3 ms·

What could the problem be, then? Do we point fingers at capitalism? As far as I see it, this is the logical conclusion to capitalism and free markets. Manufact

by uoaei 7y ago

What could the problem be, then? Do we point fingers at capitalism? As far as I see it, this is the logical conclusion to capitalism and free markets. Manufacturers produce a product and sell it to many suppliers who all rebrand and mark up in their own ways, competing with each other for market share. As consumers, we are presented with basically only this option because the suppliers have all won the race to the bottom. There's no more room in the market for slightly-more-expensive things unless they work way better than the slightly-less-expensive copycat stuff, because it's not worth the time or energy to compete with the poor-quality stuff. But as a result, we as consumers no longer have "choice" in the market because of China (et al.)'s manufacturing capabilities and leverage driving this phenomenon. Coupled with the consumers' relative disinterest in products of proper quality, because what they have access to is already good enough for the moment, how can we ever expect the crapification of commodities to reverse?

marcosdumay 7y ago
Those things are not commodities. Commodities can not crapify (loved that word), by definition. Capitalism has invented brands to fight this, and it worked for a long time. It's not really capitalism that is at fault, but the thing that changed in the 80's that turned the entire system upside down. It's hard to point at something specific, but markets used to be less transactional and less winner-takes-all.
- sjy 7y ago
  Perhaps it's not fair to point to a 97-page article as "something specific," but "the thing that changed" was thoroughly explained in Amazon's Antitrust Paradox (2017) [1]. Specifically: > In some ways, the story of Amazon's sustained and growing dominance is also the story of changes in our antitrust laws. Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s and 1980s, antitrust law now assesses competition largely with an eye to the short-term interests of consumers, not producers or the health of the market as a whole; antitrust doctrine views low consumer prices, alone, to be evidence of sound competition. [1]: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5785&context=ylj https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
greggman2 7y ago
stop buying

by uoaei 7y ago

marcosdumay 7y ago

Those things are not commodities. Commodities can not crapify (loved that word), by definition. Capitalism has invented brands to fight this, and it worked for a long time. It's not really capitalism that is at fault, but the thing that changed in the 80's that turned the entire system upside down. It's hard to point at something specific, but markets used to be less transactional and less winner-takes-all.

sjy 7y ago
Perhaps it's not fair to point to a 97-page article as "something specific," but "the thing that changed" was thoroughly explained in Amazon's Antitrust Paradox (2017) [1]. Specifically: > In some ways, the story of Amazon's sustained and growing dominance is also the story of changes in our antitrust laws. Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s and 1980s, antitrust law now assesses competition largely with an eye to the short-term interests of consumers, not producers or the health of the market as a whole; antitrust doctrine views low consumer prices, alone, to be evidence of sound competition. [1]: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5785&context=ylj https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

greggman2 7y ago

stop buying