4 ms·

> In a capitalist system, that means companies, and it leads to consolidation and monopolization. No, a "capitalist system" does not lead to consolidation and

by yobbo 3y ago

> In a capitalist system, that means companies, and it leads to consolidation and monopolization. No, a "capitalist system" does not lead to consolidation and monopolization.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
That is true, but an unbridled capitalistic system that has relatively weak controls for protection of the commens DOES lead to such things frequently. I am not against capitalism, but against the form of capitalism we have today, which is focused on arbitrary and endless growth with relatively little controls to prevent pathologies like Google.
- yobbo 3y ago
  I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's maybe too early to describe Google as an example of "market failure" or "pathology". One could debate if it's fair (or legal?) to let one side of the business (search ads) subsidise another (gmail) in order to crowd out competitors. But that is neither an argument for or against "capitalism".
mort96 3y ago
Then why does antitrust regulations have to exist?
inglor_cz 3y ago
[Citation needed] I am a big fan of free markets, but the trend towards consolidation, at least in activities that profit from efficiencies of scale, is unmistakable, to the degree that it often kills the market unless prevented. You probably cannot "consolidate" a market of book authors and musical bands, because quality of artistic expression does not scale with money. But the market of publishers and recording companies is quite consolidated, because money buys more efficiency there.
- yobbo 3y ago
  > But the market of publishers and recording companies is quite consolidated, because money buys more efficiency there. Not quite. Publishing/recording depends on specific laws (intellectual property) to disable the competitive-market mechanisms. For example, copyright being extended to 95 years, but there are many other mechanisms surrounding copyrights that have enabled the current monopolies in publishing/recording.

by yobbo 3y ago

> In a capitalist system, that means companies, and it leads to consolidation and monopolization. No, a "capitalist system" does not lead to consolidation and monopolization.

vouaobrasil 3y ago

That is true, but an unbridled capitalistic system that has relatively weak controls for protection of the commens DOES lead to such things frequently. I am not against capitalism, but against the form of capitalism we have today, which is focused on arbitrary and endless growth with relatively little controls to prevent pathologies like Google.

yobbo 3y ago
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's maybe too early to describe Google as an example of "market failure" or "pathology". One could debate if it's fair (or legal?) to let one side of the business (search ads) subsidise another (gmail) in order to crowd out competitors. But that is neither an argument for or against "capitalism".

mort96 3y ago

Then why does antitrust regulations have to exist?

inglor_cz 3y ago

[Citation needed] I am a big fan of free markets, but the trend towards consolidation, at least in activities that profit from efficiencies of scale, is unmistakable, to the degree that it often kills the market unless prevented. You probably cannot "consolidate" a market of book authors and musical bands, because quality of artistic expression does not scale with money. But the market of publishers and recording companies is quite consolidated, because money buys more efficiency there.

yobbo 3y ago
> But the market of publishers and recording companies is quite consolidated, because money buys more efficiency there. Not quite. Publishing/recording depends on specific laws (intellectual property) to disable the competitive-market mechanisms. For example, copyright being extended to 95 years, but there are many other mechanisms surrounding copyrights that have enabled the current monopolies in publishing/recording.