3 ms·

In a system where money is power, and the economy encourages its concentration, you always end up with such unbalances. The invisible hand cannot help here: de

In a system where money is power, and the economy encourages its concentration, you always end up with such unbalances. The invisible hand cannot help here: demand will ask for cheaper prices (the 99% have a big stack of cash as a group, but a small one individually, so they seek savings), which the economy of scale will only make happen for the bigger players. At some point, fair competition is not possible anymore. Not to mention the ability to negotiate is driven by who you can afford to hire, who you know, how sustainable you are, etc.

Fiveplus 6y ago
>ability to negotiate is driven by who you can afford to hire, who you know, how sustainable you are This is a good point, often subtly overlooked when discussing similar topics.
WalterBright 6y ago
You mention economy of scale - that's why quantity discounts exist. It definitely is the invisible hand at work.
acituan 6y ago
> In a system where money is power, and the economy encourages its concentration, you always end up with such unbalances. Is money really the only power? For all I know these companies depend on consumers’ attention and consumption. Not only that, the people who run them depend on continuous growth of those to keep their positions. To the extent consumer interests can organize (which includes democratic, legal, informational organization and organizing consumption behavior) there are always ways out. > The invisible hand cannot help here Maybe invisible hand was never there to help. Maybe that is the origin of such a defeatist perspective. Companies are not gods, markets are not forces of nature. They are more like semi-useful entities and processes that can also parasitize our stone age psychology for their own ends. It is on to us to realize our own part in that equation.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Is money really the only power? For all I know these companies depend on consumers’ attention and consumption. Which doesn't translate to any great power for smaller developers, who don't command much of consumers attention anyway. Try getting Amazon Prime, or Spotify out of the App Store and there will be a riot. Some smaller app few care about? Not so much... >Not only that, the people who run them depend on continuous growth of those to keep their positions. The people who run them will get their bonuses and golden parachutes even if they burn the companies to the ground. And after that they can retire or easily find other positions in different companies soon enough. It's lesser employees that depend on growth to keep their jobs...
  - acituan 6y ago
    > Try getting Amazon Prime, or Spotify out of the App Store and there will be a riot. Some smaller app few care about? Not so much... Which was my point. Their power doesn’t come from their money but the fact that their products are found useful by all those who would riot. I’m not saying it is necessarily fair, but it is not like that they are rent seeking in the app store, their apps are found widely valuable. If anything, app store was the rent seeker and now it is conceding due proceeds. Tough luck for the small developers who can’t band together for a lawsuit or a mass app-strike against that discrimination. > The people who run them will get their bonuses and golden parachutes even if they burn the companies to the ground. And after that they can retire or easily find other positions in different companies soon enough. Again, the point was the power is not in the money itself, it is in the growth obligation. And you are wrong that growth is only a lesser employee concern, if anything having more captial means the opportunity cost of not growing the capital is much higher, so they are even more bound by the normativity of growth. Not necessarily growth of their immediate company, but any other investment instrument that eventually ties to the economy at large.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >Which was my point. Their power doesn’t come from their money but the fact that their products are found useful by all those who would riot. That translates to money pooured though. Without huge VC investments there wouldn't be any Netflix or Amazon. And their huge followers mean more money, more resilience to Apple's demands (they don't depend on it 100%) etc. Whereas for a smaller developer house not of these are true.

Fiveplus 6y ago

>ability to negotiate is driven by who you can afford to hire, who you know, how sustainable you are This is a good point, often subtly overlooked when discussing similar topics.

WalterBright 6y ago

You mention economy of scale - that's why quantity discounts exist. It definitely is the invisible hand at work.

acituan 6y ago

> In a system where money is power, and the economy encourages its concentration, you always end up with such unbalances. Is money really the only power? For all I know these companies depend on consumers’ attention and consumption. Not only that, the people who run them depend on continuous growth of those to keep their positions. To the extent consumer interests can organize (which includes democratic, legal, informational organization and organizing consumption behavior) there are always ways out. > The invisible hand cannot help here Maybe invisible hand was never there to help. Maybe that is the origin of such a defeatist perspective. Companies are not gods, markets are not forces of nature. They are more like semi-useful entities and processes that can also parasitize our stone age psychology for their own ends. It is on to us to realize our own part in that equation.

coldtea 6y ago
>Is money really the only power? For all I know these companies depend on consumers’ attention and consumption. Which doesn't translate to any great power for smaller developers, who don't command much of consumers attention anyway. Try getting Amazon Prime, or Spotify out of the App Store and there will be a riot. Some smaller app few care about? Not so much... >Not only that, the people who run them depend on continuous growth of those to keep their positions. The people who run them will get their bonuses and golden parachutes even if they burn the companies to the ground. And after that they can retire or easily find other positions in different companies soon enough. It's lesser employees that depend on growth to keep their jobs...
- acituan 6y ago
  > Try getting Amazon Prime, or Spotify out of the App Store and there will be a riot. Some smaller app few care about? Not so much... Which was my point. Their power doesn’t come from their money but the fact that their products are found useful by all those who would riot. I’m not saying it is necessarily fair, but it is not like that they are rent seeking in the app store, their apps are found widely valuable. If anything, app store was the rent seeker and now it is conceding due proceeds. Tough luck for the small developers who can’t band together for a lawsuit or a mass app-strike against that discrimination. > The people who run them will get their bonuses and golden parachutes even if they burn the companies to the ground. And after that they can retire or easily find other positions in different companies soon enough. Again, the point was the power is not in the money itself, it is in the growth obligation. And you are wrong that growth is only a lesser employee concern, if anything having more captial means the opportunity cost of not growing the capital is much higher, so they are even more bound by the normativity of growth. Not necessarily growth of their immediate company, but any other investment instrument that eventually ties to the economy at large.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Which was my point. Their power doesn’t come from their money but the fact that their products are found useful by all those who would riot. That translates to money pooured though. Without huge VC investments there wouldn't be any Netflix or Amazon. And their huge followers mean more money, more resilience to Apple's demands (they don't depend on it 100%) etc. Whereas for a smaller developer house not of these are true.