4 ms·

> There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking” How is the theory of market power combined with everything else we know not that? [1] It seems o

> There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking” How is the theory of market power combined with everything else we know not that? [1] It seems obviously in the firms interest even if their primary motive were still profit since it ensures increased rates of profit (modulo risk of a regulatory smackdown.) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power

jgalt212 5y ago
yes, but if you get powerful enough there is no regulatory smackdown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34397551-the-chickenshit-club https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34397551-the-chickenshit...
huitzitziltzin 5y ago
Market power is a well defined economic concept. I am an economist who works on that issue. If he wants to talk about market power I think that would be great! (Though not as an explanation for this case.) Indeed, I said I thought he was ignorant of economics in part bc he brought up this weird “capital as power” thing which has nothing to do (AFAICT) with actual market power as we understand it. Furthermore, in this particular case I think you get a much better, more direct explanation of Google’s behavior vis-a-vis its acquisition of Motorola via intellectual property and patent litigation than via market power, let alone via “capital as power”.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  They seem to be economists too [1] and it seems like he's deferring to them. I haven't read their work but the way Cory presented it makes it sound like it's just basic Machiavellian realism[2] applied to economics and if that's all it is then I'm all in. Is there something specific you didn't like or just that the theory isn't presently popular among economists? What's your alternative story of what happened here? I'm not sure how intellectual property and patent litigation would conflict with what he's saying. 1. https://capitalaspower.com/about/ https://capitalaspower.com/about/ 2. https://iep.utm.edu/polreal/ https://iep.utm.edu/polreal/
Nasrudith 5y ago
The idea of powerseeking is an outright reification of power that conflates definitions by assuming the worst possible light. Influncing the market doesn't mean complete control over production - that is an obsession of Marx's ideological descendants. Just influncing it in either direction for any reason works. Providing it cheaper than market rates or convincing others to pay more also qualifies. If everyone in a village economy is capable of growing their own food on the side for about the equivalent of say $15/bushel averaged out but you have the specialization, mechanization to grow it for $1/bushel margins. Even if you wind up the only one growing food others still have their fields. If we call increasing efficiency "power seeking" then the term has lost any and all meaning and only serves to confuse and make the most mundane actions sinister by interpreting them in the most conspiratorial light. If you drink commodity coffee in the morning you actively to exploit the rural poor, if you go with more expensive fair trade coffee you are engaged in conspicious consumption of veblem goods while people starve, and if you just drink water you are trying to starve the rural poor.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  What definitions do you believe are conflated? What "worst possible light" do you believe is being assumed? I don't think influencing the market means complete control over production. I don't know how you see that idea as inherited from Marx though and if it were, it would be fallacious to reject it on those grounds. To be clear though the authors that Cory is citing reject Marx in the first pages of their book and I myself have no interest in Marx other than historical. We don't call increasing efficiency "power seeking." Yes, I think many anti-capitalists would respond to that by saying that "there is no ethical consumption in capitalism" and that these problems cannot be solved by consumer choices.
- saghm 5y ago
  > If we call increasing efficiency "power seeking" then the term has lost any and all meaning and only serves to confuse and make the most mundane actions sinister by interpreting them in the most conspiratorial light. Sure, but simply calling an acquisition like the one discussed in the article "increasing efficiency" interprets it the best possible light, which seems equally in need justification.

jgalt212 5y ago

yes, but if you get powerful enough there is no regulatory smackdown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34397551-the-chickenshit-club https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34397551-the-chickenshit...

huitzitziltzin 5y ago

Market power is a well defined economic concept. I am an economist who works on that issue. If he wants to talk about market power I think that would be great! (Though not as an explanation for this case.) Indeed, I said I thought he was ignorant of economics in part bc he brought up this weird “capital as power” thing which has nothing to do (AFAICT) with actual market power as we understand it. Furthermore, in this particular case I think you get a much better, more direct explanation of Google’s behavior vis-a-vis its acquisition of Motorola via intellectual property and patent litigation than via market power, let alone via “capital as power”.

guerrilla 5y ago
They seem to be economists too [1] and it seems like he's deferring to them. I haven't read their work but the way Cory presented it makes it sound like it's just basic Machiavellian realism[2] applied to economics and if that's all it is then I'm all in. Is there something specific you didn't like or just that the theory isn't presently popular among economists? What's your alternative story of what happened here? I'm not sure how intellectual property and patent litigation would conflict with what he's saying. 1. https://capitalaspower.com/about/ https://capitalaspower.com/about/ 2. https://iep.utm.edu/polreal/ https://iep.utm.edu/polreal/

Nasrudith 5y ago

The idea of powerseeking is an outright reification of power that conflates definitions by assuming the worst possible light. Influncing the market doesn't mean complete control over production - that is an obsession of Marx's ideological descendants. Just influncing it in either direction for any reason works. Providing it cheaper than market rates or convincing others to pay more also qualifies. If everyone in a village economy is capable of growing their own food on the side for about the equivalent of say $15/bushel averaged out but you have the specialization, mechanization to grow it for $1/bushel margins. Even if you wind up the only one growing food others still have their fields. If we call increasing efficiency "power seeking" then the term has lost any and all meaning and only serves to confuse and make the most mundane actions sinister by interpreting them in the most conspiratorial light. If you drink commodity coffee in the morning you actively to exploit the rural poor, if you go with more expensive fair trade coffee you are engaged in conspicious consumption of veblem goods while people starve, and if you just drink water you are trying to starve the rural poor.

guerrilla 5y ago
What definitions do you believe are conflated? What "worst possible light" do you believe is being assumed? I don't think influencing the market means complete control over production. I don't know how you see that idea as inherited from Marx though and if it were, it would be fallacious to reject it on those grounds. To be clear though the authors that Cory is citing reject Marx in the first pages of their book and I myself have no interest in Marx other than historical. We don't call increasing efficiency "power seeking." Yes, I think many anti-capitalists would respond to that by saying that "there is no ethical consumption in capitalism" and that these problems cannot be solved by consumer choices.
saghm 5y ago
> If we call increasing efficiency "power seeking" then the term has lost any and all meaning and only serves to confuse and make the most mundane actions sinister by interpreting them in the most conspiratorial light. Sure, but simply calling an acquisition like the one discussed in the article "increasing efficiency" interprets it the best possible light, which seems equally in need justification.