8 ms·

And once a corporation takes on the roles of government, it naturally needs to be protected from competition lest the essential government functions it provides

And once a corporation takes on the roles of government, it naturally needs to be protected from competition lest the essential government functions it provides get threatened. We shouldn’t be demanding more from our corporations, we should be demanding less. Companies should produce goods and services at the highest quality for the lowest price, and let free citizens choose between them - and if the goods for sale are subpar - let the same free citizens start their own competitor. History is a never ending see-saw, and we are now sawing back towards protectionism, big government, and less freedoms for the individual. At the very least it will once more teach painful lessons to a new generation that doesn’t remember the past.

harimau777 7y ago
Do you think it would be fair to say that corporate capitalism has also taught us painful lessons that we forgot from the past?
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Its a perfectly reasonable question. HN is so harsh on people who question capitalism. And corporate capitalism in particular is well deserving of criticism.
numakerg 7y ago
>let the same free citizens start their own competitor. Except that starting a competitor often requires far more capital than the incumbents needed to reach their position. I don't support protectionism, but "true free market" economics are an illusion used to prevent and tear down regulations.
- ttoinou 7y ago
  Would you have examples? Starting SpaceX required far more capital than NASA?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    SpaceX is mainly alive because NASA/government poured tons of money in it, so not exactly the best example: "As a company, their total contracts are worth $12 billion including commercial satellite launches as well as NASA and U.S. government missions. Of that total, $5.5 billion is from government contracts from NASA and the Air Force." Basically what could have been done (and was done, and reached the moon and built the space bus etc) on government money, is now paid to a private constructor to do (plus profits, minus the patents going to the state).
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      Indeed, SpaceX nearly went bankrupt in the early days because they couldn't get a contract until they successfully launched a rocket. That first contract after their first successful launch was from NASA.
      - fragmede 7y ago
        NASA didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts though. Pound-for-pound (which, to orbit is pretty pricey), SpaceX was cheaper. Blue Origin, a different space corporation, was not even in consideration, but if they had something competitive, NASA would have considered their bid as well. (Tbc, Blue Origin isn't shooting for that market at all, so this is in no way a dig at them.)
        Retric 7y ago
        Risk is a huge factor in costs. Adjust for risks and early SpaceX was more expensive than their competitors.
        coldtea 7y ago
        >NASA didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts though. Pound-for-pound (which, to orbit is pretty pricey), SpaceX was cheaper Well, that's how you do it: you mismanage a state organization to make development costlier, and then you give the project + profits to private industry pals... That's how many-a-privitizations have started...
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  Obviously you can't enter a market at full scale if you can't bankroll it but you can certainly start small and build up. Complaining that it's too hard to enter is a defeatist mindset.
kennywinker 7y ago
how on earth would more competition decrease the environmental impact of modern capitalism?
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Well as much as I am a advocate for converting to a cooperative economy, I do understand that logic. Our corporate capitalism today relies heavily on monopoly like power especially with things like intellectual property and businesses like ISPs. If Comcast was forced to provide commodity access to its network as well as interconnects with other line providers, then the monopoly like power Comcast has over internet access would be dramatically reduced. More competition would enter the market and theoretically lower prices. Or if intellectual property law was significantly weakened then we would see more competition as well.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I'm arguing that more competition may be good for consumers, it's not doing any favours to the environment. Cheaper stuff means people consume more, more consumption means more environmental damage. Any effort to restructure our society and economies that doesn't put environmental impact first, is the wrong change.
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      Ah! I did misunderstand. Thanks for the explanation!
- malandrew 7y ago
  > environmental impact Many (but certainly not all) externalities are process waste and an often an opportunity for margins improvement if you can figure out how to eliminate that waste. Now, if you can take those externalities that are not process waste but are still bad for the environment and you can put a price on them that needs to be paid, competition is going to drive businesses to figure out how to reduce the externalities. This is the premise behind buying carbon credits/offsets. The problem is that we don't yet have good ways to price in all externalities into the final cost of goods sold. That should be the problem we tackle.
jay_kyburz 7y ago
I like the idea of multiple small governments competing. Lets have competition in our government departments too.
- zhoujianfu 7y ago
  For all its issues, that’s one thing the U.S. got pretty right: the states are essentially competing small governments (and why we should work to minimize the federal government). Voting with your feet always beats voting with your hands!
  - malandrew 7y ago
    This is always my argument when I explain to people why I'm so rabidly against a large federal government responsible for ever more aspects of our lives. With 50 states, you have 50 different experiments and if one of them finds success, the other 49 are free to copy those successes. With the federal government, any failed experiment eventually becomes a fact of life that is impossible to unseat and replace with something better. Federal government is essentially a local maxima that we get stuck in.
  - UncleMeat 7y ago
    Except in a market with competition consumers will have the power to make choices. I don't have the power to easily move to other cities or states. It costs thousands of dollars and takes a ton of time and stress. It separates me from my family. And if I struggled to find a job might not be able to move at all.
tr3ndyBEAR 7y ago
This kinda makes it sound like the ultimate outcome of corporate growth is socialism. At some point, many of these functions fulfilled by corporations are essential, might as well nationalize it and have it function for the public good right? Then maybe you won't have stuff like the despicable state of the printer industry
- malandrew 7y ago
  > might as well nationalize it and have it function for the public good right? No. If I don't like the "socialism" from one company, I'm free to defect and join another company to get the better "socialism" from some other company. If you nationalize it, I no longer have anywhere near the same degree of freedom to pick the "socialism" that works for me. The only option I have is fleeing to another country and starting anew. Also, with a company, I'm specifically associating with others who are productively contributing to that socialism in a way that is comparable to my contributions. If you nationalize it, the freerider problem becomes far more of an issue. It's not like there aren't people who can get away with freeriding in a company, but it is a lot easier to avoid any kind of accountability to contribute if things are nationalized. All "socialism" should start small and local among those that can hold one another accountable to the greater good and then if their flavor of socialism works and scales, it will. If you have to force it upon people from above, it's almost certainly the wrong solution.
vannevar 7y ago
History is a never ending see-saw, and we are now sawing back towards protectionism, big government, and less freedoms for the individual. The reason we are moving back toward regulation is that we forgot how irresponsible and destructive corporations can be when they are underregulated. The notion that as long as people can express their preference by buying stuff no regulation is necessary is a libertarian fantasy, completely unsupported by the historical record. The reality is that as corporate power and reach increase, corporations cause more and more destruction when left to short-term profit motive as their only control system. Corporations are all publicly chartered, and their continued existence should always be conditional on a broader conception of the public good than can be captured in a balance sheet.

