5 ms·

> There is also the "creative destruction problem" where an innovative company is beating an incumbent, but the incumbent happens to be partially owned by party

> There is also the "creative destruction problem" where an innovative company is beating an incumbent, but the incumbent happens to be partially owned by party cadre and leverages its power to shut down the innovator. A country doesn't need authoritarianism to accomplish this. Many democratic countries have a long history of very similar behavior. Even a company with the resources of Google found it difficult to establish their own ISP in the USA. So did local governments within the USA. Famously, Google said it could not have been founded in Britain due to their onerous copyright laws. The incumbent merely needs enough money to shut down the competition; with money comes influence and capability. Different countries require different strategies, all of which need money. If you're in China, you join the party to crush opposition; if you're in the USA, you bribe Congressman to regulate them out of business (or just sue them); if you're in Mexico, you send your armed thugs to kill the leaders.

bobthepanda 6y ago
Authoritarianism lowers the bar for the effort that it takes this kind of thing to happen though. It takes a lot more money and effort to do it in a system where power is less concentrated than one where it is centralized since there are more actors you have to coordinate with.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- georgeplusplus 6y ago
  This simple fact is constantly overlooked by people who wish To expand government to stamp out corruption when the corruption lies in the centralization of power.
  - not_kurt_godel 6y ago
    And it's likewise often overlooked by those who oppose regulation who fail to recognize when power is centralized by corporations which are even less accountable than a democratic government.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > which are even less accountable than a democratic government. I've never seen a politician 'held accountable' for doing something I don't like in a democracy. I'll pick out George W. Bush who (with massive public support) charged in to the Middle East, glassed one or two countries, set the US up for 20 years so far of ruinously expensive wars. He served two full terms. I might have seen an article sometime recently that he had taken up painting and is pretty good at it. What level of accountability am I expecting him to be held to for that? I think those may have been some of the worst political actions taken in my lifetime. When you say "less accountable" - what do you think shows a democratic government being held accountable? I like democracy, but I don't think the government is accountable. Corporations are actually held accountable. If they screw up, the owners can lose out massively. Executives too through incentive programs.
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        GWB didn't act alone or in a vacuum. 9/11 provided a lot of political leeway. That said, the US does have term limits to at least blunt the damage when the balance of power and even impeachment don't suffice.
        roenxi 6y ago
        Ok sure, but that poster said - quoting again - "which are even less accountable than a democratic government" So you're arguing that we don't need to hold GWB to account. Fair enough, there were mitigating circumstances. But then in what sense is the government accountable for anything? Corporations and government are both held to account through the courts, I suppose. But the government will often change the rules so it isn't accountable (eg, wiretapping scandals), so that is a weaker form of accountability than a corporation faces. Is there an actual meaty argument to the idea that governments are more accountable than corporations? Because I'm drawing blanks on the times when a government was held to account for anything in a manner that wouldn't also apply to corporate actions.
        matt_kantor 6y ago
  - smsm42 6y ago
    Expanding the government to fight corruption is like drinking vodka to stop alcoholism.
ksec 6y ago
>Google said it could not have been founded in Britain due to their onerous copyright laws. Took me sometime to find a source for this. For those who are interested [1], although it was not directly from Google's Founder / CEO [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/14/cameron-copyright-review-google-model-small-outfits-wary https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/14/cameron-copyri...
cynusx 6y ago
Depends, what you described in democracies is called "regulatory capture" and is usually only possible because politicians have a tendency to regulate and then rely on existing big players to find a regulation consensus. Notably absent of those advisory boards are non-existing future companies. It's relatively rare for regulation to kill off businesses in democracies.. at most it's to boost barriers to entry. In China and Mexico where the rule of law is selectively applied, incumbents do kill competition outright.
phkahler 6y ago
>> Even a company with the resources of Google found it difficult to establish their own ISP in the USA That's because other companies were using their control over government to prevent it. We need a system where government actually governs and yet doesn't directly control or get influenced by companies. I have no idea what that looks like.
simonh 6y ago
Democracy and the rule of law provide a considerable level of predictability. Google knew they couldn't work in the UK, but knew that they could succeed in California. Not everywhere needs to be conducive to every type of business or opportunity, as long as people and capital are free to flow to the places they can be effectively used for a given purpose. Fundamentally Capitalism is simply individual equal freedom of action within the law, freedom of association and respect for property rights. All the rest of capitalism just flows from respect for those basic principles. The problem with authoritarianism is that not only does it have all the regulatory limiting problems of free capital democracies, but you also can't even rely on those rules, at all, because a leader can overrule them at a whim at any time.
- mcny 6y ago
  » Google knew they couldn't work in the UK, but knew that they could succeed in California. Sort of tangentially related, this reminds me of a story (not sure if it is true, I don't even remember the source for it) that movie-making became centered in California because the creative people wanted to not be forced to follow some onerous patents of camera manufacturers or something. Edit: Wikipedia article for Hollywood also says this: » In the early 1900s, most motion picture patents were held by Thomas Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company in New Jersey, and filmmakers were often sued to stop their productions. To escape this, filmmakers began moving out west to Los Angeles, where attempts to enforce Edison's patents were easier to evade. The citation is http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3871.html http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3871.html
michaelbrave 6y ago
a good example of similar happening in the USA of the past would be Tucker Automobiles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_48 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_48

