5 ms·

A democratically elected government. Look, there is no such thing as a "natural market" that can keep the power of the actors in it in check. The internet was

A democratically elected government. Look, there is no such thing as a "natural market" that can keep the power of the actors in it in check. The internet was the closest thing to a perfect market that has ever existed and all it has produced is overpowered monopoly after overpowered monopoly. If we want a free society, we don't get that by handing power over to the markets. We get that by building the most responsive democracy we can, and then using that to keep power (in all its forms, including business) in check. So who decides which businesses are too powerful? People, elected and held accountable by citizenry at large.

jaredklewis 5y ago
Sure, I am not a libertarian or anything like that. I'm all for good regulation and strong government. However, making good laws and regulations is not easy! The details of these things is incredibly important and can't be solved by some sort of generic market vs government debate. And while I do think government has a role to play, most of our regulations are poorly designed and have been captured by corporate interests. I don't see how the proposed rule could be implemented in a way that would have the desired outcome.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > The details of these things is incredibly important and can't be solved by some sort of generic market vs government debate. > most of our regulations are poorly designed and have been captured by corporate interests Isn't the second comment a generic statement? Do you have specific data? I agree that the details are incredibly important.
  - jaredklewis 5y ago
    Fair enough, I'm generalizing that US regulations are poorly designed, based mostly on my experience with municipal building codes and few niches of finance regulation. But about the issue at hand, I've been specific in my critique: market share is an amorphous concept and thus ill-suited to legislation and a prime opportunity for regulatory capture.
- dbingham 5y ago
  Regulations are like code - buggy and iterative. That's why you need a responsive democracy (which the US decidedly does not have). So when a regulation has bugs, the people can get their representatives to update it. We don't avoid writing code just because it's inevitably buggy and has unintended side effects. Indeed, there's a whole mentality of "move fast and break things" - essentially damn the side effects and full speed ahead - because we, as a sector, recognize that you have to take risks to make the world a better place. Yet, we forget that when it comes to using government power (our collective power) to make laws that shape our world. Now, I'm not a proponent of "move fast and break things" - more, move steadily and make the best decision you can in a reasonable time frame. But "move steadily" is still moving. We can take our time writing legislation and regulations and do our best to get it right, and still also work to build responsive systems so that when it's inevitably buggy we can fix the bugs. As I said in the second sentence, the problem with the US right now is that it was intentionally constructed to be the opposite of a responsive democracy.
  - jaredklewis 5y ago
    Sure, but the first step to evaluating if an idea is "the best decision [we] can [make] in a reasonable time" is to understand what the idea is. So, per all of my questions, how does this idea work? How is market share defined and measured?
SllX 5y ago
So what you want is a command economy? Nah, I’ll pass. Markets are made up of people, they’re not just some abstraction. Governments have good uses, but determining who is participating in what market and how much market share they have or are allowed to have isn’t one of them.
- karpierz 5y ago
  "Command economy" and "unregulated free market" is a false dichotomy.
  - SllX 5y ago
    True. But note two things: 1. The parent is advocating for a powerful form of command over the economy. 2. I am not advocating for lawless markets.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  How do governments prevent monopolies? That's been generally done and supported for over a century.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Well not granting monopolies is a start, but governments grant monopolies all the time in the form of patents, copyright and trademarks. Proving a monopoly exists or are forming could be another way to do so, but so far they have recently made lackluster arguments in Courts of Law on that front. If you then prove a monopoly, can you also then prove that it’s activities are harmful to the people in the marketplace by denying them choices they would otherwise have? Maybe, but probably not very often and certainly not easily.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > not granting monopolies is a start Monopolies are generally not granted, except in exceptional circumstances. The US government didn't grant Microsoft a monopoly in PC operating systems. > Proving a monopoly exists or are forming could be another way to do so, but so far they have recently made lackluster arguments in Courts of Law on that front. What are you referring to?
adolph 5y ago
In the US, "People, elected and held accountable by citizenry at large" found that banks were "too big to fail." They did not restrain "the power of the actors in [the market] in check." What makes you think it'll be different this time?
- sbarre 5y ago
  Plenty of people will argue that the US is not a great example of a functioning democracy where government is held accountable by the citizenry at large. So your example is valid but maybe not for the point you're trying to make?
- dbingham 5y ago
  The US is not a good example of a functioning democracy. Our federal representatives have to represent 700,000 people. The state legislatures get to shape the federal districts, which means the representatives effictively get to pick their voters instead of the other way around. Our senate is grossly undemocratic, giving each state two representatives regardless of population, leading to minority rule. And our presidential election system is expressly anti-democratic. There are lots of good examples of better functioning democracies and a fair amount of theory on reforms that could improve even those (things like ranked choice voting). That's why I said "Build the most responsive democracy we can".
  - adolph 5y ago
    Where would this ”responsive democracy” be built? Libya, Somalia or some other zone of low governance?

