4 ms·

The "free market" once again producing a terrible outcome for everyone except shareholders.

cortexio 5y ago
Although true, there isnt anything better than the free market. The only other alternative i've heard is always either dictatorship by goverment or something where the employees make the decisions. Both way worse than the free market. Any ideas how you would fix this? Personally i would have a free market like we have now, but laws to prevent mega corporations, because they are the problem.
throwaway3699 5y ago
Give a better solution?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rfrey 5y ago
  The system that was in play in the USA up to about 30 years ago, where the government provided a check on the power of corporations? (Not ignoring the capture corporations in the pre-Reagan world had on US foreign policy. However there wasn't the current religious dogma that concentrated corporate power is the only true form of freedom, and companies that went too far in harming societal interests were indeed checked.)
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    I think you're right, but that has nothing to do with free markets. Quite the opposite.
    - minikites 5y ago
      Every newly proposed regulation or check on the power of corporations is met with the argument from conservatives that it will destroy businesses and that the free market would produce a better outcome than regulation.
      - sumtechguy 5y ago
        Beware consultants and lobbyists bearing already prewritten regulations. If you read many of them you will find they little more than a way to lock in more monopoly power. There is a balance but you have to look at side effects. I saw one set that was proposed by 'liberals' the 'conservatives' called it the worst thing ever (it was really bad). Then a year later a bit of flippy floppy in who was elected. Proposed by 'conservatives' the 'liberals' called it the worst thing ever (it still was). It was almost verbatim the same thing. It was written by a lobbyist. My point? Regulation in a company that is trying to establish or defend a monopoly can use it to lock others out more. They will use the rule of law a tool. You have to be careful just throwing it out there and not look at side effects. Regulation like any tool can be used for good or evil.
sumtechguy 5y ago
'free market' is not really the wrong issue here. It was more of 'web 2.0' thing. Hook your service up to this other micro service and get a cool thing. It was one of the main selling points of web2.0. But turns out your service is very dependent on that microservice. I have seen this happen over and over in many products even completely free ones. Service X needs service Y. The people who own the machines for service y say 'hey this is expensive can you chip in?'... crickets. So they turn themselves into a paid for API, or turn it off. Suddenly service X can no longer function even slightly correctly without that service Y. Had a neighbor that was mad someone was bulldozing a bunch of trees behind his house. He had even paid the builder of his house to 'live near trees'. But he however did not own them. The real owner decided something else was to be done with that land. The lesson? You dont own it, you dont control it.

Although true, there isnt anything better than the free market. The only other alternative i've heard is always either dictatorship by goverment or something where the employees make the decisions. Both way worse than the free market. Any ideas how you would fix this? Personally i would have a free market like we have now, but laws to prevent mega corporations, because they are the problem.

throwaway3699 5y ago

Give a better solution?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rfrey 5y ago
The system that was in play in the USA up to about 30 years ago, where the government provided a check on the power of corporations? (Not ignoring the capture corporations in the pre-Reagan world had on US foreign policy. However there wasn't the current religious dogma that concentrated corporate power is the only true form of freedom, and companies that went too far in harming societal interests were indeed checked.)
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  I think you're right, but that has nothing to do with free markets. Quite the opposite.
  - minikites 5y ago
    Every newly proposed regulation or check on the power of corporations is met with the argument from conservatives that it will destroy businesses and that the free market would produce a better outcome than regulation.
    - sumtechguy 5y ago
      Beware consultants and lobbyists bearing already prewritten regulations. If you read many of them you will find they little more than a way to lock in more monopoly power. There is a balance but you have to look at side effects. I saw one set that was proposed by 'liberals' the 'conservatives' called it the worst thing ever (it was really bad). Then a year later a bit of flippy floppy in who was elected. Proposed by 'conservatives' the 'liberals' called it the worst thing ever (it still was). It was almost verbatim the same thing. It was written by a lobbyist. My point? Regulation in a company that is trying to establish or defend a monopoly can use it to lock others out more. They will use the rule of law a tool. You have to be careful just throwing it out there and not look at side effects. Regulation like any tool can be used for good or evil.

sumtechguy 5y ago

'free market' is not really the wrong issue here. It was more of 'web 2.0' thing. Hook your service up to this other micro service and get a cool thing. It was one of the main selling points of web2.0. But turns out your service is very dependent on that microservice. I have seen this happen over and over in many products even completely free ones. Service X needs service Y. The people who own the machines for service y say 'hey this is expensive can you chip in?'... crickets. So they turn themselves into a paid for API, or turn it off. Suddenly service X can no longer function even slightly correctly without that service Y. Had a neighbor that was mad someone was bulldozing a bunch of trees behind his house. He had even paid the builder of his house to 'live near trees'. But he however did not own them. The real owner decided something else was to be done with that land. The lesson? You dont own it, you dont control it.