5 ms·

It’s the government’s job to prevent this anticompetitive behavior but corporate lobbyists have been interfering and will until lobbying is illegal

lokar 6y ago
Our (americans) only hope is the EU.
dbingham 6y ago
A system that requires outside manipulation to keep it functioning is not a good system. The fact that capitalism inevitably converges towards monopoly (and therefor the concentration of wealth and power) with out the intervention of the government (which is often very vulnerable to corruption at the hands of concentrated power and wealth) is effectively a fatal flaw. This is why I am an advocate of free market socialism - a market system where companies are democratically run by their workers and the financiers are limited to a regulated return on the form of interest on their loans. Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. All of these factors will act to keep companies from growing to big and help keep the market in balance. Which benefits the consumers. And in the meantime the fact that the workers call the shots will prevent the kinds of labor abuses that have plagued the capitalist system since its inception.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  How does your system prevent the formation of a monopoly? The employee-run corporation merges with its competitors until there are none left, then charges monopoly prices to customers in order to pay above-market wages to employees. How does that solve the problem?
  - chmod775 6y ago
    Is your parent a time travel comment? Because you asked a question they specifically addressed! Jokes aside they may have edited their comment. HN not showing 'edited' on comments except if you specifically add 'Edit' to your post is a pet peeve of mine. You replied within 9 minutes, edits are common in that time period.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > Is your parent a time travel comment? Because you asked a question they specifically addressed! The explanation doesn't actually address anything: > Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. > Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. Which doesn't really stop it once it merges to a monopoly and has no competitors. > And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. But being a monopoly provides more resources to tackle those other issues, at the expense of the customers, and why do the employees care about them any more than the shareholders would?
      - ardy42 6y ago
        >>>> Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. > It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. No it isn't. Shareholder capitalism is one-share-one-vote, but those shares can and usually are concentrated under the control of a small number of people. The GGGP seems to be talking about a system of one-worker-one-vote, which would prevent that kind of concentration and therefore have a different dynamic. Also, shareholders tend to monomanically pursue maximization of dividends + capital gains over some time horizon, while I'd imagine a worker would care a more diverse range of things.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows Non-sequitur And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. If lobbying applied to Congress is already dirty, imagine applied to less transparent orgs. All of these factors will act to keep companies from growing to big and help keep the market in balance. Which benefits the consumers. Another non-sequitur
khy 6y ago
What would illegal lobbying look like in the US?
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Easy. You are not allowed to donate to political campaigns. In fact, I've often suggested that the real solution is this. Elections and the electoral system are in the public interest, so why not fund it 100% publicly? The FEC sets aside a budget for anyone who gets a certain number of signatures of endorsement. They can spend that, and only that. They get a set amount of time on all TV stations. Nobody is allowed to donate publicly or privately. Elections are argued on their merits not on their budgets. If it's shown to benefit a candidate, it's a crime, and you face civil and potentially criminal penalties.
  - lemonspat 6y ago
    > They can spend that, and only that. They get a set amount of time on all TV stations. That’s naive. Media is owned by a few folks. There’s nothing to stop Murdoch from broadcasting/publishing the names of only the person that Murdoch wants to win. And you’ll never hear about the little Green Party lady that YOU want to win, and you can’t donate to help her out. You can cap TV time for funded spots, but the talking heads on radio and TV will just keep mentioning how great Candidate Y is.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      > That’s naive. Media is owned by a few folks. There’s nothing to stop Murdoch from broadcasting/publishing the names of only the person that Murdoch wants to win. And you’ll never hear about the little Green Party lady that YOU want to win, and you can’t donate to help her out. Yes, there is, make it illegal. > You can cap TV time for funded spots, but the talking heads on radio and TV will just keep mentioning how great Candidate Y is. I'm sure after the FCC issues the first few fines they'll settle right down. At the end of the day, all of these roadblocks can be bowled over, its just a matter of how much you want it.
    - alexfromapex 6y ago
cornell532 6y ago
The right to petition the government is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Petition all you want, but you're not allowed to donate to them or their campaign. That much isn't guaranteed.
  - chihuahua 6y ago
    It seems that it's a matter of interpretation. I thought (but I could be wrong) that the supreme court decided that donating money is "speech" and therefore protected. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that, just that the supreme court seems to have already weighed in on the matter.
    - xref 6y ago
      You’re both right, the Citizens United ruling said cash was speech according to the 1st amendment if it was an “independent expenditure” ie Super PACs etc. You can’t donate unlimited amounts directly to a candidate, but you can to “independent entities”. IANAL so I’m not sure why you can’t just donate it all directly to a candidate, perhaps a different section of the constitution? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      > I thought (but I could be wrong) that the supreme court decided that donating money is "speech" and therefore protected. Yeah and constitution needs to be changed to subject the supreme court to confirmation by the voters every so often.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        It can also be amended to separate money and speech. A constitutional amendment is the way to rectify poor Supreme Court rulings, the way the 14th amendment was brought in specifically to overturn Dred Scott.
slowmovintarget 6y ago
Lobbying is speech. Make it public, not illegal. All donations... public. All meetings... recorded and public. Air it all out. Disinfect it with sunshine. Making it illegal will just make it hidden. It will be worse.

