4 ms·

billionaires are criminal by definition, and their existence proves the absence of a (econ 101 style) market in whatever industry they came from. we can only fi

by rStar 6y ago

billionaires are criminal by definition, and their existence proves the absence of a (econ 101 style) market in whatever industry they came from. we can only fix this problem through efficient regulation of monopolies.

Guthur 6y ago
I wouldn't even know where to start with that, I'm sorry but I must simply say it's utter gibberish.
speedplane 6y ago
> Billionaires are criminal by definition Sadly, billionaires aren’t criminal by definition (no such laws), but the existence of billionaires sure does cut against the idea of a perfect market (in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits).
- rStar 6y ago
  in a functional market, competition for profit exists. because billionaires exist, we know they control their market, squeezing out competitors through artificial and illegal means.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    > squeezing out competitors through artificial and illegal means. Their means are legal. They make them legal though "regulation". It is why they do not get fines (most of the time) nor are in jail.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits I'm curious what your definition of a perfect market is. In free markets, without profits the companies will fail.
  - speedplane 6y ago
    There is a mathematically based definition of a perfect market. It’s only an approximation of real life, but it’s heavily used: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      Your reference says: "Companies earn just enough profit to stay in business" which contradicts your comment: "in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits"
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        I think the idea is that in the limit T->inf the profits go to zero.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        That's not what the referenced definition of a "perfect" market says. Besides, who would run a business that could not make a profit?
        mhh__ 6y ago
        I've had this exact discussion with friends who study economics. The idea is that in a market with perfect flow of information (i.e. fairy land) then the profits tend to zero, I don't think this is a model for much of the real world if any.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > then the profits tend to zero That makes as much sense as people working for nothing. I don't see any explanation for profits tending to zero, either. I wonder why "perfect" markets are even a thing. It has no applicability to actual markets. It offers no insight on actual markets, and offers no useful predictions about markets. It's about as useful a model as the Monopoly game is - i.e. none. I've seen many people claim that a "perfect" market is a requirement for free markets to work well. This isn't remotely true. "Perfect" markets and free markets have nothing in common. "Perfect" markets just seem to be a strawman put forth by people who argue that since "perfect" markets are unachievable, therefore free markets are no good.
- vixen99 6y ago
  So which particular billionaire-funded business adventures would you like to see abandoned or especially, never begun?
- bluecalm 6y ago
  That assumes infinite number of competent, driven and well funded market participants that jump on every opportunity or inefficiency . The real world is anything but that. There is very small number of competent driven people and vast ocean of opportunity and value waiting to be created. If you deliver the value people will be more than happy to pay. Maybe someone competes with you if the field is ripe enough or maybe not if they choose another one. There is a lot of fruit out there and we are far far away from the point where people need to compete for the same one.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    Have you seen the realstate market? Competition is all there is. The food market, probably the oldest market, is full of startups and more enter the space each year. There is no shortage of untapped competition in any industry.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Unfortunately it's not possible to get major cities to work, at least not the Californian ones. The second best answer is to build more major cities. The irony of course is that the next major city won't be in California either.
- Udik 6y ago
  Definition of a "perfect" market, first line: "All firms sell an identical product" Seems one of those cases where perfect doesn't mean anything like "good". It's entirely irrelevant to the case at point.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    It is the whole point. By "definition", if it's being bought in a "perfect-free-market" it is only because it's been deemed good enough.
gretch 6y ago
Your hyperbole is going completely off the far deep end "billionaires are criminal by definition" What definitions are you using? When you talk like this, you're hardly helping your cause. Ppl just dismiss you as intellectually dishonest
- rStar 6y ago
  criminal because otherwise competitors could actually compete, rather than be subject to illegal monopolistic forces. Criminals, all.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    Most, if not all monopolies are government granted in one way or another. As far as criminality goes, billionaires are the least criminals of us all because they've been able to use and sometimes change the law to make them not fall into the definition of criminality. In short, what's needed is less "regulation" as it is the main defense mechanism monopolies employ to stay monopolies.
bluecalm 6y ago
So let's look at one random tech Billionaire: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Persson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Persson -creates a product using open, well known technology in highly competitive, easy to enter video game industry -people love the game -he becomes a billionaire Can you point out what kind of regulation could have stopped this criminal by definition from completing his evil plan?
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Max wealth limit of 999 million, might do it. Everything else is taxed at 100%.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    To be fair, this would encourage super rich people to have more children. Not a bad outcome but it's still not the silver bullet that everyone thinks it is.
gher-shyu3i 6y ago
No it doesn't. I'm not pro socialism, communism, nor capitalism (as defined today). However, we can have proper societies with great standards of living, while having extremely rich people (i.e. billionaires). It's been done in the past, and no reason why it can't be replicated other than people not wanting to address the true underlying causes of the messed up financial system we live in today.
imtringued 6y ago
>their existence proves the absence of a (econ 101 style) market in whatever industry they came from. Actually, it proves that a single company can serve an entire market and by that extension a single CEO can serve an entire market. It's not that the CEO is super productive, it's just that there is no need for a second CEO. You're right about monopolies though. One single company serving an entire market will just cause inefficiency over the long term.

