7 ms·

> Markets prevent monopolies and cartels. A lot of the optimism seems to rely on this statement and...I'm not convinced? But I also admit I'm not well informed

> Markets prevent monopolies and cartels. A lot of the optimism seems to rely on this statement and...I'm not convinced? But I also admit I'm not well informed on the topic. Does anyone have suggested reading on 'market discipline', as they're calling it? I mean, the first person on their "Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism" is Jeff Bezos, who is actively dealing with an antitrust lawsuit from the FTC regarding Amazon's frequent and regular push toward monopoly power.

hemloc_io 3y ago
Sigh, sad b/c I actually know this, but just a small correction. That's an anonymous Twitter/X account @BasedBeffJezos not the actual head Jeff himself. Founder(?) of the e/acc philosophy
- Balladeer 3y ago
  Hah! Thanks for the correction / info; I do appreciate it.
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  This is worse than the actual Jeff Bezos, who constructed a trillion dollar company that underpins the internet, and is instead just an alt-right NRx troll on the internet.
vsareto 3y ago
Market discipline acts as a challenge, and humans figure out ways around challenges to maximize some reward (money). Market discipline is only enforced by humans and they have weaknesses. This manifesto wants to pretend that the rules enforce themselves by some natural property of the system akin to physics or biology, and not from humans. The manifesto is completely flawed on markets because what requires people to be discriminatory buyers is scarcity, which is opposite of what this manifesto is suggesting we work towards. It has no plans on how to handle technological abundance's (not post-scarcity) affect on market behavior: >We believe markets are the way to generate societal wealth for everything else we want to pay for
LindeBuzoGray 3y ago
Right. Land and air telecommunications are almost totally controlled by Verizon and AT&T. They are also some of the largest cable companies, although Comcast is a competitor. Although Comcast owns NBCUniversal, and we can start getting into the media monopoly. We can go through business by business and see the rise of monopolies and oligopolies. Universal owns half of the US music market - Universal, Sony and Warner own over 80% of the US music market. Accounting is done by the Big Four, advertising by its own Big Four. Just down the line - consolidation, oligopoly, monopoly. That is what markets produce. Standard Oil reversed its breakup into ExxonMobil, as did the Baby Bells into Verizon and AT&T. Even the government intervention into the monopolies gets reversed.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  What organization has a media monopoly? You have access to the internet, with which you can access media from individuals all the way up to multiple large corporations. On the national level, there are multiple sources of news (NYT/News Corp/Disney/Comcast/Paramount/WaPo/LATimes/etc). There are lots of sources of professionally and amateur produced entertainment. Apple/Amazon/Comcast/Disney/Sony/WarnerBrosDiscovery/Paramount/etc. If anything, the monopoly exists on wired broadband to peoples homes, which is usually only available from one seller.
  - flerovium 3y ago
    Ownership: NYT - billionaire Sulzberger family WaPo - Jeff Bezos LA Times - billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong Disney/Comcast/Paramount represent the consolidation of an industry that used to be hundreds of independent newsrooms into a dozen or so corporations. The murdoch family's New Corp is regularly analyzed as a political force on par with individual elected leaders, if not more so. Entertainment: Apple/Amazon/Comcast/Disney/Sony/WarnerBrosDiscovery/Paramount The problem is that the industry has consolidated into a number of players you can count on one hand.
jaybrendansmith 3y ago
I really want to love this manifesto. This is my one sticking point. Regulatory capture, monopolies, and cartels are the fatal flaw in this techno-optimism, and they break everything. Let's say I subscribe to this wonderful story Marc tells. Please tell me the purpose of government if it is not to destroy cartels and monopolies. They are every bit as bad as the government, which is a type of monopoly itself.
