3 ms·

The premise is not "always"... if anything, the premise is rathar that in this case it produces better outcome for the costomers? Also, the mechanism is explic

The premise is not "always"... if anything, the premise is rathar that in this case it produces better outcome for the costomers? Also, the mechanism is explicitly outlined (of cause very briefly) in the comment, so no need to resolve to premises. If you do have something concrete to counteract and add for the discussion, that would be awesome!

CPLX 3y ago
The mechanism of cause is what has the premise right in it. The premise basically states that those who add value cannot be exploited, marginalized, or excluded from the system. In real life of course they can, via market power, political power, violence, deception, or many other forces. It happens daily, probably to you or your family.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  I think I get your point and I kind of agree, but one nit about phrasing: > those who add value There's a concept of "value-add" intermediary, and it pretty much universally means reducing value for the customer. Car dealerships are a typical example. I'm torn on this. On the one hand, it makes sense in theory that excessive vertical integration is bad for society, and local businesses are good for society. On the other hand, I observe that in practice, competitive markets are subject to Gresham's law[0] - the shitty ones win over the good ones. So it follows, and something I also observed to be good as a heuristic, that the more layers of competing intermediaries you add, the shittier it gets for the customer. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law - "Bad money drives out good".
  - CPLX 3y ago
    > There's a concept of "value-add" intermediary, and it pretty much universally means reducing value for the customer. Car dealerships are a typical example. That nonsensical. Dealerships of course add value, they allow you to actually see and test drive the car, they physically deliver the car, and they fix the car. You could argue that the value is not worth the cost. Maybe so. But middlemen almost always add some value. And that’s independent of the more meta-value, which is providing a check against the market power of manufacturers.

CPLX 3y ago

The mechanism of cause is what has the premise right in it. The premise basically states that those who add value cannot be exploited, marginalized, or excluded from the system. In real life of course they can, via market power, political power, violence, deception, or many other forces. It happens daily, probably to you or your family.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
I think I get your point and I kind of agree, but one nit about phrasing: > those who add value There's a concept of "value-add" intermediary, and it pretty much universally means reducing value for the customer. Car dealerships are a typical example. I'm torn on this. On the one hand, it makes sense in theory that excessive vertical integration is bad for society, and local businesses are good for society. On the other hand, I observe that in practice, competitive markets are subject to Gresham's law[0] - the shitty ones win over the good ones. So it follows, and something I also observed to be good as a heuristic, that the more layers of competing intermediaries you add, the shittier it gets for the customer. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law - "Bad money drives out good".
- CPLX 3y ago
  > There's a concept of "value-add" intermediary, and it pretty much universally means reducing value for the customer. Car dealerships are a typical example. That nonsensical. Dealerships of course add value, they allow you to actually see and test drive the car, they physically deliver the car, and they fix the car. You could argue that the value is not worth the cost. Maybe so. But middlemen almost always add some value. And that’s independent of the more meta-value, which is providing a check against the market power of manufacturers.