bobthepanda 6y ago

Authoritarianism lowers the bar for the effort that it takes this kind of thing to happen though. It takes a lot more money and effort to do it in a system where power is less concentrated than one where it is centralized since there are more actors you have to coordinate with.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
georgeplusplus 6y ago
This simple fact is constantly overlooked by people who wish To expand government to stamp out corruption when the corruption lies in the centralization of power.
- not_kurt_godel 6y ago
  And it's likewise often overlooked by those who oppose regulation who fail to recognize when power is centralized by corporations which are even less accountable than a democratic government.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > which are even less accountable than a democratic government. I've never seen a politician 'held accountable' for doing something I don't like in a democracy. I'll pick out George W. Bush who (with massive public support) charged in to the Middle East, glassed one or two countries, set the US up for 20 years so far of ruinously expensive wars. He served two full terms. I might have seen an article sometime recently that he had taken up painting and is pretty good at it. What level of accountability am I expecting him to be held to for that? I think those may have been some of the worst political actions taken in my lifetime. When you say "less accountable" - what do you think shows a democratic government being held accountable? I like democracy, but I don't think the government is accountable. Corporations are actually held accountable. If they screw up, the owners can lose out massively. Executives too through incentive programs.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      GWB didn't act alone or in a vacuum. 9/11 provided a lot of political leeway. That said, the US does have term limits to at least blunt the damage when the balance of power and even impeachment don't suffice.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        Ok sure, but that poster said - quoting again - "which are even less accountable than a democratic government" So you're arguing that we don't need to hold GWB to account. Fair enough, there were mitigating circumstances. But then in what sense is the government accountable for anything? Corporations and government are both held to account through the courts, I suppose. But the government will often change the rules so it isn't accountable (eg, wiretapping scandals), so that is a weaker form of accountability than a corporation faces. Is there an actual meaty argument to the idea that governments are more accountable than corporations? Because I'm drawing blanks on the times when a government was held to account for anything in a manner that wouldn't also apply to corporate actions.
        matt_kantor 6y ago
- smsm42 6y ago
  Expanding the government to fight corruption is like drinking vodka to stop alcoholism.

ksec 6y ago

>Google said it could not have been founded in Britain due to their onerous copyright laws. Took me sometime to find a source for this. For those who are interested [1], although it was not directly from Google's Founder / CEO [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/14/cameron-copyright-review-google-model-small-outfits-wary https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/14/cameron-copyri...

cynusx 6y ago

Depends, what you described in democracies is called "regulatory capture" and is usually only possible because politicians have a tendency to regulate and then rely on existing big players to find a regulation consensus. Notably absent of those advisory boards are non-existing future companies. It's relatively rare for regulation to kill off businesses in democracies.. at most it's to boost barriers to entry. In China and Mexico where the rule of law is selectively applied, incumbents do kill competition outright.

phkahler 6y ago

>> Even a company with the resources of Google found it difficult to establish their own ISP in the USA That's because other companies were using their control over government to prevent it. We need a system where government actually governs and yet doesn't directly control or get influenced by companies. I have no idea what that looks like.

simonh 6y ago

Democracy and the rule of law provide a considerable level of predictability. Google knew they couldn't work in the UK, but knew that they could succeed in California. Not everywhere needs to be conducive to every type of business or opportunity, as long as people and capital are free to flow to the places they can be effectively used for a given purpose. Fundamentally Capitalism is simply individual equal freedom of action within the law, freedom of association and respect for property rights. All the rest of capitalism just flows from respect for those basic principles. The problem with authoritarianism is that not only does it have all the regulatory limiting problems of free capital democracies, but you also can't even rely on those rules, at all, because a leader can overrule them at a whim at any time.

mcny 6y ago
» Google knew they couldn't work in the UK, but knew that they could succeed in California. Sort of tangentially related, this reminds me of a story (not sure if it is true, I don't even remember the source for it) that movie-making became centered in California because the creative people wanted to not be forced to follow some onerous patents of camera manufacturers or something. Edit: Wikipedia article for Hollywood also says this: » In the early 1900s, most motion picture patents were held by Thomas Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company in New Jersey, and filmmakers were often sued to stop their productions. To escape this, filmmakers began moving out west to Los Angeles, where attempts to enforce Edison's patents were easier to evade. The citation is http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3871.html http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3871.html

michaelbrave 6y ago

a good example of similar happening in the USA of the past would be Tucker Automobiles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_48 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_48