3 ms·
The customer is always wrong because the customer is too small to matter. Google's scale gives them all the power in the relationship, undermining the market's
by philipov 2y ago
The customer is always wrong because the customer is too small to matter. Google's scale gives them all the power in the relationship, undermining the market's role in forcing them to compromise in negotions. We would need something like consumer unions that can collectively bargain on behalf of customers to offset this power imbalance.
Or, antitrust laws that can break them into smaller units, recognizing that strict monopoly is not the only market failure scenario. That would be good too.
- 542354234235 2y ago>consumer unions that can collectively bargain on behalf of customers I think that is just called "government".
- CamperBob2 2y agoWhich is too easily captured by malevolent interests.
- philipov 2y ago"'Government is bad because it can be captured by malevolent interests', say malevolent interests involved in capturing government."
- CamperBob2 2y agoIf it's not wrong -- which as we've all seen, it evidently isn't -- then what difference does it make who says it?
- philipov 2y agoSuppose I come to your house and start breaking your windows, and I tell you that you don't need windows because it's so easy for me to break them. Is that a good argument, or is the real problem the person that's breaking your windows? It's true that government is vulnerable to capture, but from that it does not follow that government is bad. It is more logical to conclude that the problem is unbounded personal enrichment allowing individuals to catapult themselves above the law. Corporations are the Roman Legions of the 21st century. Corporations are also vulnerable to capture, after all, and that is their default condition. Why should we not treat powerful conglomerate corporations with the same skepticism as governments, or armies? Their internal structure is an inefficient command economy, why is this not also treated as a problem? Their scale, diversification, and entrenchment, have all allowed them to escape the regulatory power of market competition.
- CamperBob2 2y agoI can buy a Polestar or a VW or a Chevy instead of a Tesla, if I don't like the way Elon Musk runs his company. I have no such option if I don't like the way he runs the government. The problem isn't the wealth. The problem is the power.
- philipov 2y agoPower follows wealth, regardless of whether there's a government or not, and while the economy is not a zero sum game, power is - economic inequality matters. The correlation between wealth and power is even stronger in countries where government is weak, and it is thus the function of government to prevent wealth from obtaining unchecked power. It is no wonder that wealth would seek to destroy government. That we appear to be losing this fight does not invalidate its importance. You may have your choice of oligarchs to buy your car from, but what they will never allow you is the choice to compete with them on a level playing field. A cartel can allow internal competition, but they will all cooperate to crush upstarts.
- CamperBob2 2y agoYou may have your choice of oligarchs to buy your car from, but what they will never allow you is the choice to compete with them on a level playing field. A cartel can allow internal competition, but they will all cooperate to crush upstarts. It's government that interferes with competition, not "oligarchs" or "cartels." Otherwise I could buy a Chinese EV. The only way the "oligarchs" and the "cartels" can interfere with my decision is by using their wealth to capture and subvert the government. Again: the problem is the power.
- philipov 2y agoWhile I am sympathetic to the notion that government is supposed to regulate corporations, it is a grave misunderstanding to conflate it with either unions or corporations.