5 ms·

My problem with anti-trust is my problem with taxing the rich. How do you define rich? How can you logically explain why, say, $999,999 per year is not rich but

My problem with anti-trust is my problem with taxing the rich. How do you define rich? How can you logically explain why, say, $999,999 per year is not rich but $1,000,000 per year is? Wouldn’t a homeless person say everyone with a roof is rich? It’s simply illogical. With anti-trust, it’s defining monopolies. Maybe a company like Google dominates search advertising. But they don’t compete economically in search, they compete economically in digital advertising - or is it all of advertising? Isn’t Amazon and Apple eating their shirt in new spend on search ads? By the time the anti-trust case works itself through the courts it’s often that the “monopoly” has fallen quite a bit from their perch. Now to get to start ups. Startups being acquired WANT to be acquired - otherwise they wouldn’t be sold. There is no gun that makes them be sold - their shareholders agree to it. If you love startups, you should be pro-founder, and that means letting them be sold if they want it. Otherwise it’s simply coercion and authoritarianism to prevent an owner to do what they want with their company they put their blood and sweat into.

valenterry 4y ago
What you say isn't really wrong, but I guess there is a different perspective. I wish there were more startups that just keep operating standalone without being bought. Having the often passionate founders staying in control and evolving their company. Of course, if they can sell than they get more money out of that and maybe have time for something else/new. But at the same time, how does it impact society if passionate founders leave all the time? Maybe that isn't really great for the overall progress. On the other hand, were there less startups if they can't be sold/bought as easily? I'm not sure, but I imagine the impact wouldn't be so huge, since I expect for most people, selling their company is more the icing on the cake and not the major reason why they start something on their own.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  I believe in freedom and individual rights. It’s so hard to build a company. Very hard. Try it yourself someday if you don’t believe me. Small, medium, large, lifestyle, whatever your endgame is I guarantee it’s 100x harder than you envisioned. You say you wish more startups operated standalone. Is it possible that the same person who can build a company from zero to 100 people isn’t qualified and / or wanting to take it from 100 to 1000 people? Shouldn’t it be her right to sell her asset, and start something new? Some people believe that society has some claim on companies, meaning the government should be able to arbitrarily coerce any company of any size to do anything. Less-logical people claim that society has a claim when a company reaches some threshold of size (which makes no sense as no one can explain what that size is except “eh I guess a billion dollars in revenue”). The only defensible logic is to let the owner do what they want. Otherwise it’s authoritarian.
  - connor11528 4y ago
    I feel like the logic here is that if companies behave badly enough competitors will emerge and kill the bad company. This school of thought was first pioneered by Robert Bork in the 70s along with the “consumer welfare standard” that hey if you can’t prove it’s hurting consumers then who cares. This is the dominant view of establishment antitrust lawyers to this day and why American industries from chocolate to diapers to national defense are concentrated. The reality is that if the owners do what they want they will buy competitors, rent seek and not innovate. If the government seeks to meddle they will buy lobbyists. Additionally firms that have their market cornered will squeeze workers and their vendors. Finally close ties between concentrated industry and the government leads to more authoritarian rule.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      In 2021, American companies represented 65% of global stock value. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/top-100-companies-usa-china-money-capital-market/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/top-100-companies-usa... America has 4% of global population. This tiny country population-wise is beating the shit out of everyone else by 1000x in economic and military might. Maybe you should see our system in a better light.
      - crummy 4y ago
        By this argument there can be no flaws in the American system, right?
        monero-xmr 4y ago
        How about advocating for an economic revolution to align the system closer to Argentina and Venezuela is dumb considering the US is clearly the best on earth by a significant margin? No one prevents you from moving away.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        Who here is advocating for Argentina's or Venuzuala's economic system? If it's 100 degrees in the room and I want it to be cooler that doesn't mean I'm advocating for the room to be 0 degrees. Your need to exaggerate the point of others points to a weakness in your own argument.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
> My problem with anti-trust is my problem with taxing the rich. How do you define rich? How can you logically explain why, say, $999,999 per year is not rich but $1,000,000 per year is? Wouldn’t a homeless person say everyone with a roof is rich? It’s simply illogical. We all put our heads together and say "how much money should you be able to make before you start needing to give a lot of it back?" (or alternately, "how much market share should you be able to get before you're broken up?") and then that's the number. Some people will want that number to be higher, some people will want it to be lower, but ultimately we (mostly) agree that it's better for all of us if we follow these rules around that number.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  I think you are advocating for a flat tax, meaning everyone pays the same percent. This is fair and logical to me. What I don’t understand is progressive taxes, which make you pay more once you hit some arbitrary threshold. Very illogical.
  - Chinjut 4y ago
    From your original post, you seem to feel progressive taxes requires some sort of absurdly different treatment for people who make $999,999/yr vs $1,000,000/yr, or at whatever threshold, but that is not at all how they function. Even with discrete jumps in marginal tax rates (as in the current system of progressive income tax in the U.S.), post-tax income is a continuous monotonic function of pre-tax income. Making a little more pre-tax income always results in making a little more post-tax income.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      My problem is that no one can logically explain why they chose what thresholds. It doesn’t mean anything, they just decided some number. I can play games and avoid that number. It’s absurd
      - Chinjut 4y ago
rnk 4y ago
That argument is completely unpersuasive. Startups might be forced to be in a position to be sold because their huge company competitors might be pressuring their potential customers not to use them (think amazon vs a new startup offering some database capability). If you can bundle your version of something or charge almost nothing, you starve the startup of any market.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  It sounds like you want to ban competition. Surely if I own an ice cream truck, and I want to include a cone with my ice cream, that doesn’t mean I’m damaging the independent cone seller? Why is that fair but bundling a database is not?
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    What a bogus hypothetical. What market exists to buy individual cones? It’s not the bundling that’s the problem, it’s dropping prices of a single product in a single market to destroy competition in that space while staying afloat with VC or other revenue streams/products.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      So you say! I included a cone for FREE with my ice cream. I have dropped the price to zero! If we banned ice cream trucks from selling cones, surely an independent cone business would spring up if market demand existed. This contrived example is to prove my point - you claim I’m speaking absurdities, but if I claim bundling a database (or caching solution, or search engine, whatever) is merely a convenience, you cry foul. Nothing is logical here
      - hattmall 4y ago
        Your example is not analogous. It is more accurate to say you are an ice cream seller and the only ice cream seller. Their is a thriving market of sellers for donuts and you wish to sell donuts so you give away free donuts with all the ice cream you sale. Not because this is your value proposition, but because you wish to make the donut business untenable for anyone other than the largest ice cream seller. That is antithetical to competition. There should be limits or a prohibition on subsidizing horizontal or vertical business integrations. The limits should be related to the long term consumer value proposition.
connor11528 4y ago
Too much concentration of economic power will translate into political power. We see this already with how much Meta, Google and Amazon spend on lobbying. Excessive concentration of economic power breeds antidemocratic political pressures. Sure there’s an argument to be had about the freedom to sell your company but there’s also American industrial policy, workers rights, industry resilience and consumer protections to consider.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 4y ago
How about this. If any person wants to have no restriction on their business in terms of size, anti-competitiveness etc, then they are welcome to do so - provided that they can build their monopoly without incorporating. Hire as many workers as you want, expand as much as you want - but you have full personal liability for everything that your business does, as it is under natural law. OTOH if you want a fictitious legal entity to shield yourself from liability, then the society is happy to accommodate - but it comes with strings attached, and one of those is anti-trust.
tchaffee 4y ago
> How do you define rich. As social animals humans are exceedingly skilled at determining fairness if they decide as a group. They will never get it perfect but they will get close enough. Your argument is a schoolboy argument: if the pie can't be divided exactly then you get most of it because you're bigger. Progressive taxes don't need the precision you're demanding. It's a strawman argument.

