6 ms·

Behold: the Market doing Market shit.

by forgetfreeman 2y ago

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Behold: Market participants using government to disable other market participants.
- coliveira 2y ago
  You said well, market using government. The government is just a tool used by capitalists.
  - db48x 2y ago
    Yea, I guess the communists and socialists and libertarians would all use different tools.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      I mean, if the libertarians are to be believed they'd use some combination of disapproving looks and hired mercenaries (depending on how married they claim to be to the NAP) to enforce their perceived rights given there'd be little or no government framework available to even define what those rights might be much less enforce them.
- falcolas 2y ago
  In this case since it's deed restrictions as part of the land/building sale it's not the government enforcing these restrictions, it's plain old contract law.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The government enforces all contracts, by having the power to impose the consequences of violating contracts. In this case, the government is not doing its anti trust duties resulting in harm to the public.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      Perhaps it's just me, but I'm pretty glad that we don't have the government interfering with our every contracted act (a sale is such an act). On the flip side, without the government to enforce a contract one party has broken, there would be no reason to ever fulfill a contract - you'd have to rely on citizen's force, and history has not shown that it's been particularly good to rely on regular citizens.
- class3shock 2y ago
  Just because a legal mechanism exists (adding a restriction to a deed as part of a private sale) does not mean that its use is legal. This is not "using" the government to disable other market participants, this is illegally abusing the mechanism of a deed restriction to monopolize a market and extort people.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    > This is not "using" the government to disable other market participants, this is illegally abusing the mechanism of a deed restriction to monopolize a market and extort people. Betting on government inaction for breaking the law is still using the government. If it is illegal, then a competing grocery store should be able to open its doors and any lawsuits thrown out. Considering Albertsons’ and other grocery store’s lawyers are not willing to bet on this, it must be clearly illegal, which is again, a problem the government has to solve.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      the government doesn't go around enforcing contracts; the government provides a mechanism whereby a person who is wronged (by another party breaking their contract) can appeal and get some justice (without which you have the aggrieved party going over and shooting the other party). a competing company could open a store there anyway and then fight the battle in court; they might even win, but the cost of the court case would prevent most companies from even trying, after all groceries are a relatively low margin business--if this were a gold mine instead of grocery store you can be sure someone would have opened it already and fought it in court
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        The government can also decree a simple ban on contracts that reduce competition. Similar to a ban on non compete contracts. Any contract that intends to reduce the amount of buyers or sellers could be made unenforceable.
    - class3shock 2y ago
psunavy03 2y ago
This is precisely the opposite of that, in fact.
aliasxneo 2y ago
Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. In which case, your comment makes no sense.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. The free market sorta means that anyone is going to use any means possible to fuck over their competition, I don't see how this situation is incompatible with that.
  - rogerrogerr 2y ago
    “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence. Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence and will arrest you for violating land use restrictions. An average free market supporter would say this isn’t the free market working.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence No, free markets aren’t equivalent to anarchy and every state action isn’t tantamount to violence. This is an ambiguity in the concept of free markets, which is why we’re having a linguistic versus conceptual discussion.
    - ConspiracyFact 2y ago
      Property rights themselves are backed by the state’s monopoly on violence. So no, the free market doesn’t exclude violence, it requires it. (I’m not saying that capitalism uniquely requires violence in order to function, but libertarians like to pretend that it’s an exception.)
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      > “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence How can contracts be enforced without coercive force if one party decides not to follow the agreement?
epistasis 2y ago
This isn't a "market" doing something, it's a monopolist doing monopolist stuff. One kind of precludes the other...
- falcolas 2y ago
  Not at all. The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies. As demonstrated again and again throughout US history, with only anti-trust regulation bringing the monopolies to an end.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies Not at all established. Monopolies require strong states to exist.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      > Monopolies require strong states to exist. How so? When competition can merely be purchased, why wouldn't the larger company do so? Or if the competitor doesn't want to sell, the larger company can undercut them until they're forced to sell or exit the market. No government required for either tactic, and there are plenty of examples of both occurring in US history. For example, Standard Oil, which was formed when about 40 smaller companies joined forces. Another place where monopolies take root with no state input is when there's a large barrier to entry, such as with railroads. The cost (and justifying the cost to investors) is too much for most companies to even break ground, let alone complete. For example, Bell System, which owned the copper in the ground and the equipment producer Western Electric. Now then, of course a state can and do also raise the cost of entry for new competitors - but then we're going to be talking about a regulated market.
  - epistasis 2y ago
    Unregulated markets tending to monopolies means that markets require regulation, not that a monopoly is a market. Unregulated markets are not the "natural" state of a market, and not the meaning of a "free" market. A free market is one in which there is competition and new agents are able to enter the market, not ones where there is no law.
akira2501 2y ago
Behold: we have laws for a reason.
drewcoo 2y ago
one hand . . . invisible with liberty and justice for all?
alistairSH 2y ago
Also, behold a market failure. Edit - we’re talking about two markets - groceries and land. Rules in one market (land) are being used to create a monopoly in the other (groceries). While the land market may still be “free”, the grocery market is not. And now we devolve into debate about what’s better - textbook free markets or markets that require government intervention to ensure the most social good.

