4 ms·
But the whole point is that in this case the money is not accumulated. Lots of different companies are each spending a lot of money in the hopes that they will
by saint_fiasco 2y ago
But the whole point is that in this case the money is not accumulated. Lots of different companies are each spending a lot of money in the hopes that they will be the last standing, at which point they will get to accumulate the money.
It's possible that if one company does end up with a monopoly, they will treat their employees better. Because then they will finally be able to charge higher prices to the customers without losing those customers to the other more exploitative businesses.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- wpm 2y agoThe money they’re spending didn’t poof into existence, it’s coming from private equity and investors that accumulated it.
- saint_fiasco 2y agoRight, they must have accumulated the money beforehand. But what they are doing right now with it is the opposite of accumulating it. They are taking the money that they previously accumulated and spending it on lots of random bullshit. Suppose you were to discourage accumulation, with a tax for example. Wouldn't that lead to investors investing in even more random bullshit?
- kragen 2y agoplausibly the money was just printed rather than being accumulated. the article is from the zero interest rate epoch
- lambertsimnel 2y ago> It's possible that if one company does end up with a monopoly, they will treat their employees better. If they can get away with paying employees so little, why would they voluntarily pay more as a monopoly? (Presumably they wouldn't have a monopoly in the labour market, in which case I would expect pay to remain the same, rather than worsen.)