4 ms·

> The problem we are facing is that the producers are have become extremely productive due to capital and technology and are able crush those who do not have th

> The problem we are facing is that the producers are have become extremely productive due to capital and technology and are able crush those who do not have the access to the capital and technology. This is a common mercantilist fallacy -- that the problem is we just have too much production. I submit that we have the opposite problem: goods and resources are too scarce, rather than too abundant. More efficient production is the solution, rather than the problem. > The people who are not in this privileged group are caught in a vicious cycle are forced to remain consumers and are getting more and more dependent on these super producers. I agree that the focus of the economy is consumption, but this is indicative of the problem as well. We need to encourage entrepreneurship. By this I do not mean subsidies -- more in terms of cultural encouragement and removal of legislative and regulatory obstacles.

nhaehnle 14y ago
It seems there is some misunderstanding. OP didn't say that there is too much production. The argument was rather that the barriers to entry are too high (very high capital costs etc.). This creates self-perpetuating oligopolies. By the way, the whole point of the economy is to enable consumption. If there was no consumption, there would be no point to economic activity.
- RickHull 14y ago
  > The argument was rather that the barriers to entry are too high (very high capital costs etc.) Really? You are saying this on Hacker News? Where we gather to assemble and identify our comparative advantages and engage in entrepreneurship with capital on the order of thousands of dollars? You can also be a agricultural entrepreneur or a mining entrepreneur or steel entrepreneur. Admittedly, the competition in these arenas is indeed very stiff, and they have invested a lot of money in efficient production. As an individual, you have little comparative advantage in such industries. But if you have some insight into how to make these industries even more efficient, then you will have no problems securing income or even starting a consulting business. > This creates self-perpetuating oligopolies. I disagree. The bigger they are, and especially once the economies of scale diminish as the market is saturated, the harder they fall. Waste and communication issues provide a natural limit. We run into problems when the state intervenes to keep dinosaurs alive. What's good for GM is good for the country, and all that. > By the way, the whole point of the economy is to enable consumption. Yep, consumption is enabled by production. Human needs and wants are limitless. If we actually lived in a world of abundance and not scarcity, people would not need jobs and there would be no need for production. We would lounge around all day in the land of milk and honey. > If there was no consumption, there would be no point to economic activity. Consumption will never go away. We consume food, water, shelter, etc. The only way consumption goes away is if humans go away. And when humans (or preference-satisfying agents, to be clear) go away, then economic activity ceases.

nhaehnle 14y ago

It seems there is some misunderstanding. OP didn't say that there is too much production. The argument was rather that the barriers to entry are too high (very high capital costs etc.). This creates self-perpetuating oligopolies. By the way, the whole point of the economy is to enable consumption. If there was no consumption, there would be no point to economic activity.

RickHull 14y ago
> The argument was rather that the barriers to entry are too high (very high capital costs etc.) Really? You are saying this on Hacker News? Where we gather to assemble and identify our comparative advantages and engage in entrepreneurship with capital on the order of thousands of dollars? You can also be a agricultural entrepreneur or a mining entrepreneur or steel entrepreneur. Admittedly, the competition in these arenas is indeed very stiff, and they have invested a lot of money in efficient production. As an individual, you have little comparative advantage in such industries. But if you have some insight into how to make these industries even more efficient, then you will have no problems securing income or even starting a consulting business. > This creates self-perpetuating oligopolies. I disagree. The bigger they are, and especially once the economies of scale diminish as the market is saturated, the harder they fall. Waste and communication issues provide a natural limit. We run into problems when the state intervenes to keep dinosaurs alive. What's good for GM is good for the country, and all that. > By the way, the whole point of the economy is to enable consumption. Yep, consumption is enabled by production. Human needs and wants are limitless. If we actually lived in a world of abundance and not scarcity, people would not need jobs and there would be no need for production. We would lounge around all day in the land of milk and honey. > If there was no consumption, there would be no point to economic activity. Consumption will never go away. We consume food, water, shelter, etc. The only way consumption goes away is if humans go away. And when humans (or preference-satisfying agents, to be clear) go away, then economic activity ceases.