4 ms·

You’re happy with only large tech giants existing then. Because lots of regulations are just barriers to entry and allow the existing players to keep playing

asow92 3y ago
[flagged]
hnlmorg 3y ago
The problem is the same argument also works in reverse: few regulations just make it easier for larger players to block smaller players from operating via dishonest business practices. Ultimately existing players always have the advantage. As a side note: the startup world is thriving in Europe. So EU regulations can’t be that high of a barrier ;)
- asow92 3y ago
  Personally, I don't think this works in real life. Consumers catch on to dishonest business practices and want choose new market options if/when they becomes available, and do not need a nanny state to pick winners and losers. If anything, excessive regulation and legal hurdles impede and prevent this market force from working as it should. Internet providers in the US are a perfect example of this in action: why would these virtual monopolies want to provide a better product if it's so hard for competition to materialize? They are incentivized to offer a less than ideal product while also lobbying for increased or maintained regulation to ensure the status quo. This isn't capitalism, but cronyism. Also, which startups are thriving in Europe with global appeal? Genuinely, un-sarcastically, curious.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    > Consumers catch on to dishonest business practices and want choose new market options if/when they becomes available, That almost never happens > Internet providers in the US are a perfect example of this in action: why would these virtual monopolies want to provide a better product if it's so hard for competition to materialize? Infrastructure costs is why you don’t see hundreds of competitors. New companies either need the capital to build new infrastructure, in which case they are usually more expensive due to economies of scale, or they have to resell someone else’s infrastructure. In which case they can only be as good as the monopolies. The ironic thing is in the UK there aren’t any monopolies in ISP. There is lots of healthy competition. So your example regarding deregulation proves the opposite of your point.
    - asow92 3y ago
      > That almost never happens I beg to differ. https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/08/28/undercharged-iphone-14-owners-complain-about-lower-battery-endurance https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/08/28/undercharged-ipho... https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/ln0id2/spectrum_lies_violations_and_fraud/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/ln0id2/spectrum_l... https://www.thisoldhouse.com/home-finances/reviews/worst-home-warranty-companies https://www.thisoldhouse.com/home-finances/reviews/worst-hom... https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moon-photos-ai-galaxy-s21-s23-ultra https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moo... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/02/01/bad-reputation-americas-top-20-most-hated-companies/1058718001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/02/01/bad...
      - hnlmorg 3y ago
        They just prove my point. Take the last link, for example, United Airlines scores low in customer satisfaction yet people still fly with them. Facebook might be hated yet people still use it. Most people either too lazy or too cheap to boycott businesses they don’t like. And that’s assuming they even have a choice, because often there really isn’t much of an alternative to choose from.
        asow92 3y ago
        People don’t have to fly United. People don’t have to use Facebook.
        hnlmorg 3y ago
        That’s exactly my point. They don’t have to, yet they do. Hence why you’re wrong in claiming that people are principled enough to boycott businesses at a scale that makes any difference to that business. You claim that badly behaved businesses would just lose the custom and yet all the evidence out there proves that just doesn’t happen. Or at least not to the extent that amounts to anything more than a rounding error on their books.

asow92 3y ago

[flagged]

hnlmorg 3y ago

The problem is the same argument also works in reverse: few regulations just make it easier for larger players to block smaller players from operating via dishonest business practices. Ultimately existing players always have the advantage. As a side note: the startup world is thriving in Europe. So EU regulations can’t be that high of a barrier ;)

asow92 3y ago
Personally, I don't think this works in real life. Consumers catch on to dishonest business practices and want choose new market options if/when they becomes available, and do not need a nanny state to pick winners and losers. If anything, excessive regulation and legal hurdles impede and prevent this market force from working as it should. Internet providers in the US are a perfect example of this in action: why would these virtual monopolies want to provide a better product if it's so hard for competition to materialize? They are incentivized to offer a less than ideal product while also lobbying for increased or maintained regulation to ensure the status quo. This isn't capitalism, but cronyism. Also, which startups are thriving in Europe with global appeal? Genuinely, un-sarcastically, curious.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  > Consumers catch on to dishonest business practices and want choose new market options if/when they becomes available, That almost never happens > Internet providers in the US are a perfect example of this in action: why would these virtual monopolies want to provide a better product if it's so hard for competition to materialize? Infrastructure costs is why you don’t see hundreds of competitors. New companies either need the capital to build new infrastructure, in which case they are usually more expensive due to economies of scale, or they have to resell someone else’s infrastructure. In which case they can only be as good as the monopolies. The ironic thing is in the UK there aren’t any monopolies in ISP. There is lots of healthy competition. So your example regarding deregulation proves the opposite of your point.
  - asow92 3y ago
    > That almost never happens I beg to differ. https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/08/28/undercharged-iphone-14-owners-complain-about-lower-battery-endurance https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/08/28/undercharged-ipho... https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/ln0id2/spectrum_lies_violations_and_fraud/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/ln0id2/spectrum_l... https://www.thisoldhouse.com/home-finances/reviews/worst-home-warranty-companies https://www.thisoldhouse.com/home-finances/reviews/worst-hom... https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moon-photos-ai-galaxy-s21-s23-ultra https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moo... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/02/01/bad-reputation-americas-top-20-most-hated-companies/1058718001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/02/01/bad...
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      They just prove my point. Take the last link, for example, United Airlines scores low in customer satisfaction yet people still fly with them. Facebook might be hated yet people still use it. Most people either too lazy or too cheap to boycott businesses they don’t like. And that’s assuming they even have a choice, because often there really isn’t much of an alternative to choose from.
      - asow92 3y ago
        People don’t have to fly United. People don’t have to use Facebook.
        hnlmorg 3y ago
        That’s exactly my point. They don’t have to, yet they do. Hence why you’re wrong in claiming that people are principled enough to boycott businesses at a scale that makes any difference to that business. You claim that badly behaved businesses would just lose the custom and yet all the evidence out there proves that just doesn’t happen. Or at least not to the extent that amounts to anything more than a rounding error on their books.