4 ms·

I absolutely agree. Free markets are a battle ground. Businesses should use what ever advantage they have over each other to get ahead. This is why I am very

by max_ 3y ago

I absolutely agree. Free markets are a battle ground. Businesses should use what ever advantage they have over each other to get ahead. This is why I am very against people that often beg regulators to come and reduce on the so called "unfair" business practices. The free market is not some place where businesses gather together around a fire singing Kumbaya Or as brothers in arms breaking bread. This confusion as to why businesses should be left to fight each other is what I mostly disagree with people on.

bearjaws 3y ago
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Anti-trust was started for a reason, we know how this ends long term, little competition and increased prices for everyone.
- max_ 3y ago
  The most regulated areas are the ones that have the worst prices for consumers and least competition. Think banks, insurance, pharmaceuticals, law etc.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Possibly that's because regulating them prevents bad banks, insurance and medicine from being issued. Businesses concerning wealth, provenance and health should be scrutinized heavily. Your opinion is like blaming American food being bad on the FDA. Without the (few) places where the FDA draws the line, that food would not get any better. Trust me.
smoldesu 3y ago
> Businesses should use what ever advantage they have over each other to get ahead. Including illegal monopoly power? If we gave Ma Bell and Standard Oil free reign I don't think the free market would be any better because of it.
- max_ 3y ago
  What do you mean by "illegal monopoly power" ? The word illegal doesn't mean unethical or wrong. So you will have to be very specific with what you mean. Just because some politicians decided to write something on a piece of paper doesn't make it right. How would you want the free market to be any "better"? The philosophy of a free market means a "free" market. Freedom for businesses to use what ever strategy they want to participate. Their is nothing it is specifically optimizing for.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Luckily, this is kinda the discussion I want to inspire. In today's day-in-age, greed is not inherently good. It does motivate markets, but we've made concessions in areas like pharmaceuticals where the harms are physical and undeniable. So with that in mind, I'd wager most people support some form of regulating greed. Saying that every market is better without regulation would be an extremist opinion that needs some substantiation. > The word illegal doesn't mean unethical or wrong. Nor does "monopoly" necessarily mean "illegal" in many cases. You might not agree with the politicians, but largely we agree with democracy and can empathize with victims when they present reasonable harms. In this case, enough people within and without the Apple ecosystem are motivated to compel Apple to change. If you believe in freedom of self-determination, you should be looking at this from the perspective of Apple choosing which markets they consider worth competing in. > The philosophy of a free market means a "free" market. You can be as philosophically correct as you want, but that doesn't change how law regulates the market (nor how other nations will behave). Governments intervene in the market. You're free to feel however you want about that, but first-world governments generally don't roll over when they're being exploited.
dindobre 3y ago
The free market still has rules, it's not a complete anarchy. Regulators can often be incompetent or make rulings that distort the market, which is a problem in itself. What we should aim for is a market which is free within boundaries, with the aim of the boundaries to increase competition, if we can assume that competition equals good things for everyone.

by max_ 3y ago

bearjaws 3y ago

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Anti-trust was started for a reason, we know how this ends long term, little competition and increased prices for everyone.

max_ 3y ago
The most regulated areas are the ones that have the worst prices for consumers and least competition. Think banks, insurance, pharmaceuticals, law etc.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Possibly that's because regulating them prevents bad banks, insurance and medicine from being issued. Businesses concerning wealth, provenance and health should be scrutinized heavily. Your opinion is like blaming American food being bad on the FDA. Without the (few) places where the FDA draws the line, that food would not get any better. Trust me.

smoldesu 3y ago

> Businesses should use what ever advantage they have over each other to get ahead. Including illegal monopoly power? If we gave Ma Bell and Standard Oil free reign I don't think the free market would be any better because of it.

max_ 3y ago
What do you mean by "illegal monopoly power" ? The word illegal doesn't mean unethical or wrong. So you will have to be very specific with what you mean. Just because some politicians decided to write something on a piece of paper doesn't make it right. How would you want the free market to be any "better"? The philosophy of a free market means a "free" market. Freedom for businesses to use what ever strategy they want to participate. Their is nothing it is specifically optimizing for.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Luckily, this is kinda the discussion I want to inspire. In today's day-in-age, greed is not inherently good. It does motivate markets, but we've made concessions in areas like pharmaceuticals where the harms are physical and undeniable. So with that in mind, I'd wager most people support some form of regulating greed. Saying that every market is better without regulation would be an extremist opinion that needs some substantiation. > The word illegal doesn't mean unethical or wrong. Nor does "monopoly" necessarily mean "illegal" in many cases. You might not agree with the politicians, but largely we agree with democracy and can empathize with victims when they present reasonable harms. In this case, enough people within and without the Apple ecosystem are motivated to compel Apple to change. If you believe in freedom of self-determination, you should be looking at this from the perspective of Apple choosing which markets they consider worth competing in. > The philosophy of a free market means a "free" market. You can be as philosophically correct as you want, but that doesn't change how law regulates the market (nor how other nations will behave). Governments intervene in the market. You're free to feel however you want about that, but first-world governments generally don't roll over when they're being exploited.

dindobre 3y ago

The free market still has rules, it's not a complete anarchy. Regulators can often be incompetent or make rulings that distort the market, which is a problem in itself. What we should aim for is a market which is free within boundaries, with the aim of the boundaries to increase competition, if we can assume that competition equals good things for everyone.