3 ms·

Speaking generally, not to you specifically, it seems like a ton of people see the problems created by capitalism and decide the solution is even more capitalis

by jmyeet 2y ago

Speaking generally, not to you specifically, it seems like a ton of people see the problems created by capitalism and decide the solution is even more capitalism. I don't think there's a magical number of competitors that fixes things. We see an interesting phenomenon in commercial landlords where we have a ton of players but they all use the same software [1], which creates an effective monopoly even though it's not a classical monopoly. The problems we see in so many sectors were accurately described in the 1800s by just analyzing the workers relationships to the means of production. Internet access is a textbook cexample. National ISPs should not exist. They are rent-seeking parasites. The best Internet is in places with municipal broadband. It's just not feasible or economical to have 4+ broadband networks being built in an area. [1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...

jnwatson 2y ago
Capitalism is a system that needs to be within operating parameters to function. Prevention of monopolies and cartels is an important part of those operating parameters.
WalterBright 2y ago
> It's just not feasible or economical to have 4+ broadband networks being built in an area Actually, it is. When telephone systems were invented, lots of telephone companies sprang up and ran wires everywhere. The barrier to this happening with broadband is regulation. Regulators work hard to ensure there is no broadband competition. > it seems like a ton of people see the problems created by capitalism and decide the solution is even more capitalism. I find that rather funny, as most people see the solution to failed government programs is expanding those programs. Anyone who wants to cut back such failures cannot get elected.
- lovich 2y ago
  > When telephone systems were invented, lots of telephone companies sprang up and ran wires everywhere. They did and cities ended up looking like this http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--91pqSjxr--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xvcknezbz7ir9lhbbicu.jpg http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--91pqSjxr... There is not enough space to dedicate to electrical and internet wiring with a competition model like this. The physical space is a natural monopoly. What should be done is to treat the wiring as a utility but allow for unlimited competition on the actual service, which is how the UK operates their internet service iirc
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Which proves my point. It was not cost that prevents multiple sets of wires being laid. It's regulation, and frankly rather poor management by the government. For example, a road nearby was widened for bike lanes. While they were at it, a trench was dug before the repaving to enlarge the water/sewer pipes. I emailed the people in charge that they should consider burying the power lines, too. The power lines ran on telephone poles along the road, and the poles were festooned with wires. The power lines regularly get dismantled by trees and wind storms. Laying wire in an existing trench is cheap as dirt. Digging a trench and laying wire and repaving costs about a million dollars a mile (I was told this a few years ago by a power employee). The reply I received was they'd already made the plans and couldn't be bothered.
    - lovich 2y ago
      >Which proves my point. It was not cost that prevents multiple sets of wires being laid. It's regulation, and frankly rather poor management by the government. Do you look at the picture I linked, and think this is a preferable end state over some extra regulatory cost? That you would rather have those sets of cables all over the place and think the government is preventing this better state? If you do, that's an opinion you can have, but I also think we have fundamentally different views of the world.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > Do you look at the picture I linked, and think this is a preferable end state over some extra regulatory cost? That you would rather have those sets of cables all over the place and think the government is preventing this better state? Yes, I saw the picture. It means it is not prohibitively expensive to run multiple wires. Yes, it is unsightly. But there are many, many ways to run multiple signals today. Technology has advanced a great deal. For example, one trench or pipe can provide space for a large number of wires. The community can provide a pipe for such purposes, like they provide pipes for other purposes. Or the providers can agree to share a wire. Or use microwaves. Or the cell towers. Or Starlink. And on and on.
