5 ms·

There's a very easy precedent for this. Just widen anti-trust. Back when we actually imagined that government could stand up to powerful companies, we dealt wi

by rland 6y ago

There's a very easy precedent for this. Just widen anti-trust. Back when we actually imagined that government could stand up to powerful companies, we dealt with the Railroads with the tools of anti-trust. The situation was almost comically similar: + New, hyped technology; + Which received huge capital investment from newly printed money; + And which lent itself to a natural monopoly; + Which crushed competitors; + By offering to buy them for high prices; + Or by severely undercutting competitors We already did this, we already solved this problem. Issue is that it happened before any of us were born. So I guess we have to go through the pain of learning this lesson all over again. It should be plainly obvious that we haven't even really started, as evidenced by the plaintive "bUt WhAt Do wE DO aBoUT tEcH!?" cry that comes out every time these companies flex their muscle.

simonh 6y ago
There’s nothing wrong with buying competitors or offering lower prices by themselves. That’s fine. The problem with railroads is they impose a heavy cost on society by occupying a lot of territory. Railroads are noisy, polluting, obstruct highways and other transport and infrastructure. Every town wants a railway, but no town wants two competing mutually redundant railways providing the same service with two sets of track and stations. Many other utilities tend to natural monopolies in similar ways such as telephone service, especially to rural areas, but railways are an extreme case. Online some network effects can create natural monopolies because users get benefits from being on the same platform as all the other users. It’s a very different dynamic though and different platforms can cater to different communities and use cases with complementary value. Twitter and Facebook for eg. They don’t impose a cost on the public in the way railways do either.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  No. Offering Lower prices than is economically sustainable and viable is predatory and anticompetitive. In international trade it is called “dumping” and is illegal. Just because companies are getting away with it doesn’t mean it’s ok.
  - fractionalhare 6y ago
    I don't know, I found the argument about competing railways in one town compelling. What if I as a consumer like the "dumping"? What if most of us do?
    - calvano915 6y ago
      People are totally willing for cheaply made furniture, appliances, etc.
      - noizejoy 6y ago
        That’s not dumping. This is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
        calvano915 6y ago
        While the means may be different the goals are the same: "The objective of dumping is to increase market share in a foreign market by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation where the exporter will be able to unilaterally dictate price and quality of the product".
        noizejoy 6y ago
        The word “dumping” in this context is a well defined term, not a colloquial English word. Making cheap products from cheap materials (at a presumed profit) isn’t the same as loss-making pricing schemes even if the high level motivation to beat competitors is the same.
    - noizejoy 6y ago
      > What if I as a consumer like the "dumping"? What if as consumer you benefit for a little while until all competition is dead - and then prices increase beyond prior levels? Will you still like “dumping” then?
- roughly 6y ago
  > Twitter and Facebook for eg. They don’t impose a cost on the public in the way railways do either. That's an interesting take after the last couple years...
  - simonh 6y ago
    I understand what you mean, but I have a natural aversion to blaming the messenger. We're all personally responsible for what we say and do.
    - andrepd 6y ago
      In an age of hyper-sophisticated algorithms for which our puny mammal brains are no match, I think that's less and less true.
    - latexr 6y ago
      > but I have a natural aversion to blaming the messenger. The messengers in question decide which messages you see and tailor their deliveries to the one which will increase your outrage because that’s what keeps you asking for more. All so they can keep slipping in a few more adverts others pay for. These messengers aren’t neutral, thus not exempt from blame.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
RachelF 6y ago
It is very hard for DropBox to compete against the free file storage offerings like Google Drive. iCloud and OneDrive are integrated into the operating system now too, too.
alistairSH 6y ago
Issue is that [anti-trust actions against railroads] happened before any of us were born. Is it that, or is it because we're all so dependent on the market (for retirements funds, etc), that we're afraid to rock the boat? That would tend to indicate that anti-trust action needs to start well before the point where we're all too invested in AAPL/MSFT/GOOGL to want change.

by rland 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

There’s nothing wrong with buying competitors or offering lower prices by themselves. That’s fine. The problem with railroads is they impose a heavy cost on society by occupying a lot of territory. Railroads are noisy, polluting, obstruct highways and other transport and infrastructure. Every town wants a railway, but no town wants two competing mutually redundant railways providing the same service with two sets of track and stations. Many other utilities tend to natural monopolies in similar ways such as telephone service, especially to rural areas, but railways are an extreme case. Online some network effects can create natural monopolies because users get benefits from being on the same platform as all the other users. It’s a very different dynamic though and different platforms can cater to different communities and use cases with complementary value. Twitter and Facebook for eg. They don’t impose a cost on the public in the way railways do either.

digitaltrees 6y ago
No. Offering Lower prices than is economically sustainable and viable is predatory and anticompetitive. In international trade it is called “dumping” and is illegal. Just because companies are getting away with it doesn’t mean it’s ok.
- fractionalhare 6y ago
  I don't know, I found the argument about competing railways in one town compelling. What if I as a consumer like the "dumping"? What if most of us do?
  - calvano915 6y ago
    People are totally willing for cheaply made furniture, appliances, etc.
    - noizejoy 6y ago
      That’s not dumping. This is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
      - calvano915 6y ago
        While the means may be different the goals are the same: "The objective of dumping is to increase market share in a foreign market by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation where the exporter will be able to unilaterally dictate price and quality of the product".
        noizejoy 6y ago
        The word “dumping” in this context is a well defined term, not a colloquial English word. Making cheap products from cheap materials (at a presumed profit) isn’t the same as loss-making pricing schemes even if the high level motivation to beat competitors is the same.
  - noizejoy 6y ago
    > What if I as a consumer like the "dumping"? What if as consumer you benefit for a little while until all competition is dead - and then prices increase beyond prior levels? Will you still like “dumping” then?
roughly 6y ago
> Twitter and Facebook for eg. They don’t impose a cost on the public in the way railways do either. That's an interesting take after the last couple years...
- simonh 6y ago
  I understand what you mean, but I have a natural aversion to blaming the messenger. We're all personally responsible for what we say and do.
  - andrepd 6y ago
    In an age of hyper-sophisticated algorithms for which our puny mammal brains are no match, I think that's less and less true.
  - latexr 6y ago
    > but I have a natural aversion to blaming the messenger. The messengers in question decide which messages you see and tailor their deliveries to the one which will increase your outrage because that’s what keeps you asking for more. All so they can keep slipping in a few more adverts others pay for. These messengers aren’t neutral, thus not exempt from blame.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

RachelF 6y ago

It is very hard for DropBox to compete against the free file storage offerings like Google Drive. iCloud and OneDrive are integrated into the operating system now too, too.

alistairSH 6y ago

Issue is that [anti-trust actions against railroads] happened before any of us were born. Is it that, or is it because we're all so dependent on the market (for retirements funds, etc), that we're afraid to rock the boat? That would tend to indicate that anti-trust action needs to start well before the point where we're all too invested in AAPL/MSFT/GOOGL to want change.