4 ms·

Capitalism has an answer for excess profits: competition. It works exceedingly well, better than anything else humans have invented to handle unexpected shorta

Capitalism has an answer for excess profits: competition. It works exceedingly well, better than anything else humans have invented to handle unexpected shortages and global supply chain issues. Governments should focus on ensuring that business environments are ripe for competition. Write laws that do not require large corporate legal teams to navigate. Thus far, we've failed on that front.

hulitu 3y ago
> Governments should focus on ensuring that business environments are ripe for competition. Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Shell, etc.
Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
Effective monopolies, like many found in the US (tech, banking, ISPs, energy, etc) are very profitable because of the market capture. Those profits are the real driver of capitalism, not competition. It is worthwhile for those companies to use those excess profits to 'lobby' government to pass/eliminate laws to ensure continued monopoly existence. This is the system we have - it guarantees eventual market capture and monopoly pricing.
- aeternum 3y ago
  How would you change the system so that it avoids market capture?
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    One way would be to dis-incentivize companies/corporations from growing too big in the first place. By increasing tax rates based on company size, market share, market cap, etc and by applying more regulations and oversight particularly around dividends, options, and executive compensation such that being too big costs too much to be worth it.
    - aeternum 3y ago
      Company size is hard to define and market share would require lengthy court battles to determine as markets are always changing and market share would have to be relitigated with every product release. Market cap could be interesting, but wouldn't it just end up generating a bunch of subsidiaries with byzantine IP/trademark leaseback arrangements?
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
        Subsidiaries would count as part of the company, so that wouldn't be viable a loop-hole and separate companies colluding to set prices is already illegal so they couldn't do that either. The IP leaseback thing may require other rules but would only really affect some market areas. But in those cases other metrics could be used like numbers of products sold or active users or whatever is appropriate. Company size and market share may be hard to define, but people are capable of accomplishing difficult things, when they really want to.
lamontcg 3y ago
Capitalism collects profits and wealth in the hands of a minority who use that power to capture the Government and ensure that they don't have to face serious competition that would put their future profits at risk and to only regulate them such that the regulatory barrier to entry is a net benefit to their businesses. Your idea of how Capitalism should work isn't a stable political equilibrium and can't exist.

hulitu 3y ago

> Governments should focus on ensuring that business environments are ripe for competition. Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Shell, etc.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago

Effective monopolies, like many found in the US (tech, banking, ISPs, energy, etc) are very profitable because of the market capture. Those profits are the real driver of capitalism, not competition. It is worthwhile for those companies to use those excess profits to 'lobby' government to pass/eliminate laws to ensure continued monopoly existence. This is the system we have - it guarantees eventual market capture and monopoly pricing.

aeternum 3y ago
How would you change the system so that it avoids market capture?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  One way would be to dis-incentivize companies/corporations from growing too big in the first place. By increasing tax rates based on company size, market share, market cap, etc and by applying more regulations and oversight particularly around dividends, options, and executive compensation such that being too big costs too much to be worth it.
  - aeternum 3y ago
    Company size is hard to define and market share would require lengthy court battles to determine as markets are always changing and market share would have to be relitigated with every product release. Market cap could be interesting, but wouldn't it just end up generating a bunch of subsidiaries with byzantine IP/trademark leaseback arrangements?
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
      Subsidiaries would count as part of the company, so that wouldn't be viable a loop-hole and separate companies colluding to set prices is already illegal so they couldn't do that either. The IP leaseback thing may require other rules but would only really affect some market areas. But in those cases other metrics could be used like numbers of products sold or active users or whatever is appropriate. Company size and market share may be hard to define, but people are capable of accomplishing difficult things, when they really want to.

lamontcg 3y ago

Capitalism collects profits and wealth in the hands of a minority who use that power to capture the Government and ensure that they don't have to face serious competition that would put their future profits at risk and to only regulate them such that the regulatory barrier to entry is a net benefit to their businesses. Your idea of how Capitalism should work isn't a stable political equilibrium and can't exist.