3 ms·

Isn't this the sort of meta-hack that should(or is?) be illegal? I thought selling your services at a loss to specifically drive competitors out of markets was

Isn't this the sort of meta-hack that should(or is?) be illegal? I thought selling your services at a loss to specifically drive competitors out of markets was illegal? If it's not, should it be? Once capital has accumulated, there is really no effective way to compete if these practices are allowed.

anotherforsure 6y ago
That's why the title doesn't fit. Unfair advantage is raw capitalism, not a distortion of it. What you're talking about is government interference in the markets, which is a form of socialism, which is a big no no in our society.
- codekilla 6y ago
  Government intervention in our markets is the rule, not the exception. Whether we call it ‘socialism’ or ‘stabilization’ is simply a matter of who is making the sales pitch.
- etripe 6y ago
  Why do so many people confuse supply-side economics propaganda with reality? Government interference in the market isn't socialism, it's regulation. It's not socialism when the government ensures that companies have to compete fairly amongst eachother, minimise environmental hazards, safety test pharmaceuticals or respect labour laws. Even anti-trust laws or price controls aren't socialist. They're collectivistic, because they look after the greater good, but so are charities, some churches and , ideally, the justice system. None of those are "socialist". Socialism (and only the statist variety, at that) is when government owns (part of) the means of production, and not even always in those cases, either. The US postal service isn't "socialist", it's a state-run public service. NASA isn't "socialist", it's a government agency funded with public funds.
  - schwartzworld 6y ago
    Because Americans have been propogandized their entire lives
voodootrucker 6y ago
It's called "dumping", and yes it is. But in America the law is used to protect the rich from the poor, not the other way around. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dumping.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dumping.asp
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
I don't think that's how it's presented. It's running at a loss now to grow and be profitable later. That could be by driving out your competition, or it could be like facebook, where a gazillion dollars went in before the ad money came online. The story they tell themselves it the latter. The ecosystem it creates, however, doesn't matter whether it's the former or latter. It drives out competition because VC's can make up the difference in a lack of profit.

anotherforsure 6y ago

That's why the title doesn't fit. Unfair advantage is raw capitalism, not a distortion of it. What you're talking about is government interference in the markets, which is a form of socialism, which is a big no no in our society.

codekilla 6y ago
Government intervention in our markets is the rule, not the exception. Whether we call it ‘socialism’ or ‘stabilization’ is simply a matter of who is making the sales pitch.
etripe 6y ago
Why do so many people confuse supply-side economics propaganda with reality? Government interference in the market isn't socialism, it's regulation. It's not socialism when the government ensures that companies have to compete fairly amongst eachother, minimise environmental hazards, safety test pharmaceuticals or respect labour laws. Even anti-trust laws or price controls aren't socialist. They're collectivistic, because they look after the greater good, but so are charities, some churches and , ideally, the justice system. None of those are "socialist". Socialism (and only the statist variety, at that) is when government owns (part of) the means of production, and not even always in those cases, either. The US postal service isn't "socialist", it's a state-run public service. NASA isn't "socialist", it's a government agency funded with public funds.
- schwartzworld 6y ago
  Because Americans have been propogandized their entire lives

voodootrucker 6y ago

It's called "dumping", and yes it is. But in America the law is used to protect the rich from the poor, not the other way around. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dumping.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dumping.asp

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

I don't think that's how it's presented. It's running at a loss now to grow and be profitable later. That could be by driving out your competition, or it could be like facebook, where a gazillion dollars went in before the ad money came online. The story they tell themselves it the latter. The ecosystem it creates, however, doesn't matter whether it's the former or latter. It drives out competition because VC's can make up the difference in a lack of profit.