lokar 6y ago

Our (americans) only hope is the EU.

dbingham 6y ago

A system that requires outside manipulation to keep it functioning is not a good system. The fact that capitalism inevitably converges towards monopoly (and therefor the concentration of wealth and power) with out the intervention of the government (which is often very vulnerable to corruption at the hands of concentrated power and wealth) is effectively a fatal flaw. This is why I am an advocate of free market socialism - a market system where companies are democratically run by their workers and the financiers are limited to a regulated return on the form of interest on their loans. Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. All of these factors will act to keep companies from growing to big and help keep the market in balance. Which benefits the consumers. And in the meantime the fact that the workers call the shots will prevent the kinds of labor abuses that have plagued the capitalist system since its inception.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
How does your system prevent the formation of a monopoly? The employee-run corporation merges with its competitors until there are none left, then charges monopoly prices to customers in order to pay above-market wages to employees. How does that solve the problem?
- chmod775 6y ago
  Is your parent a time travel comment? Because you asked a question they specifically addressed! Jokes aside they may have edited their comment. HN not showing 'edited' on comments except if you specifically add 'Edit' to your post is a pet peeve of mine. You replied within 9 minutes, edits are common in that time period.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Is your parent a time travel comment? Because you asked a question they specifically addressed! The explanation doesn't actually address anything: > Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. > Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. Which doesn't really stop it once it merges to a monopoly and has no competitors. > And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. But being a monopoly provides more resources to tackle those other issues, at the expense of the customers, and why do the employees care about them any more than the shareholders would?
    - ardy42 6y ago
      >>>> Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. > It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. No it isn't. Shareholder capitalism is one-share-one-vote, but those shares can and usually are concentrated under the control of a small number of people. The GGGP seems to be talking about a system of one-worker-one-vote, which would prevent that kind of concentration and therefore have a different dynamic. Also, shareholders tend to monomanically pursue maximization of dividends + capital gains over some time horizon, while I'd imagine a worker would care a more diverse range of things.
bassman9000 6y ago
Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows Non-sequitur And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. If lobbying applied to Congress is already dirty, imagine applied to less transparent orgs. All of these factors will act to keep companies from growing to big and help keep the market in balance. Which benefits the consumers. Another non-sequitur

khy 6y ago

What would illegal lobbying look like in the US?

arcticbull 6y ago
Easy. You are not allowed to donate to political campaigns. In fact, I've often suggested that the real solution is this. Elections and the electoral system are in the public interest, so why not fund it 100% publicly? The FEC sets aside a budget for anyone who gets a certain number of signatures of endorsement. They can spend that, and only that. They get a set amount of time on all TV stations. Nobody is allowed to donate publicly or privately. Elections are argued on their merits not on their budgets. If it's shown to benefit a candidate, it's a crime, and you face civil and potentially criminal penalties.
- lemonspat 6y ago
  > They can spend that, and only that. They get a set amount of time on all TV stations. That’s naive. Media is owned by a few folks. There’s nothing to stop Murdoch from broadcasting/publishing the names of only the person that Murdoch wants to win. And you’ll never hear about the little Green Party lady that YOU want to win, and you can’t donate to help her out. You can cap TV time for funded spots, but the talking heads on radio and TV will just keep mentioning how great Candidate Y is.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > That’s naive. Media is owned by a few folks. There’s nothing to stop Murdoch from broadcasting/publishing the names of only the person that Murdoch wants to win. And you’ll never hear about the little Green Party lady that YOU want to win, and you can’t donate to help her out. Yes, there is, make it illegal. > You can cap TV time for funded spots, but the talking heads on radio and TV will just keep mentioning how great Candidate Y is. I'm sure after the FCC issues the first few fines they'll settle right down. At the end of the day, all of these roadblocks can be bowled over, its just a matter of how much you want it.
  - alexfromapex 6y ago

cornell532 6y ago

The right to petition the government is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

arcticbull 6y ago
Petition all you want, but you're not allowed to donate to them or their campaign. That much isn't guaranteed.
- chihuahua 6y ago
  It seems that it's a matter of interpretation. I thought (but I could be wrong) that the supreme court decided that donating money is "speech" and therefore protected. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that, just that the supreme court seems to have already weighed in on the matter.
  - xref 6y ago
    You’re both right, the Citizens United ruling said cash was speech according to the 1st amendment if it was an “independent expenditure” ie Super PACs etc. You can’t donate unlimited amounts directly to a candidate, but you can to “independent entities”. IANAL so I’m not sure why you can’t just donate it all directly to a candidate, perhaps a different section of the constitution? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    > I thought (but I could be wrong) that the supreme court decided that donating money is "speech" and therefore protected. Yeah and constitution needs to be changed to subject the supreme court to confirmation by the voters every so often.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      It can also be amended to separate money and speech. A constitutional amendment is the way to rectify poor Supreme Court rulings, the way the 14th amendment was brought in specifically to overturn Dred Scott.

slowmovintarget 6y ago

Lobbying is speech. Make it public, not illegal. All donations... public. All meetings... recorded and public. Air it all out. Disinfect it with sunshine. Making it illegal will just make it hidden. It will be worse.