3 ms·

Exactly, it's "just" the market setting the price. The issue is that these are near monopolies, so the market isn't efficient. In other words, if those compan

by svara 2y ago

Exactly, it's "just" the market setting the price. The issue is that these are near monopolies, so the market isn't efficient. In other words, if those companies didn't have monopoly power, other businesses (or non-commercial entities) might be able to afford to hire some of these people as well, which might be beneficial overall for innovation. That's the economic argument and it's pretty clean imo. But as far as I'm concerned personally, I would really prefer to live in a world in which smart people work on human flourishing... rather than whatever that is.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think that's exactly the point I was getting it. Who decides what efficient is, and what do they measure. You might care about vision algorithms, and I might care about hamburgers. From the economics perspective, something being Monopoly doesn't mean it's inefficient. Depending on the situation, they can be far more efficient then diverse companies, or much less
- simiones 2y ago
  > From the economics perspective, something being Monopoly doesn't mean it's inefficient. From an economics perspective, if there is a monopoly, there is no free market, so you can't rely on the market for efficiency. A monopoly can be efficient, but it can also be arbitrarily inefficient and still keep its position.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    you are correct and I agree. I was trying to make the point that monopoly isnt defined by inefficiency, either by the technical definition or the colloquial one. Rality is complex, and few monopolies can be arbitrarily inefficient. I think this is where a lot of the public confusion about monopiles comes from. If you have the only grocery store or gas station in town, it might seem like there is a monopoly. There is probably a wide leeway to raise prices or be inefficient, but not without limit or else someone would compete. If Amazon, Google, or whomever 10X'd their prices, competitors would arise.
LunaSea 2y ago
The market is shit at making long term risky bets that require a lot of R&D. That's the reason why quantum computing and projects of this type would not exist if you didn't have behemoth companies with extra cash lying around.
animal_spirits 2y ago
The problem with your ideals is that every one has different ideas on what "human flourishing" looks like. One way or the other, if it is Government that is in charge of "human flourishing", then some group of people are going to benefit at the expense of another group of people, at the discretion of whoever currently has the most political clout.

by svara 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think that's exactly the point I was getting it. Who decides what efficient is, and what do they measure. You might care about vision algorithms, and I might care about hamburgers. From the economics perspective, something being Monopoly doesn't mean it's inefficient. Depending on the situation, they can be far more efficient then diverse companies, or much less

simiones 2y ago
> From the economics perspective, something being Monopoly doesn't mean it's inefficient. From an economics perspective, if there is a monopoly, there is no free market, so you can't rely on the market for efficiency. A monopoly can be efficient, but it can also be arbitrarily inefficient and still keep its position.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  you are correct and I agree. I was trying to make the point that monopoly isnt defined by inefficiency, either by the technical definition or the colloquial one. Rality is complex, and few monopolies can be arbitrarily inefficient. I think this is where a lot of the public confusion about monopiles comes from. If you have the only grocery store or gas station in town, it might seem like there is a monopoly. There is probably a wide leeway to raise prices or be inefficient, but not without limit or else someone would compete. If Amazon, Google, or whomever 10X'd their prices, competitors would arise.

LunaSea 2y ago

The market is shit at making long term risky bets that require a lot of R&D. That's the reason why quantum computing and projects of this type would not exist if you didn't have behemoth companies with extra cash lying around.

animal_spirits 2y ago

The problem with your ideals is that every one has different ideas on what "human flourishing" looks like. One way or the other, if it is Government that is in charge of "human flourishing", then some group of people are going to benefit at the expense of another group of people, at the discretion of whoever currently has the most political clout.