3 ms·

The article doesn’t say if you are a small startup you should like anti trust law. It says if you like small startups you should like anti trust laws. Those a

• JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > if you like small startups you should like anti trust laws Small start-ups which cannot grow are not start-ups, they’re small businesses. This article is, if genuine, an anti-growth pitch. It ensconces the status quo.
  • vouaobrasil 4y ago
    That is a good point, and I think there is nothing wrong with anti-growth. It should be something we all aspire to.
    • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > there is nothing wrong with anti-growth Zero growth means zero-sim games. Pre-modernity. Sucks to be poor if you’re born into that world.
      • lisper 4y ago
        That depends on how you measure growth. If you measure it as total wealth then you are right but if you measure it as wealth per capita then you can grow for a lot longer before you hit a wall if you keep the population under control.
        • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
          If aggregate growth is zero, the system is zero sum. Per capita doesn’t matter.
          • DangitBobby 4y ago
            Unless there are fewer people. Or you become more efficient.
          • lisper 4y ago
            > If aggregate growth is zero, the system is zero sum. No, it isn't. > Per capita doesn’t matter. Of course it does. If all of the actors in the system perceive themselves to be better off then it doesn't matter is there is no actual underlying growth. This can happen, for example, through trade. If I have something you want and you have something I want we can create wealth literally out of nothing simply by exchanging those two things. Or, if you have something I want, and you die and I inherit that thing, then I am better off than I was even though there has been no actual underlying growth.
            • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
              > > If aggregate growth is zero, the system is zero sum. No, it isn't. Yes, by definition.
              • lisper 4y ago
                Only if you use a vacuous definition of "growth" that fails to distinguish between an actual change in the underlying physical situation and a change in people's perceptions.
                • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
                  > if you use a vacuous definition of "growth" that fails to distinguish between an actual change in the underlying physical situation and a change in people's perceptions No, this is fundamental game theory. Independent of what you’re measuring, if it isn’t growing, the game is zero sum. By definition. Of course if something else is growing that game may not be zero sum.
                  • lisper 4y ago
      • vouaobrasil 4y ago
        Anti-growth doesn't mean zero growth. I meant it more in the sense of being against unbridled technological innovation, which is a lot different than growth in any possible way. For example, a society could grow in other ways such as being restructured or even using less.
        • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
          > a society could grow in other ways such as being restructured or even using less This is not anti-growth, it’s different growth. We generate more GDP per unit of physical resources or energy than before. That is good and still growth.
• vouaobrasil 4y ago
  If you read the article, it says specifically (such as in the quotation I provided), that startups themselves should like anti-trust laws.
  • ncallaway 4y ago
    The quote you provided just did not say specifically that startups should like anti-trust law. Is there another place in the article that says it specifically? I didn’t see one on a quick second read, but I could’ve missed it. For most of the article the focus os on consumer surplus relative to rents sought, so the article seemed pretty clearly to be describing consumer preferences to me