- nickpp 3y ago
  Point me to a resistant monopoly or cartel and I will show you a government granted/supported one. Free markets are naturally resistant through free competition (startups!) and, you know, laws.
  - james4k 3y ago
    And how do you think a government reinforcing a monopoly comes to be?
    - nickpp 3y ago
      Countless ways. From sheer governmental incompetence like when regulating the competition out of markets. To simply not understanding second order effects when “helping markets” with patents and humongous copyright terms. To not understanding supply and demand when pressed to fulfill voter promises like when attempting to control and fix prices. To being captive to interest groups that end up controlling a huge chunk of economy like in heath care. But most of all through sheer, pure corruption. Because why else would someone become a politician - a relatively low paid position - if not to be in a position to transform all that power and influence into money, for the highest bidder?
      - james4k 3y ago
        And who are the highest bidders?
        3y ago
jeffreyrogers 3y ago
> I mean, the first person on their "Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism" is Jeff Bezos No, it's an anonymous Twitter account, you read the name wrong, "Beff Jezos" (sic), not "Jeff Bezos". Also if you look at the purest form of markets, which is probably high frequency trading, there are no monopolies and no cartels. It's an intensely competitive industry with relatively small profits given their transaction volume.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  If that's "the purest form" of something, give me the dirty version any day. An utterly useless human activity, that does nothing for actual humanity but simply serves as a wealth redistribution technique shared among a tiny number of highly-self-interested individuals ... it might be "pure" but it's not "pure" in any way.
  - stevenhuang 3y ago
    You don't understand market making and it's not ok to pretend you do.
    - skulk 3y ago
      Instead of reaching for this horribly irritating snark (I'm sure GP understands market making enough to understand why HFT exists), why not be charitable and consider the opportunity cost of the smartest people spending their mental energy to create a slightly more efficient market? Is this really a responsible use of this resource?
      - stevenhuang 3y ago
        Consider a similar irritation when seeing those with a superficial grasp of a complex topic oversimplify and make unwarranted conclusions. And it's precisely the GPs unwavering certainty that HFTs are net negative that accurately informs they do not understand the full implications of what HFTs offer. Because when you're aware of the full picture, it is not at all obvious society will be better off without it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912662
noqc 3y ago
Even absent contracts (which exist to enable collusion) the iterated prisoner's dilemma and its generalizations seem to be solvable by tacit agreement (in the two party case, by tit for tat). The only people who maintain that markets have the perfect competition property are those who define markets this way. Their existence is left as an exercise.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 3y ago
Yeah. If anything, monopolies and cartels spring into being within a free market. Over and over and over again. They're so dangerous to free markets because they hack the core freedoms into a positive feedback loop. Collusion beats naked competition; it's why our ancestors evolved to form societies instead of eating each other.
gojomo 3y ago
Read more closely: Jeff Bezos isn't mentioned. A pseudonymous X account known for gonzo tech/AI optimism, @BasedBeffJezos, is.
nradov 3y ago
Free markets allow for and even encourage monopolies and cartels in the short term because those drive up profit margins. But over a longer time scale most are eventually destroyed by missing a disruptive innovation.

