8 ms·

Unlike the USSR, the US doesn't have state owned enterprises making up the majority of it's GDP. The companies that give a shit win markets.

by piyh 4y ago

rmk 4y ago
I think the more relevant part is that people have realized that harder work does not necessarily pay better or lead to advancement. Companies can win markets while not paying their employees top dollar, and this fact is now clear to most if not all.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  If your company's costs are significantly larger than your competitors, you aren't going to win markets. You're going bankrupt. > harder work does not necessarily pay better or lead to advancement Smarter work does, though.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    No, smarter work doesn't either. Increased productivity does not necessarily lead to better pay or advancement.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > Increased productivity does not necessarily lead to better pay or advancement In a free market, supply&demand set employee compensation at about 85% of the value the employee produces. The reason is simple. If the company overpays, the company goes bust. If the company underpays, his competitor will hire the person away. If you believe you're underpaid, make your case to your employer. If he agrees, good for you. If he doesn't, and you're not convinced, quit and work for his competitor.
      - BazookaMusic 4y ago
        Unless your industry is a monopoly because one company ate all the others and is actively sabotaging new competitors by buying them off before they can grow.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        > is actively sabotaging new competitors by buying them off before they can grow The thing to do then is keep founding competitors and make a profit selling them to the "monopoly". P.S. buying a company is not "sabotaging" it. LOL
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Companies answer to their shareholders first, their customers second, and their employee's third. When they give a shit, it's in that order. They reap what we sow.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  It has been that way for a long time, though
- streblo 4y ago
  Yes but ultimately they are answerable to an (often) diverse set of interests, which push them towards a maximum. State owned enterprises ala the USSR were answerable to far fewer interested parties.
  - Clent 4y ago
    What are these 'interested parties' because that sounds like another way to say 'shared holders' -- There is base assumption in such a claim that more is better and that our current system is more optimal than some other system you've heard about. A curious perspective; fear of options. Emotion over logic.
  - coliveira 4y ago
    The market is not "free" as they pretend to be. The US market is essentially the investment market, a small club of extremely powerful WallStreet companies that dominates the investment landscape. In this sense, it is very centrally controlled, if not by the government, but instead by a close elite of capital managers. A free market would be something like a farmers market where producers sell directly to consumers. Instead, the US stock market is more like a cartel where there is a central group of intermediaries, which control money moves between producers (companies) and buyers (small/medium investors).
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > A free market would be something like a farmers market where producers sell directly to consumers. No, a free market is when people are free to make transactions with whoever they please. Big companies are just as free market as mom & pops.
dinosaurdynasty 4y ago
How many US enterprises are monopolies or pseudo-monopolies?
- coliveira 4y ago
  Pretty much anything of importance. Mom and pop businesses were destroyed in mass during the last 40 years. Now, practically only companies owned by the big capital have survived.
  - nxm 4y ago
    Thank globalization and increased standard of living in Asia for that
spaceman_2020 4y ago
The markets have been detached from reality for quite a while. Cheap money has distorted market incentives completely. So who even gives a crap if you win this rigged game?
- coliveira 4y ago
  The funny thing is that inflation has been rampant for decades. However, this inflation only manifested itself in stock prices and other financial assets, and for this reason it was seen as great news. Now the inflation is migrating first to house prices, then to commodities and every other aspect of our lives, and they start to complain!
  - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
    Inflation finally hit assets and commodities with real underlying value. Specifically, the kind of things normal people need.
marcosdumay 4y ago
> Unlike the USSR, the US doesn't have state owned enterprises making up the majority of it's GDP. Hum... Are you sure? Keep in mind that state backed companies that are not allowed to fail create almost exactly the same problem.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Pretty sure, yes. What companies are "not allowed to fail"? Boeing? Maybe some big banks? Maybe Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Intel? All right, what fraction of GDP are they?
  - fbdab103 4y ago
    All major airlines. Food production (farming + processors + distribution). Banking. Rail distribution. If any of these encountered existential threats, I have no doubts that the government would step in citing (reasonable) national security concerns.
    - coliveira 4y ago
      Now add microchips and all kinds of technologies deemed to be of national interest. You also forgot the national auto industry that was bailed out from certain disaster in 2008.
    - therealdrag0 4y ago
      Existential threat is different than good old fashion competition tho. Our businesses are clearly no where close to USSR level folly and “pretend”.
    - KirillPanov 4y ago
      > Food production (farming You have obviously lived in cities your entire life. Farms fail all the time. Ask any banker at a branch in an agricultural area.
      - smolder 4y ago
jongjong 4y ago
Although big corporations are not state owned, they are subsidized by government/reserve bank money printing. It makes no difference if the enterprises are 'state owned' or 'state backed'. Ultimately, the providers are selected by the state, not by consumers.
coliveira 4y ago
US big companies are all backed by the government in one way or another. Friendly taxation, incentives, technology transfer, government contracts, tariffs on foreign companies. There is just a veneer of separation between government and private sector.
- gnz11 4y ago
  Not to mention the corporate think tanks that write legislation. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/ https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-pas...
jiveturkey 4y ago
the article isn’t written for the startup crowd, where what you say is largely true.
robocat 4y ago
46% of the US GDP is government spending. Not so far from a majority that you can cast aspersions at other countries? Then again, my socialist New Zealand is trying to catch up with 42% ;). The figure given for Russia was 38%, which feels out of whack: who can trust GDP numbers eh? https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_s...
- reasonabl_human 4y ago
  Can someone explain the significance of this statistic in context? Seems there are many successfully economies with a government spend of higher % of GDP than the US. Not sure how this fits into a broader picture of a country’s financial health. Also- based on my cursory reading here, it seems disingenuous to claim 46% of GDP is government spending- the stat is that government spending is comparable to 46% of the GDP of that year. Government spend doesn’t comprise 46% of the GDP, rather we are using GDP as a measuring stick to evaluate the sanity of government spending amounts.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    It means 46% of GDP is government spending. Actually. Defense spending. Government workers. Infrastructure projects various governments partially or fully pay for. Subsidies. And so on.
    - reasonabl_human 4y ago
      Interesting- in that case these are some eye popping numbers. However, I’m struggling to square that fact with the observation that the Wikipedia table shows a number of entries >100%. How could government spending ever exceed 100% of GDP given it is counting toward GDP?
- deltree7 4y ago
  2020/21 are the dumbest years to look at any government spending

