3 ms·

I'd like to see any YC users come by and claim the US has a "free market" at this point.

by ETHisso2017 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BoiledCabbage 6y ago
The hypocrisy in YC isn't this. It's that people argue the virtues of "free-markets" while simultaneously arguing the most valuable thing any business should build is a "moat". It the utter acknowledgment that avoiding/prevent competition is the way to be successful, while arguing that free markets enforce competition. Its blatantly obvious that network effects, exclusivity contracts and monopolies exist. And well and market dominance leads to more dominance by purchasing any future competitive business. And yet claim most success comes from marker efficiency. Taking a non-tech example. Madden is getting closer to a 20 year exclusive license NFL on consoles. No game can compete with made up teams and rosters. The product is stagnant, innovation a dump and yet this continuous aspect of "free-market" is ignored.
- KoftaBob 6y ago
  I think you’re conflating a “free market” with a “perfectly competitive market”. By and large, the US is a free market with your obvious government regulations. However, it’s not a perfectly competitive market because of the things you mentioned. Because a true “perfectly competitive market” is almost impossible to achieve, no nation’s economy is, but some are closer to it than others. Perfect competition benefits the consumers most, while network effects, exclusivity contracts, and monopolies obviously benefit the companies more. One of the biggest goals of US government economic regulations (at least ideally) is to steer the market as close to a perfectly competitive market as possible. Companies optimize in the other direction, and try to make their market less competitive despite those regulations. This dynamic doesn’t mean it’s not a free market, it just means that we need regulations to counteract the forces of companies and keep it competitive. This is why I find it misguided when people want a totally libertarian system with no regulations, because that will inevitably lead to a less competitive/efficient market.
  - BoiledCabbage 6y ago
    100% agreed. I"m using however somehow I feel most of HN doesn't see this. The issue is between how the term "free market" is defined and how it's used. My usage above is how it's commonly used - as meaning a "competitive market" - which as you mention is completely wrong. A truly competitive market benefits consumers and society overall. A completely free market on the other hand benefits rent seeking and is a drain on society. Free markets naturally tend towards anti-competetive rent-seeking behaviors. The best thing you can do for a market economy is to ensure it stays a competitive market. There will always be inefficiencies in markets which will accrue towards companies - but the amount of excess rent-seeking that flows to companies needs to be actively minimized.
    - KoftaBob 6y ago
      well said
smeeth 6y ago
No-one argues that the US has an unregulated free market and no-one respectable argues that it should. Keeping spyware-collected data of private citizens out of the hands of antagonistic authoritarian regimes seems like an appropriate use of regulation, no? Hard to argue its less appropriate than trust-busting or consumer protection regulations.
- wallacoloo 6y ago
  > Keeping spyware-collected data of private citizens out of the hands of antagonistic authoritarian regimes seems like an appropriate use of regulation, no? Possibly, yes. And if your goal was actually to fight authoritarianism, you’d be sure to pass these regulations in some sort of democratic process. You’d send it through Congress and give the people’s elected representatives a chance to weigh in. You wouldn’t use an executive order outside of very extreme, time-sensitive circumstances, if you actually gave a shit about fighting authoritarianism.
  - smeeth 6y ago
    >give the people’s elected representatives a chance to weigh in Is POTUS not an elected representative? Congress can overrule the president if they want to, there's nothing stopping them. Also, who said the goal was "fighting authoritarianism"? I'm pretty sure the goal is to let americans use TikTok without MSS having all their personal data.
- BoiledCabbage 6y ago
  > No-one argues that the US has an unregulated free market and no-one respectable argues that it should. No, but plenty of people vacuously and consistently argue that regulations should be eliminated because "free-market". And have no issue with most companies eliminating competition through any means other than producing a better product. Taking an example people agree with. Apple should open up it's phone platform to other stores. If they're concerned about security, they can still be the final arbiters of what apps can ship. Ie they approve apps for all stores. However, each store can have it's own experience and crucially it's own cut of apps sold. Let's see how many consumers feel there is enough value in apple store to pay a 30% premium on apps they buy. More rent seeking. But that's one of the few cases HN actually agrees with. the 1000s of others out there, people don't blink an eye.

