3 ms·

> There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the

> There can be no 'free market' when you're dealing with communists. This is simply untrue. People wouldn't buy the product if it wasn't the best bang for the buck. Here "buying" is done with quantities of personal data. Does it help that TikTok costs are subsidized by a gov entity and therefore they can operate with lower revenue? Probably. Are consumers still getting the best deal? Absolutely. TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market.

anon291 3y ago
Consumers are getting a fine deal. The competing producers (or potential producers) are not. Given that, in the united states, its not just consumers who vote, since all citizens have a right to start and own a business, the American government must represent the interests of both American consumers AND (potential) producers. > TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market. In the same way that no American has a 'right' to buy products produced by slave labor, I contend that Americans have no right to buy products produced by government controlled corporations. The free market is for private players on a similar playing field. Unless we let all corporations have militaries and declare sovereignty, I don't believe there's any right to do business with communists. As a free-market enthusiast and a light libertarian, the non-agression principle applies equally to foreign governments as my own. Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage. At some point libertarians and free-marketers need to stop being selective as to which entities their principles get applied to. It's not a good look
- earthling8118 3y ago
  Communism isn't the problem here and it'd do you well to build an argument that isn't backed by that at every turn.
  - anon291 3y ago
    It absolutely is. Free markets depend on all forms being legally equal. Government owned firms are not since they have special privileges. In communism, all firms are government owned / controlled at some level. Ergo, no communist firm can engage in a free market.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Free markets are markets in which parties are allowed to voluntarily trade without government interfere. Communist-supported companies do not violate free market definitions. After all, people still get to decide whether they will trade with them.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage. You're not simply not engaging. You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs. The extension of that principle is that we should ban anyone from Iceland because they have nearly free electricity and so it's unfair that they can run data centers cheaper that US based ones. Or any country with welfare that enables them to hire for cheaper, since that is a direct gov subsidy. We typically focus on consumers from a market competition regulation perspective because that is where price matters. Anyone that can't compete simply can't. If TikTok raises prices, it means someone can move in and undercut them, so there is incentive to keep prices low. We don't want to limit competition because it leads to worse outcomes. Look at the Jones act or the Chicken Tax as examples.
  - anon291 3y ago
    > The extension of that principle is that we should ban anyone from Iceland because they have nearly free electricity and so it's unfair that they can run data centers cheaper that US based ones. Or any country with welfare that enables them to hire for cheaper, since that is a direct gov subsidy. Electricity... No because that's a market commodity (presumably). Gov subsidy? Yes we should impose a tariff on that. Same with slave labor or other non market inputs. Either way, substantially different than government owned. > You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs. Well... Yeah. Others cannot engage with the CCP as legal equals in the United States or anywhere else. Allowing them to do so creates unfair, non free markets.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
> TikTok isn't a mysterious product False. It is mysterious. Where is TikTok's source? Is TikTok recommendation model open sourced? > Stop removing agency from folks Welcome to living in a society with a govt. that has to think of the greater society's welfare in the future. > realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market. Are we ignoring how better products failed due to stealing by CCP companies (e.g., Huawei stealing from Nortel Networks and Cisco)?

anon291 3y ago

Consumers are getting a fine deal. The competing producers (or potential producers) are not. Given that, in the united states, its not just consumers who vote, since all citizens have a right to start and own a business, the American government must represent the interests of both American consumers AND (potential) producers. > TikTok isn't a mysterious product. People know what they're getting and what they're giving to get it. Stop removing agency from folks and realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market. In the same way that no American has a 'right' to buy products produced by slave labor, I contend that Americans have no right to buy products produced by government controlled corporations. The free market is for private players on a similar playing field. Unless we let all corporations have militaries and declare sovereignty, I don't believe there's any right to do business with communists. As a free-market enthusiast and a light libertarian, the non-agression principle applies equally to foreign governments as my own. Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage. At some point libertarians and free-marketers need to stop being selective as to which entities their principles get applied to. It's not a good look

earthling8118 3y ago
Communism isn't the problem here and it'd do you well to build an argument that isn't backed by that at every turn.
- anon291 3y ago
  It absolutely is. Free markets depend on all forms being legally equal. Government owned firms are not since they have special privileges. In communism, all firms are government owned / controlled at some level. Ergo, no communist firm can engage in a free market.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Free markets are markets in which parties are allowed to voluntarily trade without government interfere. Communist-supported companies do not violate free market definitions. After all, people still get to decide whether they will trade with them.
hellojesus 3y ago
> Since I cannot vote out the communists, I can simply choose to not engage. You're not simply not engaging. You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs. The extension of that principle is that we should ban anyone from Iceland because they have nearly free electricity and so it's unfair that they can run data centers cheaper that US based ones. Or any country with welfare that enables them to hire for cheaper, since that is a direct gov subsidy. We typically focus on consumers from a market competition regulation perspective because that is where price matters. Anyone that can't compete simply can't. If TikTok raises prices, it means someone can move in and undercut them, so there is incentive to keep prices low. We don't want to limit competition because it leads to worse outcomes. Look at the Jones act or the Chicken Tax as examples.
- anon291 3y ago
  > The extension of that principle is that we should ban anyone from Iceland because they have nearly free electricity and so it's unfair that they can run data centers cheaper that US based ones. Or any country with welfare that enables them to hire for cheaper, since that is a direct gov subsidy. Electricity... No because that's a market commodity (presumably). Gov subsidy? Yes we should impose a tariff on that. Same with slave labor or other non market inputs. Either way, substantially different than government owned. > You're also trying to prevent others from engaging, where the justification is that you want to prevent others from engaging because of uneven competitive costs. Well... Yeah. Others cannot engage with the CCP as legal equals in the United States or anywhere else. Allowing them to do so creates unfair, non free markets.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

> TikTok isn't a mysterious product False. It is mysterious. Where is TikTok's source? Is TikTok recommendation model open sourced? > Stop removing agency from folks Welcome to living in a society with a govt. that has to think of the greater society's welfare in the future. > realize that TikTok would disappear tomorrow if a better product hit the market. Are we ignoring how better products failed due to stealing by CCP companies (e.g., Huawei stealing from Nortel Networks and Cisco)?