- nitwit005 2y ago
  That sort of industry gets regulated because letting people build multiple incompatible networks is an extremely expensive thing to do. The railways often built incompatible tracks, signaling systems, and so forth, which was a problem nation's still struggle with. Power companies created incompatible systems. Japan is famous for running on two incompatible electrical grids to this day.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    There are enormous economic forces that push for standardization. For example, your keyboard is likely connected via USB. USB isn't a government standard. Neither is Standard C. And endless other things that the market standardized. Even 2*4 lumber is standardized. Gasoline is standardized. And so on. > Power companies created incompatible systems. They're usually granted government monopolies.
    - nitwit005 2y ago
      And yet somehow those incompatible telephone systems, rail systems, power systems, and everything else all came into existence. USB is widely highlighted as an unusual success. But Apple has notably created their own incompatible connectors, and made money that way, which is why Europe is busy forcing a charging standard. Gasoline is very obviously government regulated. 2 by 4s are only sort of standardized.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > Gasoline is very obviously government regulated. The chemical makeup of it? The government banned tetra ethyl lead in it, and mandated some ethanol in it, but the rest is various mixes made by the gas companies. > 2 by 4s are only sort of standardized. I've bought 2 by 4s for most of my life. They're a standard size.
        anticensor 2y ago
        > The chemical makeup of it? The government banned tetra ethyl lead in it, and mandated some ethanol in it, but the rest is various mixes made by the gas companies. There's a mil-spec gasoline that has to contain exact proportions of specific alkanes and ethanol to very tight tolerances, that could be taken as the golden standard gasoline.
- jmyeet 2y ago
  Let's say it costs $1000 to bring fiber to each household in a given network build. The take up rate might be 35%. That is 35% of connected households become customers. Well that customer has to recoupe $3000 to pay for that build. Now imagine there are 2 last mile networks. The take up rate hasn't changed. If they cost the same then each customer has to recoup $6000. Network overbuilds make absolutely no sense. Government programs don't fail per se. They're designed to fail by underfunding them or adding layers of administration (eg state block grants to replace direct Federal funding) and then that failure is used to justify more cuts. It's called starving the beast [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > Network overbuilds make absolutely no sense. You could say the same about any competition. And yet the evidence that competition reduces prices is enormous.
- chomskyole 2y ago
  > Regulators work hard to ensure there is no broadband competition. Regulators can be the tool to stifle competition. The driver though is inherent in business needs. Competition is the biggest cost to any business, so there will always be a drive to reduce the competition to as close to zero as possible. It's inherent in how businesses operate.
Gormo 2y ago
> Speaking generally, not to you specifically, it seems like a ton of people see the problems created by capitalism and decide the solution is even more capitalism. "Capitalism" is a descriptive model, not an entity with causal agency. Everything boils down to the intentions and actions of the human beings involved, and those do not change by paying lip service to a different body of abstract dogma. To the extent that "capitalism" accurately describes the structural incentives and constraints inherent in the reality that these problems are manifesting in, then there is nothing other than "even more capitalism" on the table as a solution. Problems can only be solved from within the world that generates them -- there is no "outside", as devotees of various dogmas often mistakenly think.

