3 ms·

You making great points, I never thought about this way, it is compelling idea. If economics taught me anything is that there is always trade-offs; what are po

by neatze 6y ago

You making great points, I never thought about this way, it is compelling idea. If economics taught me anything is that there is always trade-offs; what are possible trade-offs when there is substantial constrains on monopolies, platforms, and aggregators ?

lukeramsden 6y ago
Things that rely on insane scale to work completely cease to exist, along with the innovation they leave in their wake. Whether this is a bad thing or not is probably subjective.
MontyCarloHall 6y ago
Certain things are only possible at scale. Take Amazon as an example. Its vast scale and vertical integration means that I can purchase something often much more cheaply than any smaller competitor can offer it, and have it shipped and arrive on the same day for a nominal fee (something totally unthinkable even 10 years ago). So while middle class jobs running mom-and-pop retail stores are lost, we may gain a commensurate decrease in the cost of goods. I’m not an economist, so I can’t begin to speculate whether this is a net economic gain. Is it better to have more higher paying jobs but more expensive goods, or fewer higher paying jobs and cheaper goods? Is this a false dichotomy? It’s interesting to note that inflation in the price of pretty much all consumer goods has dramatically lagged income inflation over the last 20 years[0], suggesting that net consumer savings have indeed been substantial. [0] https://www.patientrightsadvocate.org/price-changes-on-selected-us-consumer-goods-and-services-wages https://www.patientrightsadvocate.org/price-changes-on-selec...
- john_moscow 6y ago
  Ironically, the "trinkets in exchange for land" thing happened to the American natives 400 years ago. I think, most people would agree that it didn't pan out as a big win for them. Now a similar thing is happening to the middle class and I don't think enough people will see it this way before it's too late.
Rury 6y ago
>what are possible trade-offs when there is substantial constrains on monopolies, platforms, and aggregators ? The benefits to centralization/aggregation is that things can be made uniform everywhere, which can make things convenient. (e.g. if language A had a monopoly on languages, it would be easy to communicate with others no matter where you go) It then follows that - the downsides to limiting centralization (or encouraging decentralization) is that things are not necessarily uniform everywhere. (e.g. might be difficult to communicate when everyone's speaking different languages everywhere; difficult to get brand X in market Y)

by neatze 6y ago

lukeramsden 6y ago

Things that rely on insane scale to work completely cease to exist, along with the innovation they leave in their wake. Whether this is a bad thing or not is probably subjective.

MontyCarloHall 6y ago

Certain things are only possible at scale. Take Amazon as an example. Its vast scale and vertical integration means that I can purchase something often much more cheaply than any smaller competitor can offer it, and have it shipped and arrive on the same day for a nominal fee (something totally unthinkable even 10 years ago). So while middle class jobs running mom-and-pop retail stores are lost, we may gain a commensurate decrease in the cost of goods. I’m not an economist, so I can’t begin to speculate whether this is a net economic gain. Is it better to have more higher paying jobs but more expensive goods, or fewer higher paying jobs and cheaper goods? Is this a false dichotomy? It’s interesting to note that inflation in the price of pretty much all consumer goods has dramatically lagged income inflation over the last 20 years[0], suggesting that net consumer savings have indeed been substantial. [0] https://www.patientrightsadvocate.org/price-changes-on-selected-us-consumer-goods-and-services-wages https://www.patientrightsadvocate.org/price-changes-on-selec...

john_moscow 6y ago
Ironically, the "trinkets in exchange for land" thing happened to the American natives 400 years ago. I think, most people would agree that it didn't pan out as a big win for them. Now a similar thing is happening to the middle class and I don't think enough people will see it this way before it's too late.

Rury 6y ago

>what are possible trade-offs when there is substantial constrains on monopolies, platforms, and aggregators ? The benefits to centralization/aggregation is that things can be made uniform everywhere, which can make things convenient. (e.g. if language A had a monopoly on languages, it would be easy to communicate with others no matter where you go) It then follows that - the downsides to limiting centralization (or encouraging decentralization) is that things are not necessarily uniform everywhere. (e.g. might be difficult to communicate when everyone's speaking different languages everywhere; difficult to get brand X in market Y)