harimau777 7y ago

Do you think it would be fair to say that corporate capitalism has also taught us painful lessons that we forgot from the past?

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Its a perfectly reasonable question. HN is so harsh on people who question capitalism. And corporate capitalism in particular is well deserving of criticism.

numakerg 7y ago

>let the same free citizens start their own competitor. Except that starting a competitor often requires far more capital than the incumbents needed to reach their position. I don't support protectionism, but "true free market" economics are an illusion used to prevent and tear down regulations.

ttoinou 7y ago
Would you have examples? Starting SpaceX required far more capital than NASA?
- coldtea 7y ago
  SpaceX is mainly alive because NASA/government poured tons of money in it, so not exactly the best example: "As a company, their total contracts are worth $12 billion including commercial satellite launches as well as NASA and U.S. government missions. Of that total, $5.5 billion is from government contracts from NASA and the Air Force." Basically what could have been done (and was done, and reached the moon and built the space bus etc) on government money, is now paid to a private constructor to do (plus profits, minus the patents going to the state).
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    Indeed, SpaceX nearly went bankrupt in the early days because they couldn't get a contract until they successfully launched a rocket. That first contract after their first successful launch was from NASA.
    - fragmede 7y ago
      NASA didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts though. Pound-for-pound (which, to orbit is pretty pricey), SpaceX was cheaper. Blue Origin, a different space corporation, was not even in consideration, but if they had something competitive, NASA would have considered their bid as well. (Tbc, Blue Origin isn't shooting for that market at all, so this is in no way a dig at them.)
      - Retric 7y ago
        Risk is a huge factor in costs. Adjust for risks and early SpaceX was more expensive than their competitors.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >NASA didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts though. Pound-for-pound (which, to orbit is pretty pricey), SpaceX was cheaper Well, that's how you do it: you mismanage a state organization to make development costlier, and then you give the project + profits to private industry pals... That's how many-a-privitizations have started...
sieabahlpark 7y ago
Obviously you can't enter a market at full scale if you can't bankroll it but you can certainly start small and build up. Complaining that it's too hard to enter is a defeatist mindset.

kennywinker 7y ago

how on earth would more competition decrease the environmental impact of modern capitalism?