Unlike the USSR, the US doesn't have state owned enterprises making up the majority of it's GDP. The companies that give a shit win markets.

by piyh 4y ago

Unlike the USSR, the US doesn't have state owned enterprises making up the majority of it's GDP. The companies that give a shit win markets.

rmk 4y ago

I think the more relevant part is that people have realized that harder work does not necessarily pay better or lead to advancement. Companies can win markets while not paying their employees top dollar, and this fact is now clear to most if not all.

WalterBright 4y ago
If your company's costs are significantly larger than your competitors, you aren't going to win markets. You're going bankrupt. > harder work does not necessarily pay better or lead to advancement Smarter work does, though.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  No, smarter work doesn't either. Increased productivity does not necessarily lead to better pay or advancement.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Increased productivity does not necessarily lead to better pay or advancement In a free market, supply&demand set employee compensation at about 85% of the value the employee produces. The reason is simple. If the company overpays, the company goes bust. If the company underpays, his competitor will hire the person away. If you believe you're underpaid, make your case to your employer. If he agrees, good for you. If he doesn't, and you're not convinced, quit and work for his competitor.
    - BazookaMusic 4y ago
      Unless your industry is a monopoly because one company ate all the others and is actively sabotaging new competitors by buying them off before they can grow.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > is actively sabotaging new competitors by buying them off before they can grow The thing to do then is keep founding competitors and make a profit selling them to the "monopoly". P.S. buying a company is not "sabotaging" it. LOL

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Companies answer to their shareholders first, their customers second, and their employee's third. When they give a shit, it's in that order. They reap what we sow.

zdragnar 4y ago
It has been that way for a long time, though
streblo 4y ago
Yes but ultimately they are answerable to an (often) diverse set of interests, which push them towards a maximum. State owned enterprises ala the USSR were answerable to far fewer interested parties.
- Clent 4y ago
  What are these 'interested parties' because that sounds like another way to say 'shared holders' -- There is base assumption in such a claim that more is better and that our current system is more optimal than some other system you've heard about. A curious perspective; fear of options. Emotion over logic.
- coliveira 4y ago
  The market is not "free" as they pretend to be. The US market is essentially the investment market, a small club of extremely powerful WallStreet companies that dominates the investment landscape. In this sense, it is very centrally controlled, if not by the government, but instead by a close elite of capital managers. A free market would be something like a farmers market where producers sell directly to consumers. Instead, the US stock market is more like a cartel where there is a central group of intermediaries, which control money moves between producers (companies) and buyers (small/medium investors).
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > A free market would be something like a farmers market where producers sell directly to consumers. No, a free market is when people are free to make transactions with whoever they please. Big companies are just as free market as mom & pops.

