3 ms·
Based on what OP is saying, if capitalism was really working here then Springer would be out of business - because they don't provide any value. It seems what
by thunky 2y ago
Based on what OP is saying, if capitalism was really working here then Springer would be out of business - because they don't provide any value.
It seems what we have here is a cultural problem.
- ffsm8 2y agoHonestly, you have an idealized view on capitalism. It's still the most productive system humanity has ever used at scale, but capitalism favors monopolies, cartels and every other anti-competitive behavior you can think of. That's why we have regulations against such behavior. Even if - as it turns out- these regulations can still be weaponized by bad acteurs to ultimately strengthen their hold on markets
- Sardtok 2y agoHe did say "if capitalism was really working". I at least read that as "working as intended", i.e. as the capitalistic ideal.
- ffsm8 2y agoYes, and my point was that the capitalistic ideal does not mean fair competition. Because capitalism inherently favours anti-competitive behavior. If it didn't, we wouldn't have had to pass legislation to outlaw it. Quoting "not real capitalism" as am argument is at the same level as saying "we just didn't try real socialism yet". That's technically true, too. And we likely never will.
- aspenmayer 2y agoIn this case, it seems close to a prisoner's dilemma. That would make the researchers the prisoners and Springer the jailer in this analogy. All researchers are incentivized to defect to the jailer(s)/private publishers until they know that there is a critical mass of prisoners willing to make a prison break/switch to open access journals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma