6 ms·

I really wish we could return to an era of congress that had appropriate mistrust in business and a strong desire for anti-trust busting. I think it’s one of th

I really wish we could return to an era of congress that had appropriate mistrust in business and a strong desire for anti-trust busting. I think it’s one of the most important things we could do to prevent capitalism from going off the rails.

djfobbz 2y ago
You make an important point. Not all capitalism is equal. When big businesses like Monsanto lobby politicians to have it their way, it’s not capitalism but rather corruption and coercion. This undermines the free market principles we value. In contrast, capitalism at the small business level is often more innovative and agile, quickly adapting to market changes and consumer needs. Supporting small businesses and ensuring a fair playing field can help prevent capitalism from going off the rails and foster a more dynamic and equitable economy.
- nayuki 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
- soco 2y ago
  I don't think for the small customer the wording has any significance. Is it capitalism or cronyism or you-name-it, they get shafted because that's the only criterion for a big business "success": grabbing all the money from the table for the goal of maximizing profits. All fine and nice and free in theory, but in the practice it works like this (look around). So I'm sorry I don't buy this "no true scotsman" argument, be it for capitalism or for communism or anything else. It only matters how it works in reality, and I don't like much how it works.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    You know USA had capitalism in the 60s as well? That was also reality, capitalism often works really well in reality. And even USA today isn't a bad place to live, if that is a bad case of capitalism then that is a risk well worth taking.
- dfxm12 2y ago
  This is all capitalism. Monsanto is the logical conclusion of capitalism. Everyone else is just playing catch up. Unfortunately, any politician who does try to do something about it gets vilified as anti-American, based on decades of cold war propaganda against other economic systems.
drewcoo 2y ago
> an era of congress that had appropriate mistrust in business and a strong desire for anti-trust busting That would mean Congress serving the people and not corporations who lobby them.
- boHarper 2y ago
  [dead]
snapplebobapple 2y ago
Out of curiosity, do you feel the same about unions, because it is the same exact problem and should be dealt with the exact same way.
- jjk166 2y ago
  You don't see a difference between a monopoly on food and a union?
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
    Of course not, one is a monopoly on labor and one is a monopoly on an end product. Monopoly is the key word and the problem in both situations.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      Pretty sure food is the key word here, seeing as people need that to live. A monopoly on swiss watches, for example, would be fine. Now again, do you see a difference between a monopoly on food, and a monopoly on a particular form of labor?
      - azinman2 2y ago
        I don’t think there should be a monopoly on anything, Swiss watches included. It stuns growth and innovation, raises prices, and leads to a less dynamic economy.
        jjk166 2y ago
        Look up natural monopoly.
      - snapplebobapple 2y ago
        I say again, there is no difference. Both result in higher prices for the item being monopolized, lower output and dead weight loss for society (this has a specific meaning in economics, it's basically the worst thing that can happen). All deadweight losses should be fixed. There is probably a difference in urgency given that the deadweight loss on food will be a lot higher because everyone eats and only a few consume Swiss watches, but that is outside of the scope of my question. My question was just to verify whether the op understood the problem and felt the same about both common versions of the problem or if there was a lack of understanding, or if they understood the problem but are stuck in one of the common logic traps stopping a rational conclusion from being formed.

djfobbz 2y ago

You make an important point. Not all capitalism is equal. When big businesses like Monsanto lobby politicians to have it their way, it’s not capitalism but rather corruption and coercion. This undermines the free market principles we value. In contrast, capitalism at the small business level is often more innovative and agile, quickly adapting to market changes and consumer needs. Supporting small businesses and ensuring a fair playing field can help prevent capitalism from going off the rails and foster a more dynamic and equitable economy.

nayuki 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
soco 2y ago
I don't think for the small customer the wording has any significance. Is it capitalism or cronyism or you-name-it, they get shafted because that's the only criterion for a big business "success": grabbing all the money from the table for the goal of maximizing profits. All fine and nice and free in theory, but in the practice it works like this (look around). So I'm sorry I don't buy this "no true scotsman" argument, be it for capitalism or for communism or anything else. It only matters how it works in reality, and I don't like much how it works.
- Jensson 2y ago
  You know USA had capitalism in the 60s as well? That was also reality, capitalism often works really well in reality. And even USA today isn't a bad place to live, if that is a bad case of capitalism then that is a risk well worth taking.
dfxm12 2y ago
This is all capitalism. Monsanto is the logical conclusion of capitalism. Everyone else is just playing catch up. Unfortunately, any politician who does try to do something about it gets vilified as anti-American, based on decades of cold war propaganda against other economic systems.

drewcoo 2y ago

> an era of congress that had appropriate mistrust in business and a strong desire for anti-trust busting That would mean Congress serving the people and not corporations who lobby them.

boHarper 2y ago
[dead]

snapplebobapple 2y ago

Out of curiosity, do you feel the same about unions, because it is the same exact problem and should be dealt with the exact same way.

jjk166 2y ago
You don't see a difference between a monopoly on food and a union?
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  Of course not, one is a monopoly on labor and one is a monopoly on an end product. Monopoly is the key word and the problem in both situations.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Pretty sure food is the key word here, seeing as people need that to live. A monopoly on swiss watches, for example, would be fine. Now again, do you see a difference between a monopoly on food, and a monopoly on a particular form of labor?
    - azinman2 2y ago
      I don’t think there should be a monopoly on anything, Swiss watches included. It stuns growth and innovation, raises prices, and leads to a less dynamic economy.
      - jjk166 2y ago
        Look up natural monopoly.
    - snapplebobapple 2y ago
      I say again, there is no difference. Both result in higher prices for the item being monopolized, lower output and dead weight loss for society (this has a specific meaning in economics, it's basically the worst thing that can happen). All deadweight losses should be fixed. There is probably a difference in urgency given that the deadweight loss on food will be a lot higher because everyone eats and only a few consume Swiss watches, but that is outside of the scope of my question. My question was just to verify whether the op understood the problem and felt the same about both common versions of the problem or if there was a lack of understanding, or if they understood the problem but are stuck in one of the common logic traps stopping a rational conclusion from being formed.