valenterry 4y ago

What you say isn't really wrong, but I guess there is a different perspective. I wish there were more startups that just keep operating standalone without being bought. Having the often passionate founders staying in control and evolving their company. Of course, if they can sell than they get more money out of that and maybe have time for something else/new. But at the same time, how does it impact society if passionate founders leave all the time? Maybe that isn't really great for the overall progress. On the other hand, were there less startups if they can't be sold/bought as easily? I'm not sure, but I imagine the impact wouldn't be so huge, since I expect for most people, selling their company is more the icing on the cake and not the major reason why they start something on their own.

monero-xmr 4y ago
I believe in freedom and individual rights. It’s so hard to build a company. Very hard. Try it yourself someday if you don’t believe me. Small, medium, large, lifestyle, whatever your endgame is I guarantee it’s 100x harder than you envisioned. You say you wish more startups operated standalone. Is it possible that the same person who can build a company from zero to 100 people isn’t qualified and / or wanting to take it from 100 to 1000 people? Shouldn’t it be her right to sell her asset, and start something new? Some people believe that society has some claim on companies, meaning the government should be able to arbitrarily coerce any company of any size to do anything. Less-logical people claim that society has a claim when a company reaches some threshold of size (which makes no sense as no one can explain what that size is except “eh I guess a billion dollars in revenue”). The only defensible logic is to let the owner do what they want. Otherwise it’s authoritarian.
- connor11528 4y ago
  I feel like the logic here is that if companies behave badly enough competitors will emerge and kill the bad company. This school of thought was first pioneered by Robert Bork in the 70s along with the “consumer welfare standard” that hey if you can’t prove it’s hurting consumers then who cares. This is the dominant view of establishment antitrust lawyers to this day and why American industries from chocolate to diapers to national defense are concentrated. The reality is that if the owners do what they want they will buy competitors, rent seek and not innovate. If the government seeks to meddle they will buy lobbyists. Additionally firms that have their market cornered will squeeze workers and their vendors. Finally close ties between concentrated industry and the government leads to more authoritarian rule.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    In 2021, American companies represented 65% of global stock value. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/top-100-companies-usa-china-money-capital-market/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/top-100-companies-usa... America has 4% of global population. This tiny country population-wise is beating the shit out of everyone else by 1000x in economic and military might. Maybe you should see our system in a better light.
    - crummy 4y ago
      By this argument there can be no flaws in the American system, right?
      - monero-xmr 4y ago
        How about advocating for an economic revolution to align the system closer to Argentina and Venezuela is dumb considering the US is clearly the best on earth by a significant margin? No one prevents you from moving away.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        Who here is advocating for Argentina's or Venuzuala's economic system? If it's 100 degrees in the room and I want it to be cooler that doesn't mean I'm advocating for the room to be 0 degrees. Your need to exaggerate the point of others points to a weakness in your own argument.