dinosaurdynasty 4y ago

How many US enterprises are monopolies or pseudo-monopolies?

coliveira 4y ago
Pretty much anything of importance. Mom and pop businesses were destroyed in mass during the last 40 years. Now, practically only companies owned by the big capital have survived.
- nxm 4y ago
  Thank globalization and increased standard of living in Asia for that

spaceman_2020 4y ago

The markets have been detached from reality for quite a while. Cheap money has distorted market incentives completely. So who even gives a crap if you win this rigged game?

coliveira 4y ago
The funny thing is that inflation has been rampant for decades. However, this inflation only manifested itself in stock prices and other financial assets, and for this reason it was seen as great news. Now the inflation is migrating first to house prices, then to commodities and every other aspect of our lives, and they start to complain!
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  Inflation finally hit assets and commodities with real underlying value. Specifically, the kind of things normal people need.

marcosdumay 4y ago

> Unlike the USSR, the US doesn't have state owned enterprises making up the majority of it's GDP. Hum... Are you sure? Keep in mind that state backed companies that are not allowed to fail create almost exactly the same problem.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Pretty sure, yes. What companies are "not allowed to fail"? Boeing? Maybe some big banks? Maybe Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Intel? All right, what fraction of GDP are they?
- fbdab103 4y ago
  All major airlines. Food production (farming + processors + distribution). Banking. Rail distribution. If any of these encountered existential threats, I have no doubts that the government would step in citing (reasonable) national security concerns.
  - coliveira 4y ago
    Now add microchips and all kinds of technologies deemed to be of national interest. You also forgot the national auto industry that was bailed out from certain disaster in 2008.
  - therealdrag0 4y ago
    Existential threat is different than good old fashion competition tho. Our businesses are clearly no where close to USSR level folly and “pretend”.
  - KirillPanov 4y ago
    > Food production (farming You have obviously lived in cities your entire life. Farms fail all the time. Ask any banker at a branch in an agricultural area.
    - smolder 4y ago

jongjong 4y ago

Although big corporations are not state owned, they are subsidized by government/reserve bank money printing. It makes no difference if the enterprises are 'state owned' or 'state backed'. Ultimately, the providers are selected by the state, not by consumers.

coliveira 4y ago

US big companies are all backed by the government in one way or another. Friendly taxation, incentives, technology transfer, government contracts, tariffs on foreign companies. There is just a veneer of separation between government and private sector.

gnz11 4y ago
Not to mention the corporate think tanks that write legislation. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/ https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-pas...

jiveturkey 4y ago

the article isn’t written for the startup crowd, where what you say is largely true.

robocat 4y ago

46% of the US GDP is government spending. Not so far from a majority that you can cast aspersions at other countries? Then again, my socialist New Zealand is trying to catch up with 42% ;). The figure given for Russia was 38%, which feels out of whack: who can trust GDP numbers eh? https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_s...

reasonabl_human 4y ago
Can someone explain the significance of this statistic in context? Seems there are many successfully economies with a government spend of higher % of GDP than the US. Not sure how this fits into a broader picture of a country’s financial health. Also- based on my cursory reading here, it seems disingenuous to claim 46% of GDP is government spending- the stat is that government spending is comparable to 46% of the GDP of that year. Government spend doesn’t comprise 46% of the GDP, rather we are using GDP as a measuring stick to evaluate the sanity of government spending amounts.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  It means 46% of GDP is government spending. Actually. Defense spending. Government workers. Infrastructure projects various governments partially or fully pay for. Subsidies. And so on.
  - reasonabl_human 4y ago
    Interesting- in that case these are some eye popping numbers. However, I’m struggling to square that fact with the observation that the Wikipedia table shows a number of entries >100%. How could government spending ever exceed 100% of GDP given it is counting toward GDP?
deltree7 4y ago
2020/21 are the dumbest years to look at any government spending