2 ms·

> An assumption which ignores marginal value, individual preferences, innovation and other things that make real markets. If those things mattered we'd have a

> An assumption which ignores marginal value, individual preferences, innovation and other things that make real markets. If those things mattered we'd have a lot fewer people mad about the state of things. > The capitalist wants to be left to trade as he sees fit without state intervention. If that were true you'd see a lot fewer lobbyists in DC and state capitols. Non-compete and non-disparagement clauses wouldn't exist. Patents and copyright wouldn't either.

reverendsteveii 1y ago
In fairness, non-competes are evidence of both what the commenter you're replying to said and what I said to instigate the reply. The capitalist absolutely does want to be left alone to trade as he sees fit. He also wants his competitors harassed by regulators and all of their potential employees bound by non-competes. He also doesn't consider subsidies and grants to be interference. Unless they go to competitors.
- roguecoder 1y ago
  They love standards so much they have two of them.
Dracophoenix 1y ago
> If those things mattered we'd have a lot fewer people mad about the state of things They're mad precisely because they have differing expectations and interpretations of these things. If even they did agree, consensus shouldn't be confused with reality. > If that were true you'd see a lot fewer lobbyists in DC and state capitols. Lobbying is the exercise of an individual's right to petition government for redress of grievances. So long as there are complaints there will always be lobbyists. > Non-compete and non-disparagement clauses wouldn't exist. Patents and copyright wouldn't either. Non-compete and non-disparagement clauses are no restraint on freedoms if they were agreed upon to by way of voluntary contract. Rather, like other transactions, they are explicit trades of certain opportunities for certain benefits. > Patents and copyright wouldn't either. I'll give you that.
- roguecoder 1y ago
  Regulatory capture, which all corporate lobbyists represent, is profoundly anti-capitalistic. If the CEO wants to spend their time talking to the government, that is very different than spending money to have other people advocate on their behalf: that isn't an option the rest of us have. And that's before we get to the way wealth inequality inherently distorts markets, by overstating the preferences of the wealthy and underserving the needs of the poor. The point of an economy is to distribute scarce goods and resources. Money represents information about what people want or expect to want in the future. Everything wealthy people do that make it less efficient at its job is an attack on capitalism.

reverendsteveii 1y ago

In fairness, non-competes are evidence of both what the commenter you're replying to said and what I said to instigate the reply. The capitalist absolutely does want to be left alone to trade as he sees fit. He also wants his competitors harassed by regulators and all of their potential employees bound by non-competes. He also doesn't consider subsidies and grants to be interference. Unless they go to competitors.

roguecoder 1y ago
They love standards so much they have two of them.

Dracophoenix 1y ago

> If those things mattered we'd have a lot fewer people mad about the state of things They're mad precisely because they have differing expectations and interpretations of these things. If even they did agree, consensus shouldn't be confused with reality. > If that were true you'd see a lot fewer lobbyists in DC and state capitols. Lobbying is the exercise of an individual's right to petition government for redress of grievances. So long as there are complaints there will always be lobbyists. > Non-compete and non-disparagement clauses wouldn't exist. Patents and copyright wouldn't either. Non-compete and non-disparagement clauses are no restraint on freedoms if they were agreed upon to by way of voluntary contract. Rather, like other transactions, they are explicit trades of certain opportunities for certain benefits. > Patents and copyright wouldn't either. I'll give you that.

roguecoder 1y ago
Regulatory capture, which all corporate lobbyists represent, is profoundly anti-capitalistic. If the CEO wants to spend their time talking to the government, that is very different than spending money to have other people advocate on their behalf: that isn't an option the rest of us have. And that's before we get to the way wealth inequality inherently distorts markets, by overstating the preferences of the wealthy and underserving the needs of the poor. The point of an economy is to distribute scarce goods and resources. Money represents information about what people want or expect to want in the future. Everything wealthy people do that make it less efficient at its job is an attack on capitalism.