3 ms·

I disagree. Capitalism in its current state is heavily based on securing advantages, meaning it's only fair in areas which are new and not saturated by establis

by mxfh 14y ago

I disagree. Capitalism in its current state is heavily based on securing advantages, meaning it's only fair in areas which are new and not saturated by established players.

csense 14y ago
Three beautiful words to a capitalist: "Sustainable competitive advantage." > it's only fair in areas which are new and not saturated by established players. What is your definition of "fairness," and why should we care whether it is a property of capitalism? I think you're saying something like "capitalism encourages incumbents to build fences to keep newcomers out." That's true. Antitrust law exists to discourage certain types of fences that we find undesirable. But other types of fences are perfectly OK -- for example, AMD and Intel spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, every year on R&D to keep raising their technology head-start fence, to keep competing chip vendors out of their markets. The result from the consumer's point of view is a virtuous cycle of continually improving products at the same price point from these industry leaders, with a "long tail" starting with successively older generations of obsolete processors on the secondary market, down to much cheaper ARM's which have much lower performance but are perfectly adequate for many applications. If incumbents can always build fences so strong that they are invulnerable: How did Google win against Yahoo? How did cable providers win against over-the-air TV networks? How did Netflix kill Blockbuster? How did Microsoft triumph over IBM? When incumbents fence themselves in, times are good for them for a little while -- but usually the incumbents end up as slow, fat targets for fast-moving, lean startups. This is especially true once the management team that established the incumbents has moved on or retired, and their replacements listen when the accountants tell them how much money they can make if they raise prices, cut costs, or reduce their investment in fences.
- mxfh 14y ago
  Yes, there is no right for resting on your past achievements, there is arguably a fair way of getting advantages secured for a limited amount of time: innovation, adding to others innovations, combining others works, opening new markets. And the other "unfair" way: patent-abuse, monopolies, cartels, copycats with no added value, lobbying for the gains of a few who are already better off. Some of that has been made illegal some of it just feels morally wrong. Basically it comes down to moral norms, which society can turn into laws if considered important enough by a majority. Its all comes down to finding a balance, economics will never be perfect or fair for all, but I consider it the goal of politics to be getting it closer to that ideal state which should be beneficial to all in the long run.

by mxfh 14y ago

I disagree. Capitalism in its current state is heavily based on securing advantages, meaning it's only fair in areas which are new and not saturated by established players.

csense 14y ago

Three beautiful words to a capitalist: "Sustainable competitive advantage." > it's only fair in areas which are new and not saturated by established players. What is your definition of "fairness," and why should we care whether it is a property of capitalism? I think you're saying something like "capitalism encourages incumbents to build fences to keep newcomers out." That's true. Antitrust law exists to discourage certain types of fences that we find undesirable. But other types of fences are perfectly OK -- for example, AMD and Intel spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, every year on R&D to keep raising their technology head-start fence, to keep competing chip vendors out of their markets. The result from the consumer's point of view is a virtuous cycle of continually improving products at the same price point from these industry leaders, with a "long tail" starting with successively older generations of obsolete processors on the secondary market, down to much cheaper ARM's which have much lower performance but are perfectly adequate for many applications. If incumbents can always build fences so strong that they are invulnerable: How did Google win against Yahoo? How did cable providers win against over-the-air TV networks? How did Netflix kill Blockbuster? How did Microsoft triumph over IBM? When incumbents fence themselves in, times are good for them for a little while -- but usually the incumbents end up as slow, fat targets for fast-moving, lean startups. This is especially true once the management team that established the incumbents has moved on or retired, and their replacements listen when the accountants tell them how much money they can make if they raise prices, cut costs, or reduce their investment in fences.

mxfh 14y ago
Yes, there is no right for resting on your past achievements, there is arguably a fair way of getting advantages secured for a limited amount of time: innovation, adding to others innovations, combining others works, opening new markets. And the other "unfair" way: patent-abuse, monopolies, cartels, copycats with no added value, lobbying for the gains of a few who are already better off. Some of that has been made illegal some of it just feels morally wrong. Basically it comes down to moral norms, which society can turn into laws if considered important enough by a majority. Its all comes down to finding a balance, economics will never be perfect or fair for all, but I consider it the goal of politics to be getting it closer to that ideal state which should be beneficial to all in the long run.