Behold: the Market doing Market shit.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

Behold: Market participants using government to disable other market participants.

coliveira 2y ago
You said well, market using government. The government is just a tool used by capitalists.
- db48x 2y ago
  Yea, I guess the communists and socialists and libertarians would all use different tools.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    I mean, if the libertarians are to be believed they'd use some combination of disapproving looks and hired mercenaries (depending on how married they claim to be to the NAP) to enforce their perceived rights given there'd be little or no government framework available to even define what those rights might be much less enforce them.
falcolas 2y ago
In this case since it's deed restrictions as part of the land/building sale it's not the government enforcing these restrictions, it's plain old contract law.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The government enforces all contracts, by having the power to impose the consequences of violating contracts. In this case, the government is not doing its anti trust duties resulting in harm to the public.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    Perhaps it's just me, but I'm pretty glad that we don't have the government interfering with our every contracted act (a sale is such an act). On the flip side, without the government to enforce a contract one party has broken, there would be no reason to ever fulfill a contract - you'd have to rely on citizen's force, and history has not shown that it's been particularly good to rely on regular citizens.
class3shock 2y ago
Just because a legal mechanism exists (adding a restriction to a deed as part of a private sale) does not mean that its use is legal. This is not "using" the government to disable other market participants, this is illegally abusing the mechanism of a deed restriction to monopolize a market and extort people.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > This is not "using" the government to disable other market participants, this is illegally abusing the mechanism of a deed restriction to monopolize a market and extort people. Betting on government inaction for breaking the law is still using the government. If it is illegal, then a competing grocery store should be able to open its doors and any lawsuits thrown out. Considering Albertsons’ and other grocery store’s lawyers are not willing to bet on this, it must be clearly illegal, which is again, a problem the government has to solve.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    the government doesn't go around enforcing contracts; the government provides a mechanism whereby a person who is wronged (by another party breaking their contract) can appeal and get some justice (without which you have the aggrieved party going over and shooting the other party). a competing company could open a store there anyway and then fight the battle in court; they might even win, but the cost of the court case would prevent most companies from even trying, after all groceries are a relatively low margin business--if this were a gold mine instead of grocery store you can be sure someone would have opened it already and fought it in court
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      The government can also decree a simple ban on contracts that reduce competition. Similar to a ban on non compete contracts. Any contract that intends to reduce the amount of buyers or sellers could be made unenforceable.
  - class3shock 2y ago

psunavy03 2y ago

This is precisely the opposite of that, in fact.

aliasxneo 2y ago

Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. In which case, your comment makes no sense.

Suppafly 2y ago
>Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. The free market sorta means that anyone is going to use any means possible to fuck over their competition, I don't see how this situation is incompatible with that.
- rogerrogerr 2y ago
  “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence. Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence and will arrest you for violating land use restrictions. An average free market supporter would say this isn’t the free market working.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence No, free markets aren’t equivalent to anarchy and every state action isn’t tantamount to violence. This is an ambiguity in the concept of free markets, which is why we’re having a linguistic versus conceptual discussion.
  - ConspiracyFact 2y ago
    Property rights themselves are backed by the state’s monopoly on violence. So no, the free market doesn’t exclude violence, it requires it. (I’m not saying that capitalism uniquely requires violence in order to function, but libertarians like to pretend that it’s an exception.)
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence How can contracts be enforced without coercive force if one party decides not to follow the agreement?

epistasis 2y ago

This isn't a "market" doing something, it's a monopolist doing monopolist stuff. One kind of precludes the other...

falcolas 2y ago
Not at all. The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies. As demonstrated again and again throughout US history, with only anti-trust regulation bringing the monopolies to an end.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies Not at all established. Monopolies require strong states to exist.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    > Monopolies require strong states to exist. How so? When competition can merely be purchased, why wouldn't the larger company do so? Or if the competitor doesn't want to sell, the larger company can undercut them until they're forced to sell or exit the market. No government required for either tactic, and there are plenty of examples of both occurring in US history. For example, Standard Oil, which was formed when about 40 smaller companies joined forces. Another place where monopolies take root with no state input is when there's a large barrier to entry, such as with railroads. The cost (and justifying the cost to investors) is too much for most companies to even break ground, let alone complete. For example, Bell System, which owned the copper in the ground and the equipment producer Western Electric. Now then, of course a state can and do also raise the cost of entry for new competitors - but then we're going to be talking about a regulated market.
- epistasis 2y ago
  Unregulated markets tending to monopolies means that markets require regulation, not that a monopoly is a market. Unregulated markets are not the "natural" state of a market, and not the meaning of a "free" market. A free market is one in which there is competition and new agents are able to enter the market, not ones where there is no law.

akira2501 2y ago

Behold: we have laws for a reason.

drewcoo 2y ago

one hand . . . invisible with liberty and justice for all?

alistairSH 2y ago

Also, behold a market failure. Edit - we’re talking about two markets - groceries and land. Rules in one market (land) are being used to create a monopoly in the other (groceries). While the land market may still be “free”, the grocery market is not. And now we devolve into debate about what’s better - textbook free markets or markets that require government intervention to ensure the most social good.