4 ms·

If Rivian is doing the right thing, why would you want the company doing the wrong thing to buy them? Seems anti-capitalistic to me and about consolidating powe

by ttfkam 3y ago

If Rivian is doing the right thing, why would you want the company doing the wrong thing to buy them? Seems anti-capitalistic to me and about consolidating power to fewer and fewer entities rather than letting competing products duke it out in the marketplace. If Tesla can dig itself out of this engineering hole, let them. If they can't, let consequences be.

pfannkuchen 3y ago
If a company has a deficiency in one acute area, I’m not sure it’s anti-capitalistic to address that deficiency via an acquisition. If they are deficient overall though then I agree with you.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  Buying your way into electric truck marketshare instead of designing and building it yourself and letting the consumer decide? Instead of a Rivian truck and a Tesla truck, consumers just get one? I mean, it's typical US corporate behavior at this point, but I fail to see how it positively affects the market or truck buyers. Tesla stock, sure.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Interesting. I would definitely agree that it is not optimal behavior from the consumer’s perspective. I would hesitate to call it anti-capitalistic - do you think all acquisitions are anti-capitalistic? I have never heard this argued.
    - ttfkam 3y ago
      Antitrust enforcement—sadly out of favor compared to the 20th century—was specifically created to foster competition within the marketplace. It was rightly seen as a bulwark against a wealthy, powerful player simply buying themselves a greater share of the market. Monopolies are a consequence of capitalism but serve to choke out the engine of capitalism. A monopolistic (or oligarchic) environment is no different from a government-sanctioned planned economy where a few (or one) players set prices, decide the pace of innovation, and restrict supply according to their own narrow interests. Arguably in a democracy it's worse since corporations tend to have an autocratic model rather than an electoral one, so the people are left with even fewer options. If you want a better society with greater choices and opportunity, let them make a better product or at least cheaper. Buying out the competition just raises prices and reduces choice. I would definitely consider that anti-capitalistic.
DoesntMatter22 3y ago
I think the "hole" is just imaginary. They are flush with cash and they are creating something they know they'll be selling for decades. Better to take the time and get it right. It's hugely popular too.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  Being flush with cash doesn't take away from an engineering hole. They announced the Cybertruck quite a while ago, and the problems described in the report are not just a matter of fine tuning. Maybe they will or maybe they won't fill the hole faster than expected, but the hole is clearly not imaginary.

by ttfkam 3y ago

pfannkuchen 3y ago

If a company has a deficiency in one acute area, I’m not sure it’s anti-capitalistic to address that deficiency via an acquisition. If they are deficient overall though then I agree with you.

ttfkam 3y ago
Buying your way into electric truck marketshare instead of designing and building it yourself and letting the consumer decide? Instead of a Rivian truck and a Tesla truck, consumers just get one? I mean, it's typical US corporate behavior at this point, but I fail to see how it positively affects the market or truck buyers. Tesla stock, sure.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Interesting. I would definitely agree that it is not optimal behavior from the consumer’s perspective. I would hesitate to call it anti-capitalistic - do you think all acquisitions are anti-capitalistic? I have never heard this argued.
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    Antitrust enforcement—sadly out of favor compared to the 20th century—was specifically created to foster competition within the marketplace. It was rightly seen as a bulwark against a wealthy, powerful player simply buying themselves a greater share of the market. Monopolies are a consequence of capitalism but serve to choke out the engine of capitalism. A monopolistic (or oligarchic) environment is no different from a government-sanctioned planned economy where a few (or one) players set prices, decide the pace of innovation, and restrict supply according to their own narrow interests. Arguably in a democracy it's worse since corporations tend to have an autocratic model rather than an electoral one, so the people are left with even fewer options. If you want a better society with greater choices and opportunity, let them make a better product or at least cheaper. Buying out the competition just raises prices and reduces choice. I would definitely consider that anti-capitalistic.

DoesntMatter22 3y ago

I think the "hole" is just imaginary. They are flush with cash and they are creating something they know they'll be selling for decades. Better to take the time and get it right. It's hugely popular too.

ttfkam 3y ago
Being flush with cash doesn't take away from an engineering hole. They announced the Cybertruck quite a while ago, and the problems described in the report are not just a matter of fine tuning. Maybe they will or maybe they won't fill the hole faster than expected, but the hole is clearly not imaginary.