jakelazaroff 4y ago

> My problem with anti-trust is my problem with taxing the rich. How do you define rich? How can you logically explain why, say, $999,999 per year is not rich but $1,000,000 per year is? Wouldn’t a homeless person say everyone with a roof is rich? It’s simply illogical. We all put our heads together and say "how much money should you be able to make before you start needing to give a lot of it back?" (or alternately, "how much market share should you be able to get before you're broken up?") and then that's the number. Some people will want that number to be higher, some people will want it to be lower, but ultimately we (mostly) agree that it's better for all of us if we follow these rules around that number.

monero-xmr 4y ago
I think you are advocating for a flat tax, meaning everyone pays the same percent. This is fair and logical to me. What I don’t understand is progressive taxes, which make you pay more once you hit some arbitrary threshold. Very illogical.
- Chinjut 4y ago
  From your original post, you seem to feel progressive taxes requires some sort of absurdly different treatment for people who make $999,999/yr vs $1,000,000/yr, or at whatever threshold, but that is not at all how they function. Even with discrete jumps in marginal tax rates (as in the current system of progressive income tax in the U.S.), post-tax income is a continuous monotonic function of pre-tax income. Making a little more pre-tax income always results in making a little more post-tax income.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    My problem is that no one can logically explain why they chose what thresholds. It doesn’t mean anything, they just decided some number. I can play games and avoid that number. It’s absurd
    - Chinjut 4y ago

rnk 4y ago

That argument is completely unpersuasive. Startups might be forced to be in a position to be sold because their huge company competitors might be pressuring their potential customers not to use them (think amazon vs a new startup offering some database capability). If you can bundle your version of something or charge almost nothing, you starve the startup of any market.

monero-xmr 4y ago
It sounds like you want to ban competition. Surely if I own an ice cream truck, and I want to include a cone with my ice cream, that doesn’t mean I’m damaging the independent cone seller? Why is that fair but bundling a database is not?
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  What a bogus hypothetical. What market exists to buy individual cones? It’s not the bundling that’s the problem, it’s dropping prices of a single product in a single market to destroy competition in that space while staying afloat with VC or other revenue streams/products.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    So you say! I included a cone for FREE with my ice cream. I have dropped the price to zero! If we banned ice cream trucks from selling cones, surely an independent cone business would spring up if market demand existed. This contrived example is to prove my point - you claim I’m speaking absurdities, but if I claim bundling a database (or caching solution, or search engine, whatever) is merely a convenience, you cry foul. Nothing is logical here
    - hattmall 4y ago
      Your example is not analogous. It is more accurate to say you are an ice cream seller and the only ice cream seller. Their is a thriving market of sellers for donuts and you wish to sell donuts so you give away free donuts with all the ice cream you sale. Not because this is your value proposition, but because you wish to make the donut business untenable for anyone other than the largest ice cream seller. That is antithetical to competition. There should be limits or a prohibition on subsidizing horizontal or vertical business integrations. The limits should be related to the long term consumer value proposition.

connor11528 4y ago

Too much concentration of economic power will translate into political power. We see this already with how much Meta, Google and Amazon spend on lobbying. Excessive concentration of economic power breeds antidemocratic political pressures. Sure there’s an argument to be had about the freedom to sell your company but there’s also American industrial policy, workers rights, industry resilience and consumer protections to consider.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

int_19h 4y ago

How about this. If any person wants to have no restriction on their business in terms of size, anti-competitiveness etc, then they are welcome to do so - provided that they can build their monopoly without incorporating. Hire as many workers as you want, expand as much as you want - but you have full personal liability for everything that your business does, as it is under natural law. OTOH if you want a fictitious legal entity to shield yourself from liability, then the society is happy to accommodate - but it comes with strings attached, and one of those is anti-trust.

tchaffee 4y ago

> How do you define rich. As social animals humans are exceedingly skilled at determining fairness if they decide as a group. They will never get it perfect but they will get close enough. Your argument is a schoolboy argument: if the pie can't be divided exactly then you get most of it because you're bigger. Progressive taxes don't need the precision you're demanding. It's a strawman argument.