5 ms·

>In the long run the open market always wins. I've never seen an open market in the wild, much less it "always winning". You mean an open market like the "$1

by batista 15y ago

>In the long run the open market always wins. I've never seen an open market in the wild, much less it "always winning". You mean an open market like the "$1 trillion bailout not to collapse the whole economy" open market? Or an open market like "we enforce strict copyright laws to artificially limit each copyrighted product to one maker and it's pricing at his whims"? Or an open market with patents, for the same purpose? Or an open market with frequent cartels, to everything from dairy products to RAM? Last, but not least, an open market where a country with a military advantage has several army units deployed and several wars to secure resources and keep their prices down?

philbarr 15y ago
That is a fantastic rant about the open market. Do you mind if I use it and claim it as my own someday?
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  The rant is generic and uncompelling. I'm sure you can do better.
- batista 15y ago
  Sure, knock yourself out.
- kylebrown 15y ago
  as an alternative to a full-blown rant, just remind people that market fundamentalism died in the '08-'09 superbubble implosion. E.g. the new Dallas Fed report about enhancing "market discipline" and restoring "faith in market capitalism."
  - CamperBob 15y ago
    What happened in '08-'09 had as much to do with market capitalism as the Stalinist purges had to do with Marxism.
mkr-hn 15y ago
You might want to hold off on the ideological rant and re-read. I think cageface was talking about application markets. I didn't know Google was using their market to bail people out and wage a secret resource war.
- geon 15y ago
  > I think cageface was talking about application markets. What application market is it that is open and always wins?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    I can't read minds. You should ask the person who didn't appear to be referring to markets outside of app stores.
- epo 15y ago
  He said "open markets" you are putting words into his mouth to back up your own. ideology.
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    I've made no claims about markets. How could you even know if I have an ideology? That was an attempt at clarification so we could avoid the off-topic and inevitably unproductive political tangent batista was about to start.
- batista 15y ago
  >You might want to hold off on the ideological rant and re-read. I think cageface was talking about application markets. The same hold true for application markets. In any market where money are involved and parties with interests of their own can get a stronghold on the rules, the results are the same. >I didn't know Google was using their market to bail people out and wage a secret resource war. Well, pushing their own apps to users with "picks" and front-page promotion is akin to a bailout. They can restrict apps that compete with their core businesses in a snap, they can change the rules of the game anytime, etc. They use it to do whatever offers them a competitive advantage. Apple's marketplace is an even better example, as it is more closed. Google cannot close the Android marketplace at the same level, because they cannot do all the stuff Apple pulls and still attract developers away from more lucrative iOS at the same time (developers are the "scarce resource" here). Btw: "ideological rant" implies that something I said re: "free markets" does not hold true and I say it because of my ideology. Can you point to it? Else it's not "ideological", it's mere empirical observation.
frogpelt 15y ago
Each of the things you mentioned were instances in which the government interfered with the open market and made things worse. The free market left to itself would fix most of it's own problems (I say most because I think some regulation is necessary and good). But it requires patience to let the market work.
- mirkules 15y ago
  Not so fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Monopoly The free market left to itself will eventually converge into a monopoly.
  - mistermann 15y ago
    > The free market left to itself will sometimes converge into a monopoly.
  - kika 15y ago
    What's true for railways or airlines is not always true for applications and web services. The barriers in the latter markets are much, much lower.
- batista 15y ago
  >Each of the things you mentioned were instances in which the government interfered with the open market and made things worse. No, all the things that I mention are instances of actual markets. Were is this free market? If it's possible, why it hasn't been seen anywhere on earth? >The free market left to itself would fix most of it's own problems I mean, to reason about what the free market will do IF it exists has no value. The free market, even if it was imposed by some power for one second, would have to be forcibly sustained by human agents --namely corporations, consumers, workers and the government. Nothing tells us that it would, in fact history teaches us otherwise. One might as well say: "If everybody always was pro peace and love, and never did anything bad, we would have world peace and love". Of course, but the whole point is in how to achieve that. So, to say "the free market would fix most of it's own problems" has zero value, if the #1 problem is how to create and sustain a free market itself.

by batista 15y ago

philbarr 15y ago

That is a fantastic rant about the open market. Do you mind if I use it and claim it as my own someday?

mkr-hn 15y ago
The rant is generic and uncompelling. I'm sure you can do better.
batista 15y ago
Sure, knock yourself out.
kylebrown 15y ago
as an alternative to a full-blown rant, just remind people that market fundamentalism died in the '08-'09 superbubble implosion. E.g. the new Dallas Fed report about enhancing "market discipline" and restoring "faith in market capitalism."
- CamperBob 15y ago
  What happened in '08-'09 had as much to do with market capitalism as the Stalinist purges had to do with Marxism.

mkr-hn 15y ago

You might want to hold off on the ideological rant and re-read. I think cageface was talking about application markets. I didn't know Google was using their market to bail people out and wage a secret resource war.

geon 15y ago
> I think cageface was talking about application markets. What application market is it that is open and always wins?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  I can't read minds. You should ask the person who didn't appear to be referring to markets outside of app stores.
epo 15y ago
He said "open markets" you are putting words into his mouth to back up your own. ideology.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  I've made no claims about markets. How could you even know if I have an ideology? That was an attempt at clarification so we could avoid the off-topic and inevitably unproductive political tangent batista was about to start.
batista 15y ago
>You might want to hold off on the ideological rant and re-read. I think cageface was talking about application markets. The same hold true for application markets. In any market where money are involved and parties with interests of their own can get a stronghold on the rules, the results are the same. >I didn't know Google was using their market to bail people out and wage a secret resource war. Well, pushing their own apps to users with "picks" and front-page promotion is akin to a bailout. They can restrict apps that compete with their core businesses in a snap, they can change the rules of the game anytime, etc. They use it to do whatever offers them a competitive advantage. Apple's marketplace is an even better example, as it is more closed. Google cannot close the Android marketplace at the same level, because they cannot do all the stuff Apple pulls and still attract developers away from more lucrative iOS at the same time (developers are the "scarce resource" here). Btw: "ideological rant" implies that something I said re: "free markets" does not hold true and I say it because of my ideology. Can you point to it? Else it's not "ideological", it's mere empirical observation.

frogpelt 15y ago

Each of the things you mentioned were instances in which the government interfered with the open market and made things worse. The free market left to itself would fix most of it's own problems (I say most because I think some regulation is necessary and good). But it requires patience to let the market work.

mirkules 15y ago
Not so fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Monopoly The free market left to itself will eventually converge into a monopoly.
- mistermann 15y ago
  > The free market left to itself will sometimes converge into a monopoly.
- kika 15y ago
  What's true for railways or airlines is not always true for applications and web services. The barriers in the latter markets are much, much lower.
batista 15y ago
>Each of the things you mentioned were instances in which the government interfered with the open market and made things worse. No, all the things that I mention are instances of actual markets. Were is this free market? If it's possible, why it hasn't been seen anywhere on earth? >The free market left to itself would fix most of it's own problems I mean, to reason about what the free market will do IF it exists has no value. The free market, even if it was imposed by some power for one second, would have to be forcibly sustained by human agents --namely corporations, consumers, workers and the government. Nothing tells us that it would, in fact history teaches us otherwise. One might as well say: "If everybody always was pro peace and love, and never did anything bad, we would have world peace and love". Of course, but the whole point is in how to achieve that. So, to say "the free market would fix most of it's own problems" has zero value, if the #1 problem is how to create and sustain a free market itself.