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Well as much as I am a advocate for converting to a cooperative economy, I do understand that logic. Our corporate capitalism today relies heavily on monopoly like power especially with things like intellectual property and businesses like ISPs. If Comcast was forced to provide commodity access to its network as well as interconnects with other line providers, then the monopoly like power Comcast has over internet access would be dramatically reduced. More competition would enter the market and theoretically lower prices. Or if intellectual property law was significantly weakened then we would see more competition as well.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I'm arguing that more competition may be good for consumers, it's not doing any favours to the environment. Cheaper stuff means people consume more, more consumption means more environmental damage. Any effort to restructure our society and economies that doesn't put environmental impact first, is the wrong change.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    Ah! I did misunderstand. Thanks for the explanation!
malandrew 7y ago
> environmental impact Many (but certainly not all) externalities are process waste and an often an opportunity for margins improvement if you can figure out how to eliminate that waste. Now, if you can take those externalities that are not process waste but are still bad for the environment and you can put a price on them that needs to be paid, competition is going to drive businesses to figure out how to reduce the externalities. This is the premise behind buying carbon credits/offsets. The problem is that we don't yet have good ways to price in all externalities into the final cost of goods sold. That should be the problem we tackle.

jay_kyburz 7y ago

I like the idea of multiple small governments competing. Lets have competition in our government departments too.

zhoujianfu 7y ago
For all its issues, that’s one thing the U.S. got pretty right: the states are essentially competing small governments (and why we should work to minimize the federal government). Voting with your feet always beats voting with your hands!
- malandrew 7y ago
  This is always my argument when I explain to people why I'm so rabidly against a large federal government responsible for ever more aspects of our lives. With 50 states, you have 50 different experiments and if one of them finds success, the other 49 are free to copy those successes. With the federal government, any failed experiment eventually becomes a fact of life that is impossible to unseat and replace with something better. Federal government is essentially a local maxima that we get stuck in.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  Except in a market with competition consumers will have the power to make choices. I don't have the power to easily move to other cities or states. It costs thousands of dollars and takes a ton of time and stress. It separates me from my family. And if I struggled to find a job might not be able to move at all.

tr3ndyBEAR 7y ago

This kinda makes it sound like the ultimate outcome of corporate growth is socialism. At some point, many of these functions fulfilled by corporations are essential, might as well nationalize it and have it function for the public good right? Then maybe you won't have stuff like the despicable state of the printer industry

malandrew 7y ago
> might as well nationalize it and have it function for the public good right? No. If I don't like the "socialism" from one company, I'm free to defect and join another company to get the better "socialism" from some other company. If you nationalize it, I no longer have anywhere near the same degree of freedom to pick the "socialism" that works for me. The only option I have is fleeing to another country and starting anew. Also, with a company, I'm specifically associating with others who are productively contributing to that socialism in a way that is comparable to my contributions. If you nationalize it, the freerider problem becomes far more of an issue. It's not like there aren't people who can get away with freeriding in a company, but it is a lot easier to avoid any kind of accountability to contribute if things are nationalized. All "socialism" should start small and local among those that can hold one another accountable to the greater good and then if their flavor of socialism works and scales, it will. If you have to force it upon people from above, it's almost certainly the wrong solution.

vannevar 7y ago

History is a never ending see-saw, and we are now sawing back towards protectionism, big government, and less freedoms for the individual. The reason we are moving back toward regulation is that we forgot how irresponsible and destructive corporations can be when they are underregulated. The notion that as long as people can express their preference by buying stuff no regulation is necessary is a libertarian fantasy, completely unsupported by the historical record. The reality is that as corporate power and reach increase, corporations cause more and more destruction when left to short-term profit motive as their only control system. Corporations are all publicly chartered, and their continued existence should always be conditional on a broader conception of the public good than can be captured in a balance sheet.