or Bayesian inference. Her solutions are stochastic and would appear puerile to an individual in the right-tail of the IQ distribution, such as myself.

jjtheblunt 7y ago
:)