I'd like to see any YC users come by and claim the US has a "free market" at this point.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

The hypocrisy in YC isn't this. It's that people argue the virtues of "free-markets" while simultaneously arguing the most valuable thing any business should build is a "moat". It the utter acknowledgment that avoiding/prevent competition is the way to be successful, while arguing that free markets enforce competition. Its blatantly obvious that network effects, exclusivity contracts and monopolies exist. And well and market dominance leads to more dominance by purchasing any future competitive business. And yet claim most success comes from marker efficiency. Taking a non-tech example. Madden is getting closer to a 20 year exclusive license NFL on consoles. No game can compete with made up teams and rosters. The product is stagnant, innovation a dump and yet this continuous aspect of "free-market" is ignored.

KoftaBob 6y ago
I think you’re conflating a “free market” with a “perfectly competitive market”. By and large, the US is a free market with your obvious government regulations. However, it’s not a perfectly competitive market because of the things you mentioned. Because a true “perfectly competitive market” is almost impossible to achieve, no nation’s economy is, but some are closer to it than others. Perfect competition benefits the consumers most, while network effects, exclusivity contracts, and monopolies obviously benefit the companies more. One of the biggest goals of US government economic regulations (at least ideally) is to steer the market as close to a perfectly competitive market as possible. Companies optimize in the other direction, and try to make their market less competitive despite those regulations. This dynamic doesn’t mean it’s not a free market, it just means that we need regulations to counteract the forces of companies and keep it competitive. This is why I find it misguided when people want a totally libertarian system with no regulations, because that will inevitably lead to a less competitive/efficient market.
- BoiledCabbage 6y ago
  100% agreed. I"m using however somehow I feel most of HN doesn't see this. The issue is between how the term "free market" is defined and how it's used. My usage above is how it's commonly used - as meaning a "competitive market" - which as you mention is completely wrong. A truly competitive market benefits consumers and society overall. A completely free market on the other hand benefits rent seeking and is a drain on society. Free markets naturally tend towards anti-competetive rent-seeking behaviors. The best thing you can do for a market economy is to ensure it stays a competitive market. There will always be inefficiencies in markets which will accrue towards companies - but the amount of excess rent-seeking that flows to companies needs to be actively minimized.
  - KoftaBob 6y ago
    well said

smeeth 6y ago

No-one argues that the US has an unregulated free market and no-one respectable argues that it should. Keeping spyware-collected data of private citizens out of the hands of antagonistic authoritarian regimes seems like an appropriate use of regulation, no? Hard to argue its less appropriate than trust-busting or consumer protection regulations.

wallacoloo 6y ago
> Keeping spyware-collected data of private citizens out of the hands of antagonistic authoritarian regimes seems like an appropriate use of regulation, no? Possibly, yes. And if your goal was actually to fight authoritarianism, you’d be sure to pass these regulations in some sort of democratic process. You’d send it through Congress and give the people’s elected representatives a chance to weigh in. You wouldn’t use an executive order outside of very extreme, time-sensitive circumstances, if you actually gave a shit about fighting authoritarianism.
- smeeth 6y ago
  >give the people’s elected representatives a chance to weigh in Is POTUS not an elected representative? Congress can overrule the president if they want to, there's nothing stopping them. Also, who said the goal was "fighting authoritarianism"? I'm pretty sure the goal is to let americans use TikTok without MSS having all their personal data.
BoiledCabbage 6y ago
> No-one argues that the US has an unregulated free market and no-one respectable argues that it should. No, but plenty of people vacuously and consistently argue that regulations should be eliminated because "free-market". And have no issue with most companies eliminating competition through any means other than producing a better product. Taking an example people agree with. Apple should open up it's phone platform to other stores. If they're concerned about security, they can still be the final arbiters of what apps can ship. Ie they approve apps for all stores. However, each store can have it's own experience and crucially it's own cut of apps sold. Let's see how many consumers feel there is enough value in apple store to pay a 30% premium on apps they buy. More rent seeking. But that's one of the few cases HN actually agrees with. the 1000s of others out there, people don't blink an eye.