hemloc_io 3y ago

Sigh, sad b/c I actually know this, but just a small correction. That's an anonymous Twitter/X account @BasedBeffJezos not the actual head Jeff himself. Founder(?) of the e/acc philosophy

Balladeer 3y ago
Hah! Thanks for the correction / info; I do appreciate it.
laidoffamazon 3y ago
This is worse than the actual Jeff Bezos, who constructed a trillion dollar company that underpins the internet, and is instead just an alt-right NRx troll on the internet.

vsareto 3y ago

Market discipline acts as a challenge, and humans figure out ways around challenges to maximize some reward (money). Market discipline is only enforced by humans and they have weaknesses. This manifesto wants to pretend that the rules enforce themselves by some natural property of the system akin to physics or biology, and not from humans. The manifesto is completely flawed on markets because what requires people to be discriminatory buyers is scarcity, which is opposite of what this manifesto is suggesting we work towards. It has no plans on how to handle technological abundance's (not post-scarcity) affect on market behavior: >We believe markets are the way to generate societal wealth for everything else we want to pay for

LindeBuzoGray 3y ago

Right. Land and air telecommunications are almost totally controlled by Verizon and AT&T. They are also some of the largest cable companies, although Comcast is a competitor. Although Comcast owns NBCUniversal, and we can start getting into the media monopoly. We can go through business by business and see the rise of monopolies and oligopolies. Universal owns half of the US music market - Universal, Sony and Warner own over 80% of the US music market. Accounting is done by the Big Four, advertising by its own Big Four. Just down the line - consolidation, oligopoly, monopoly. That is what markets produce. Standard Oil reversed its breakup into ExxonMobil, as did the Baby Bells into Verizon and AT&T. Even the government intervention into the monopolies gets reversed.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
What organization has a media monopoly? You have access to the internet, with which you can access media from individuals all the way up to multiple large corporations. On the national level, there are multiple sources of news (NYT/News Corp/Disney/Comcast/Paramount/WaPo/LATimes/etc). There are lots of sources of professionally and amateur produced entertainment. Apple/Amazon/Comcast/Disney/Sony/WarnerBrosDiscovery/Paramount/etc. If anything, the monopoly exists on wired broadband to peoples homes, which is usually only available from one seller.
- flerovium 3y ago
  Ownership: NYT - billionaire Sulzberger family WaPo - Jeff Bezos LA Times - billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong Disney/Comcast/Paramount represent the consolidation of an industry that used to be hundreds of independent newsrooms into a dozen or so corporations. The murdoch family's New Corp is regularly analyzed as a political force on par with individual elected leaders, if not more so. Entertainment: Apple/Amazon/Comcast/Disney/Sony/WarnerBrosDiscovery/Paramount The problem is that the industry has consolidated into a number of players you can count on one hand.

jaybrendansmith 3y ago

I really want to love this manifesto. This is my one sticking point. Regulatory capture, monopolies, and cartels are the fatal flaw in this techno-optimism, and they break everything. Let's say I subscribe to this wonderful story Marc tells. Please tell me the purpose of government if it is not to destroy cartels and monopolies. They are every bit as bad as the government, which is a type of monopoly itself.

nickpp 3y ago
Point me to a resistant monopoly or cartel and I will show you a government granted/supported one. Free markets are naturally resistant through free competition (startups!) and, you know, laws.
- james4k 3y ago
  And how do you think a government reinforcing a monopoly comes to be?
  - nickpp 3y ago
    Countless ways. From sheer governmental incompetence like when regulating the competition out of markets. To simply not understanding second order effects when “helping markets” with patents and humongous copyright terms. To not understanding supply and demand when pressed to fulfill voter promises like when attempting to control and fix prices. To being captive to interest groups that end up controlling a huge chunk of economy like in heath care. But most of all through sheer, pure corruption. Because why else would someone become a politician - a relatively low paid position - if not to be in a position to transform all that power and influence into money, for the highest bidder?
    - james4k 3y ago
      And who are the highest bidders?
      - 3y ago

jeffreyrogers 3y ago

> I mean, the first person on their "Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism" is Jeff Bezos No, it's an anonymous Twitter account, you read the name wrong, "Beff Jezos" (sic), not "Jeff Bezos". Also if you look at the purest form of markets, which is probably high frequency trading, there are no monopolies and no cartels. It's an intensely competitive industry with relatively small profits given their transaction volume.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
If that's "the purest form" of something, give me the dirty version any day. An utterly useless human activity, that does nothing for actual humanity but simply serves as a wealth redistribution technique shared among a tiny number of highly-self-interested individuals ... it might be "pure" but it's not "pure" in any way.
- stevenhuang 3y ago
  You don't understand market making and it's not ok to pretend you do.
  - skulk 3y ago
    Instead of reaching for this horribly irritating snark (I'm sure GP understands market making enough to understand why HFT exists), why not be charitable and consider the opportunity cost of the smartest people spending their mental energy to create a slightly more efficient market? Is this really a responsible use of this resource?
    - stevenhuang 3y ago
      Consider a similar irritation when seeing those with a superficial grasp of a complex topic oversimplify and make unwarranted conclusions. And it's precisely the GPs unwavering certainty that HFTs are net negative that accurately informs they do not understand the full implications of what HFTs offer. Because when you're aware of the full picture, it is not at all obvious society will be better off without it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912662

noqc 3y ago

Even absent contracts (which exist to enable collusion) the iterated prisoner's dilemma and its generalizations seem to be solvable by tacit agreement (in the two party case, by tit for tat). The only people who maintain that markets have the perfect competition property are those who define markets this way. Their existence is left as an exercise.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

shadowgovt 3y ago

Yeah. If anything, monopolies and cartels spring into being within a free market. Over and over and over again. They're so dangerous to free markets because they hack the core freedoms into a positive feedback loop. Collusion beats naked competition; it's why our ancestors evolved to form societies instead of eating each other.

gojomo 3y ago

Read more closely: Jeff Bezos isn't mentioned. A pseudonymous X account known for gonzo tech/AI optimism, @BasedBeffJezos, is.

nradov 3y ago

Free markets allow for and even encourage monopolies and cartels in the short term because those drive up profit margins. But over a longer time scale most are eventually destroyed by missing a disruptive innovation.