5 ms·

It's literally just capitalism. This is the point of the economic system. Why are people surprised? Is the propaganda just that good?

kulahan 2y ago
It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism. In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competitors from coming in and creating competition. The propaganda doesn't have to be good when nobody understands what is and isn't capitalism anyways.
- falcolas 2y ago
  This isn't regulatory capture, this is deed restrictions. HOAs, water rights, mineral rights et.al. use this same mechanism.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    To be honest, I think all of those should be abolished as well.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    That’s correct: Albertsons is responsible for upholding the deed restrictions, and can use any legal means to do so. The regulators could have said that a monopoly has grown too big to enjoy good standing in court, but instead of that they chose a small fee.
- immibis 2y ago
  When the incumbent owns the vacant lot, it's capitalism. Free formation of contracts (saying you promise not to open a grocery store there, in exchange for getting the land at all) is also a big part of capitalism.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  You are incorrect. This has nothing to do with regulations. It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops. This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    The Onion Futures Act for example.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      pretty crazy that there is an act of Congress that concerns a single vegetable only
      - ttyprintk 2y ago
        It also covers futures on motion picture box office performance, the onions of a new generation.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  But what's being described here (ie the land use covenants) is not regulation, it's contractual restraint.
IntelMiner 2y ago
I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean. Are you saying "capitalism did it therefore this is good" and suggesting that people disagreeing are victims of "propaganda"?
- deprecative 2y ago
  Capitalism is intrinsically evil. I'll never defend a socioeconomic system of oppression.
  - psychlops 2y ago
    Wait til you try the other systems....
    - IntelMiner 2y ago
      Systems, plural? Which ones?
TulliusCicero 2y ago
It's possible to have capitalism without certain shitty practices like this. It's entirely within the government's capability to outlaw these things.
- wnc3141 2y ago
  There is no single state of capitalism. We should think of markets as a fluid mass filling the vessel that government provides. In some places these practices are allowed, and other places these practices are restricted - markets form elsewhere in those economies.
- consteval 2y ago
  The problem is that anytime anyone tries to outlaw something, no matter how obvious and for the health of the market it may be, "capitalists" will crawl out for the woodwork to exclaim "this is the death of the free market!" People do it here, constantly. Look at the FTC - they're charged with maintaining and enforcing a competitive free market. But when they make rules or prevent monopolistic mergers or anti-competitive contracts, conservatives and libertarians lose their minds. It seems nobody knows what capitalism is!
drdaeman 2y ago
It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed. I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having competitors across the street) from various harms, such as emissions, noise, overcrowding or things like that. In other words, not about what goes on at some property, but what happens to the outside because of it. But as the uncontrolled abuse grew unchecked, it became something else entirely. This stuff, together with non-competes and exclusivity agreements is something different. I don't know what it is, but it's neither capitalism nor socialism "as they were well-meant", but rather a weird amalgamation of perverted concepts from both, leading to both erosion of healthy markets (so, harming capitalism) and degradation of life quality (so, harming socialism).
- dimal 2y ago
  It is capitalism, and I think this is inherent in all stages of capitalism. The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. In earlier forms, monopolists and oligarchs may have used different levers of power, but it’s all ultimately the same thing. Use whatever means are available to make profit.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Hence why we don't allow unrestricted capitalism
    - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
      Well apparently now we do. Yay.
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    > The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. Yea, but that's not some strictly inherent property of capitalism, and I thought stakeholder vs shareholder is still an open issue?

kulahan 2y ago

It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism. In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competitors from coming in and creating competition. The propaganda doesn't have to be good when nobody understands what is and isn't capitalism anyways.

falcolas 2y ago
This isn't regulatory capture, this is deed restrictions. HOAs, water rights, mineral rights et.al. use this same mechanism.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  To be honest, I think all of those should be abolished as well.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  That’s correct: Albertsons is responsible for upholding the deed restrictions, and can use any legal means to do so. The regulators could have said that a monopoly has grown too big to enjoy good standing in court, but instead of that they chose a small fee.
immibis 2y ago
When the incumbent owns the vacant lot, it's capitalism. Free formation of contracts (saying you promise not to open a grocery store there, in exchange for getting the land at all) is also a big part of capitalism.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
You are incorrect. This has nothing to do with regulations. It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops. This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.
- pixl97 2y ago
  The Onion Futures Act for example.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    pretty crazy that there is an act of Congress that concerns a single vegetable only
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      It also covers futures on motion picture box office performance, the onions of a new generation.
anigbrowl 2y ago
But what's being described here (ie the land use covenants) is not regulation, it's contractual restraint.

IntelMiner 2y ago

I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean. Are you saying "capitalism did it therefore this is good" and suggesting that people disagreeing are victims of "propaganda"?

deprecative 2y ago
Capitalism is intrinsically evil. I'll never defend a socioeconomic system of oppression.
- psychlops 2y ago
  Wait til you try the other systems....
  - IntelMiner 2y ago
    Systems, plural? Which ones?

TulliusCicero 2y ago

It's possible to have capitalism without certain shitty practices like this. It's entirely within the government's capability to outlaw these things.

wnc3141 2y ago
There is no single state of capitalism. We should think of markets as a fluid mass filling the vessel that government provides. In some places these practices are allowed, and other places these practices are restricted - markets form elsewhere in those economies.
consteval 2y ago
The problem is that anytime anyone tries to outlaw something, no matter how obvious and for the health of the market it may be, "capitalists" will crawl out for the woodwork to exclaim "this is the death of the free market!" People do it here, constantly. Look at the FTC - they're charged with maintaining and enforcing a competitive free market. But when they make rules or prevent monopolistic mergers or anti-competitive contracts, conservatives and libertarians lose their minds. It seems nobody knows what capitalism is!

drdaeman 2y ago

It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed. I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having competitors across the street) from various harms, such as emissions, noise, overcrowding or things like that. In other words, not about what goes on at some property, but what happens to the outside because of it. But as the uncontrolled abuse grew unchecked, it became something else entirely. This stuff, together with non-competes and exclusivity agreements is something different. I don't know what it is, but it's neither capitalism nor socialism "as they were well-meant", but rather a weird amalgamation of perverted concepts from both, leading to both erosion of healthy markets (so, harming capitalism) and degradation of life quality (so, harming socialism).

dimal 2y ago
It is capitalism, and I think this is inherent in all stages of capitalism. The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. In earlier forms, monopolists and oligarchs may have used different levers of power, but it’s all ultimately the same thing. Use whatever means are available to make profit.
- pixl97 2y ago
  Hence why we don't allow unrestricted capitalism
  - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    Well apparently now we do. Yay.
- drdaeman 2y ago
  > The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. Yea, but that's not some strictly inherent property of capitalism, and I thought stakeholder vs shareholder is still an open issue?