3 ms·
I always saw it as something that's not 'fair', but that helps the market win. It's sort of the same as anti-monopoly laws. In a strict sense, maybe a company
by mr_luc 15y ago
I always saw it as something that's not 'fair', but that helps the market win.
It's sort of the same as anti-monopoly laws. In a strict sense, maybe a company became a monopoly legally, by offering the best product and buying out its competition, and is acting rationally in the interest of its shareholders -- but now the market is powerless before it, so the government breaks it up, and the market has bargaining power again.
Most of the pragmatic policies that make our world work break down on a moral level when you look at them too hard. We're all just trying to do what works empirically.
- endtime 15y ago>I always saw it as something that's not 'fair', but that helps the market win. The market wins when the price-fixing stops being worth the opportunity cost of increased sales, or when a competitor (new or old) decides not to play ball. Not when the government steps in to force things in a certain direction. >Most of the pragmatic policies that make our world work break down on a moral level when you look at them too hard. We're all just trying to do what works empirically. The uneasiness I feel at the implication that things can be looked at "too hard" aside, how can one actually justify the claim that this works empirically ("works" meaning, presumably, in this case, that a better outcome is achieved)?