4 ms·

> If Europeans can’t figure out new valuable things to contribute to the world, than their system isn’t as clever or morally righteous or fantastic as they thin

by hkt 2y ago

> If Europeans can’t figure out new valuable things to contribute to the world, than their system isn’t as clever or morally righteous or fantastic as they think it is. Most Europeans have access to some kind of comprehensive public health offering, food that isn't killing us quite as quickly as American food does, etc. It is a system which requires thought and design that markets can't offer, since they're innately uncoordinated (the exception being oligarchies). The idea that the market can be described as regular people deciding things is, by the way, fairly funny. We don't get to choose what gets made, and have to select from a buffet of often pretty poor options served up to us by people who are by and large not interested in anyone's wellbeing but their own. Most of Europe recognises on some level that not everything that counts can be counted. That's the real difference. Regulation of new, high risk industries makes perfect sense from that perspective.

pembrook 2y ago
> The idea that the market can be described as regular people deciding things is, by the way, fairly funny. We don't get to choose what gets made, and have to select from a buffet of often pretty poor options served up to us by people who are by and large not interested in anyone's wellbeing but their own. Is Europe more communist than I thought? You do realize if you aren't happy with the options on offer in the market, that's an opportunity for you to provide a valuable service to your fellow humans...and yes improve your own wellbeing at the same time...which is the point of a market? Who do you think started all of the German Mittelstand companies in the first place?
- Zanfa 2y ago
  That’s a bit naive. There are a lot of markets that are effectively impossible to enter without massive amounts of capital and current players are selling below cost.
  - pembrook 2y ago
    The vast vast vast majority of companies do not sell a product below-cost. And if the customers are not willing to pay more, it sounds like they're actually happy with the current offering and that's not an area that your fellow humans would find useful for you to work on. Yes, one of the responsibilities of a founder is fundraising. If you can't sell people on investing in your vision that is...a somewhat bad sign.
    - layer8 2y ago
      The problem with many digital offerings nowadays, in particular those that dominate the end user market, is that the user isn’t the customer, but is the product (i.e., directly, or indirectly, ads). Another problem is oligopolies, like Android vs. iOS.
    - TFYS 2y ago
      > And if the customers are not willing to pay more, it sounds like they're actually happy with the current offering and that's not an area that your fellow humans would find useful for you to work on. People would need to have perfect information about all the products they buy in order to truly know if they're happy with them. If they knew and saw first hand all the effects that a product has (poor working conditions, poor pay, environmental destruction, effects on health, etc) they might not actually be happy with these products. It's impossible to research all of these things on everything you buy, and therefore the market does not "care" about any of these things, only about the immediate effects that the buyer can feel.
      - pembrook 2y ago
        If people would actually be happier with your solution that's simply a marketing problem, which is entirely solvable. But I think more often people delude themselves into thinking their thing is better (since it's their baby) when it actually is not, which no amount of marketing dollars can solve.
        TFYS 2y ago
        It's not just a marketing problem, because the amount of information you'd have to have in order to make a truly rational decision is beyond any simple marketing campaign. Your competitors would also be creating campaigns against yours, so how would a consumer be able to figure out the truth without impossible amounts of work?
emsy 2y ago
It makes as much sense as regulating nuclear weapons when you have none.

by hkt 2y ago

pembrook 2y ago

> The idea that the market can be described as regular people deciding things is, by the way, fairly funny. We don't get to choose what gets made, and have to select from a buffet of often pretty poor options served up to us by people who are by and large not interested in anyone's wellbeing but their own. Is Europe more communist than I thought? You do realize if you aren't happy with the options on offer in the market, that's an opportunity for you to provide a valuable service to your fellow humans...and yes improve your own wellbeing at the same time...which is the point of a market? Who do you think started all of the German Mittelstand companies in the first place?

Zanfa 2y ago
That’s a bit naive. There are a lot of markets that are effectively impossible to enter without massive amounts of capital and current players are selling below cost.
- pembrook 2y ago
  The vast vast vast majority of companies do not sell a product below-cost. And if the customers are not willing to pay more, it sounds like they're actually happy with the current offering and that's not an area that your fellow humans would find useful for you to work on. Yes, one of the responsibilities of a founder is fundraising. If you can't sell people on investing in your vision that is...a somewhat bad sign.
  - layer8 2y ago
    The problem with many digital offerings nowadays, in particular those that dominate the end user market, is that the user isn’t the customer, but is the product (i.e., directly, or indirectly, ads). Another problem is oligopolies, like Android vs. iOS.
  - TFYS 2y ago
    > And if the customers are not willing to pay more, it sounds like they're actually happy with the current offering and that's not an area that your fellow humans would find useful for you to work on. People would need to have perfect information about all the products they buy in order to truly know if they're happy with them. If they knew and saw first hand all the effects that a product has (poor working conditions, poor pay, environmental destruction, effects on health, etc) they might not actually be happy with these products. It's impossible to research all of these things on everything you buy, and therefore the market does not "care" about any of these things, only about the immediate effects that the buyer can feel.
    - pembrook 2y ago
      If people would actually be happier with your solution that's simply a marketing problem, which is entirely solvable. But I think more often people delude themselves into thinking their thing is better (since it's their baby) when it actually is not, which no amount of marketing dollars can solve.
      - TFYS 2y ago
        It's not just a marketing problem, because the amount of information you'd have to have in order to make a truly rational decision is beyond any simple marketing campaign. Your competitors would also be creating campaigns against yours, so how would a consumer be able to figure out the truth without impossible amounts of work?

emsy 2y ago

It makes as much sense as regulating nuclear weapons when you have none.