by rStar 6y ago

Guthur 6y ago

I wouldn't even know where to start with that, I'm sorry but I must simply say it's utter gibberish.

speedplane 6y ago

> Billionaires are criminal by definition Sadly, billionaires aren’t criminal by definition (no such laws), but the existence of billionaires sure does cut against the idea of a perfect market (in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits).

rStar 6y ago
in a functional market, competition for profit exists. because billionaires exist, we know they control their market, squeezing out competitors through artificial and illegal means.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  > squeezing out competitors through artificial and illegal means. Their means are legal. They make them legal though "regulation". It is why they do not get fines (most of the time) nor are in jail.
WalterBright 6y ago
> in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits I'm curious what your definition of a perfect market is. In free markets, without profits the companies will fail.
- speedplane 6y ago
  There is a mathematically based definition of a perfect market. It’s only an approximation of real life, but it’s heavily used: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Your reference says: "Companies earn just enough profit to stay in business" which contradicts your comment: "in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits"
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      I think the idea is that in the limit T->inf the profits go to zero.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        That's not what the referenced definition of a "perfect" market says. Besides, who would run a business that could not make a profit?
        mhh__ 6y ago
        I've had this exact discussion with friends who study economics. The idea is that in a market with perfect flow of information (i.e. fairy land) then the profits tend to zero, I don't think this is a model for much of the real world if any.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > then the profits tend to zero That makes as much sense as people working for nothing. I don't see any explanation for profits tending to zero, either. I wonder why "perfect" markets are even a thing. It has no applicability to actual markets. It offers no insight on actual markets, and offers no useful predictions about markets. It's about as useful a model as the Monopoly game is - i.e. none. I've seen many people claim that a "perfect" market is a requirement for free markets to work well. This isn't remotely true. "Perfect" markets and free markets have nothing in common. "Perfect" markets just seem to be a strawman put forth by people who argue that since "perfect" markets are unachievable, therefore free markets are no good.
vixen99 6y ago
So which particular billionaire-funded business adventures would you like to see abandoned or especially, never begun?
bluecalm 6y ago
That assumes infinite number of competent, driven and well funded market participants that jump on every opportunity or inefficiency . The real world is anything but that. There is very small number of competent driven people and vast ocean of opportunity and value waiting to be created. If you deliver the value people will be more than happy to pay. Maybe someone competes with you if the field is ripe enough or maybe not if they choose another one. There is a lot of fruit out there and we are far far away from the point where people need to compete for the same one.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  Have you seen the realstate market? Competition is all there is. The food market, probably the oldest market, is full of startups and more enter the space each year. There is no shortage of untapped competition in any industry.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Unfortunately it's not possible to get major cities to work, at least not the Californian ones. The second best answer is to build more major cities. The irony of course is that the next major city won't be in California either.
Udik 6y ago
Definition of a "perfect" market, first line: "All firms sell an identical product" Seems one of those cases where perfect doesn't mean anything like "good". It's entirely irrelevant to the case at point.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  It is the whole point. By "definition", if it's being bought in a "perfect-free-market" it is only because it's been deemed good enough.

gretch 6y ago

Your hyperbole is going completely off the far deep end "billionaires are criminal by definition" What definitions are you using? When you talk like this, you're hardly helping your cause. Ppl just dismiss you as intellectually dishonest

rStar 6y ago
criminal because otherwise competitors could actually compete, rather than be subject to illegal monopolistic forces. Criminals, all.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  Most, if not all monopolies are government granted in one way or another. As far as criminality goes, billionaires are the least criminals of us all because they've been able to use and sometimes change the law to make them not fall into the definition of criminality. In short, what's needed is less "regulation" as it is the main defense mechanism monopolies employ to stay monopolies.

bluecalm 6y ago

So let's look at one random tech Billionaire: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Persson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Persson -creates a product using open, well known technology in highly competitive, easy to enter video game industry -people love the game -he becomes a billionaire Can you point out what kind of regulation could have stopped this criminal by definition from completing his evil plan?

gremlinsinc 6y ago
Max wealth limit of 999 million, might do it. Everything else is taxed at 100%.
- imtringued 6y ago
  To be fair, this would encourage super rich people to have more children. Not a bad outcome but it's still not the silver bullet that everyone thinks it is.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago

No it doesn't. I'm not pro socialism, communism, nor capitalism (as defined today). However, we can have proper societies with great standards of living, while having extremely rich people (i.e. billionaires). It's been done in the past, and no reason why it can't be replicated other than people not wanting to address the true underlying causes of the messed up financial system we live in today.

imtringued 6y ago

>their existence proves the absence of a (econ 101 style) market in whatever industry they came from. Actually, it proves that a single company can serve an entire market and by that extension a single CEO can serve an entire market. It's not that the CEO is super productive, it's just that there is no need for a second CEO. You're right about monopolies though. One single company serving an entire market will just cause inefficiency over the long term.