4 ms·

Thats not at all correct. In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently. This of course assuming a non corrupt government

Thats not at all correct. In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently. This of course assuming a non corrupt government. And thats where I see the actual positive feedback loop: People like you want the government to have more power, with more power there is more room for corruption/lobbyism, people demand even more government power

tonyjstark 6y ago
The same holds truth for powerful companies. Even more so: While a powerful (democratic) government can be controlled by voters, powerful monopolistic companies can't if the government is weak. Now I get the issue with a over-regulating bureaucratic government, but the real world is more complex than 'powerful government is bad'. > In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently Is that so?
postingpals 6y ago
Your second claim has a simple counter-argument: the government has allocated wealth so well in the past 100 years that they are responsible for some major tech innovations (nasa, CERN, every startup that began in a public college) and subsidise private industries that would die without them (Starlink, The corn industry).
- WanderPanda 6y ago
  1. Who defines whats „unnecessary“? 2. So going to the moon / CERN are particularly necessary? Besides that, a counter-argument to this doesn‘t work like: Lets pick some „good“ examples out of a big pool. This has to be viewed through the average and on average governments are beyond terrible at investments (some more than others)
  - ajmadesc 6y ago
    Governments are great at investment. Its just they don't reap the rewards life a firm would. If every company had to 'license' the discoveries and tech funded by taxpayers there wouldn't be much of a private sector.
bhickey 6y ago
> Thats not at all correct. In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently. Under what model? Having more capital at your disposal enables you to stake more and riskier positions, which allows you to outcompete a smaller, but more efficient rival.
piva00 6y ago
> In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently Not without protections for antitrust and other uncompetitive practices. Picture this: Google becomes an even larger behemoth, with their cash they acquire Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Amazon and a few other larger companies (as it's happened in a much smaller scale with IBM and some other old tech companies growing larger and acquiring competitors). There is no pushback from government, they are allowed because they have the cash, they hoard companies and markets. Now you are going to try to compete with this. How? You can be as efficient as possible but you are small, they have trillions, how do you compete? Isn't this a corrupt system by definition? It's ingrained in it, if you have more money you don't really have to be hyper competitive, you can just buy out your competition. So there is a point where government intervention is necessary to keep a fair market, if not then you are bound to the monopolistic tendencies of accumulation of capital.
viztor 6y ago
That's only true when people have money to allocate beyond necessities, and when they all have around the same amount of initial capital.
pkd 6y ago
It is actually very much correct if you believe in data backed research and can read Capital in the 21st Century.

tonyjstark 6y ago

The same holds truth for powerful companies. Even more so: While a powerful (democratic) government can be controlled by voters, powerful monopolistic companies can't if the government is weak. Now I get the issue with a over-regulating bureaucratic government, but the real world is more complex than 'powerful government is bad'. > In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently Is that so?

postingpals 6y ago

Your second claim has a simple counter-argument: the government has allocated wealth so well in the past 100 years that they are responsible for some major tech innovations (nasa, CERN, every startup that began in a public college) and subsidise private industries that would die without them (Starlink, The corn industry).

WanderPanda 6y ago
1. Who defines whats „unnecessary“? 2. So going to the moon / CERN are particularly necessary? Besides that, a counter-argument to this doesn‘t work like: Lets pick some „good“ examples out of a big pool. This has to be viewed through the average and on average governments are beyond terrible at investments (some more than others)
- ajmadesc 6y ago
  Governments are great at investment. Its just they don't reap the rewards life a firm would. If every company had to 'license' the discoveries and tech funded by taxpayers there wouldn't be much of a private sector.

bhickey 6y ago

> Thats not at all correct. In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently. Under what model? Having more capital at your disposal enables you to stake more and riskier positions, which allows you to outcompete a smaller, but more efficient rival.

piva00 6y ago

> In the mid to long term money will move to the person allocating it most efficiently Not without protections for antitrust and other uncompetitive practices. Picture this: Google becomes an even larger behemoth, with their cash they acquire Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Amazon and a few other larger companies (as it's happened in a much smaller scale with IBM and some other old tech companies growing larger and acquiring competitors). There is no pushback from government, they are allowed because they have the cash, they hoard companies and markets. Now you are going to try to compete with this. How? You can be as efficient as possible but you are small, they have trillions, how do you compete? Isn't this a corrupt system by definition? It's ingrained in it, if you have more money you don't really have to be hyper competitive, you can just buy out your competition. So there is a point where government intervention is necessary to keep a fair market, if not then you are bound to the monopolistic tendencies of accumulation of capital.

viztor 6y ago

That's only true when people have money to allocate beyond necessities, and when they all have around the same amount of initial capital.

pkd 6y ago

It is actually very much correct if you believe in data backed research and can read Capital in the 21st Century.