jaredklewis 5y ago

Sure, I am not a libertarian or anything like that. I'm all for good regulation and strong government. However, making good laws and regulations is not easy! The details of these things is incredibly important and can't be solved by some sort of generic market vs government debate. And while I do think government has a role to play, most of our regulations are poorly designed and have been captured by corporate interests. I don't see how the proposed rule could be implemented in a way that would have the desired outcome.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 5y ago
> The details of these things is incredibly important and can't be solved by some sort of generic market vs government debate. > most of our regulations are poorly designed and have been captured by corporate interests Isn't the second comment a generic statement? Do you have specific data? I agree that the details are incredibly important.
- jaredklewis 5y ago
  Fair enough, I'm generalizing that US regulations are poorly designed, based mostly on my experience with municipal building codes and few niches of finance regulation. But about the issue at hand, I've been specific in my critique: market share is an amorphous concept and thus ill-suited to legislation and a prime opportunity for regulatory capture.
dbingham 5y ago
Regulations are like code - buggy and iterative. That's why you need a responsive democracy (which the US decidedly does not have). So when a regulation has bugs, the people can get their representatives to update it. We don't avoid writing code just because it's inevitably buggy and has unintended side effects. Indeed, there's a whole mentality of "move fast and break things" - essentially damn the side effects and full speed ahead - because we, as a sector, recognize that you have to take risks to make the world a better place. Yet, we forget that when it comes to using government power (our collective power) to make laws that shape our world. Now, I'm not a proponent of "move fast and break things" - more, move steadily and make the best decision you can in a reasonable time frame. But "move steadily" is still moving. We can take our time writing legislation and regulations and do our best to get it right, and still also work to build responsive systems so that when it's inevitably buggy we can fix the bugs. As I said in the second sentence, the problem with the US right now is that it was intentionally constructed to be the opposite of a responsive democracy.
- jaredklewis 5y ago
  Sure, but the first step to evaluating if an idea is "the best decision [we] can [make] in a reasonable time" is to understand what the idea is. So, per all of my questions, how does this idea work? How is market share defined and measured?

SllX 5y ago

So what you want is a command economy? Nah, I’ll pass. Markets are made up of people, they’re not just some abstraction. Governments have good uses, but determining who is participating in what market and how much market share they have or are allowed to have isn’t one of them.

karpierz 5y ago
"Command economy" and "unregulated free market" is a false dichotomy.
- SllX 5y ago
  True. But note two things: 1. The parent is advocating for a powerful form of command over the economy. 2. I am not advocating for lawless markets.
wolverine876 5y ago
How do governments prevent monopolies? That's been generally done and supported for over a century.
- SllX 5y ago
  Well not granting monopolies is a start, but governments grant monopolies all the time in the form of patents, copyright and trademarks. Proving a monopoly exists or are forming could be another way to do so, but so far they have recently made lackluster arguments in Courts of Law on that front. If you then prove a monopoly, can you also then prove that it’s activities are harmful to the people in the marketplace by denying them choices they would otherwise have? Maybe, but probably not very often and certainly not easily.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > not granting monopolies is a start Monopolies are generally not granted, except in exceptional circumstances. The US government didn't grant Microsoft a monopoly in PC operating systems. > Proving a monopoly exists or are forming could be another way to do so, but so far they have recently made lackluster arguments in Courts of Law on that front. What are you referring to?

adolph 5y ago

In the US, "People, elected and held accountable by citizenry at large" found that banks were "too big to fail." They did not restrain "the power of the actors in [the market] in check." What makes you think it'll be different this time?

sbarre 5y ago
Plenty of people will argue that the US is not a great example of a functioning democracy where government is held accountable by the citizenry at large. So your example is valid but maybe not for the point you're trying to make?
dbingham 5y ago
The US is not a good example of a functioning democracy. Our federal representatives have to represent 700,000 people. The state legislatures get to shape the federal districts, which means the representatives effictively get to pick their voters instead of the other way around. Our senate is grossly undemocratic, giving each state two representatives regardless of population, leading to minority rule. And our presidential election system is expressly anti-democratic. There are lots of good examples of better functioning democracies and a fair amount of theory on reforms that could improve even those (things like ranked choice voting). That's why I said "Build the most responsive democracy we can".
- adolph 5y ago
  Where would this ”responsive democracy” be built? Libya, Somalia or some other zone of low governance?