by jmyeet 2y ago

jnwatson 2y ago

Capitalism is a system that needs to be within operating parameters to function. Prevention of monopolies and cartels is an important part of those operating parameters.

WalterBright 2y ago

> It's just not feasible or economical to have 4+ broadband networks being built in an area Actually, it is. When telephone systems were invented, lots of telephone companies sprang up and ran wires everywhere. The barrier to this happening with broadband is regulation. Regulators work hard to ensure there is no broadband competition. > it seems like a ton of people see the problems created by capitalism and decide the solution is even more capitalism. I find that rather funny, as most people see the solution to failed government programs is expanding those programs. Anyone who wants to cut back such failures cannot get elected.

lovich 2y ago
> When telephone systems were invented, lots of telephone companies sprang up and ran wires everywhere. They did and cities ended up looking like this http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--91pqSjxr--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xvcknezbz7ir9lhbbicu.jpg http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--91pqSjxr... There is not enough space to dedicate to electrical and internet wiring with a competition model like this. The physical space is a natural monopoly. What should be done is to treat the wiring as a utility but allow for unlimited competition on the actual service, which is how the UK operates their internet service iirc
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Which proves my point. It was not cost that prevents multiple sets of wires being laid. It's regulation, and frankly rather poor management by the government. For example, a road nearby was widened for bike lanes. While they were at it, a trench was dug before the repaving to enlarge the water/sewer pipes. I emailed the people in charge that they should consider burying the power lines, too. The power lines ran on telephone poles along the road, and the poles were festooned with wires. The power lines regularly get dismantled by trees and wind storms. Laying wire in an existing trench is cheap as dirt. Digging a trench and laying wire and repaving costs about a million dollars a mile (I was told this a few years ago by a power employee). The reply I received was they'd already made the plans and couldn't be bothered.
  - lovich 2y ago
    >Which proves my point. It was not cost that prevents multiple sets of wires being laid. It's regulation, and frankly rather poor management by the government. Do you look at the picture I linked, and think this is a preferable end state over some extra regulatory cost? That you would rather have those sets of cables all over the place and think the government is preventing this better state? If you do, that's an opinion you can have, but I also think we have fundamentally different views of the world.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > Do you look at the picture I linked, and think this is a preferable end state over some extra regulatory cost? That you would rather have those sets of cables all over the place and think the government is preventing this better state? Yes, I saw the picture. It means it is not prohibitively expensive to run multiple wires. Yes, it is unsightly. But there are many, many ways to run multiple signals today. Technology has advanced a great deal. For example, one trench or pipe can provide space for a large number of wires. The community can provide a pipe for such purposes, like they provide pipes for other purposes. Or the providers can agree to share a wire. Or use microwaves. Or the cell towers. Or Starlink. And on and on.
nitwit005 2y ago
That sort of industry gets regulated because letting people build multiple incompatible networks is an extremely expensive thing to do. The railways often built incompatible tracks, signaling systems, and so forth, which was a problem nation's still struggle with. Power companies created incompatible systems. Japan is famous for running on two incompatible electrical grids to this day.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  There are enormous economic forces that push for standardization. For example, your keyboard is likely connected via USB. USB isn't a government standard. Neither is Standard C. And endless other things that the market standardized. Even 2*4 lumber is standardized. Gasoline is standardized. And so on. > Power companies created incompatible systems. They're usually granted government monopolies.
  - nitwit005 2y ago
    And yet somehow those incompatible telephone systems, rail systems, power systems, and everything else all came into existence. USB is widely highlighted as an unusual success. But Apple has notably created their own incompatible connectors, and made money that way, which is why Europe is busy forcing a charging standard. Gasoline is very obviously government regulated. 2 by 4s are only sort of standardized.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > Gasoline is very obviously government regulated. The chemical makeup of it? The government banned tetra ethyl lead in it, and mandated some ethanol in it, but the rest is various mixes made by the gas companies. > 2 by 4s are only sort of standardized. I've bought 2 by 4s for most of my life. They're a standard size.
      - anticensor 2y ago
        > The chemical makeup of it? The government banned tetra ethyl lead in it, and mandated some ethanol in it, but the rest is various mixes made by the gas companies. There's a mil-spec gasoline that has to contain exact proportions of specific alkanes and ethanol to very tight tolerances, that could be taken as the golden standard gasoline.
jmyeet 2y ago
Let's say it costs $1000 to bring fiber to each household in a given network build. The take up rate might be 35%. That is 35% of connected households become customers. Well that customer has to recoupe $3000 to pay for that build. Now imagine there are 2 last mile networks. The take up rate hasn't changed. If they cost the same then each customer has to recoup $6000. Network overbuilds make absolutely no sense. Government programs don't fail per se. They're designed to fail by underfunding them or adding layers of administration (eg state block grants to replace direct Federal funding) and then that failure is used to justify more cuts. It's called starving the beast [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > Network overbuilds make absolutely no sense. You could say the same about any competition. And yet the evidence that competition reduces prices is enormous.
chomskyole 2y ago
> Regulators work hard to ensure there is no broadband competition. Regulators can be the tool to stifle competition. The driver though is inherent in business needs. Competition is the biggest cost to any business, so there will always be a drive to reduce the competition to as close to zero as possible. It's inherent in how businesses operate.

Gormo 2y ago

> Speaking generally, not to you specifically, it seems like a ton of people see the problems created by capitalism and decide the solution is even more capitalism. "Capitalism" is a descriptive model, not an entity with causal agency. Everything boils down to the intentions and actions of the human beings involved, and those do not change by paying lip service to a different body of abstract dogma. To the extent that "capitalism" accurately describes the structural incentives and constraints inherent in the reality that these problems are manifesting in, then there is nothing other than "even more capitalism" on the table as a solution. Problems can only be solved from within the world that generates them -- there is no "outside", as devotees of various dogmas often mistakenly think.