4 ms·

I've found it helpful to view the current US admin through the lens of organized crime: if you pretend the prez is a mob boss, everything becomes much more cong

I've found it helpful to view the current US admin through the lens of organized crime: if you pretend the prez is a mob boss, everything becomes much more congruent and coherent. The incentives align, the not-so-clear motivations make sense, and most definitely the methods.

Herring 1y ago
More generally I'd say it's a power grab, like a monopoly. Yes abuses always happen, but even if it was all legal and above-board, the main problem is this mentality of "more power for me less power for you". Most Americans love this idea of being powerful, which is why he won the popular vote. The rapes probably even helped him in some quarters. This idea also appeals strongly to a lot of HN - Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat". It's anti-competitive. In reality a more distributed power structure is much better for overall progress, and even for the monopolist in the long run (Example: Intel, Russia).
- 1659447091 1y ago
  > Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat". The moat Buffet talks about is not the moat you appear to think it is. It does not belong in the same category as the other things you mention. Moats are a defensive structure, in Buffet terms, its about being a sustainable business "it’s the low-cost producer in some area, it can be because it has a natural franchise because of surface capabilities, it could be because of its position in the consumers’ mind, it can be because of a technological advantage, or any kind of reason at all, that it has this moat around it." -- the moat is "protecting a terrific economic castle with an honest lord in charge of the castle" [0] A moat is about a business having an "it" factor that sustains it, it's not offensive (attack) feature like the power grabs you talk about are. The important part, that is missed here of Buffet talking about it, is having an honest person in charge: "And then if we feel good about the moat, then we try to figure out whether, you know, the lord is going to try to take it all for himself, whether he’s likely to do something stupid with the proceeds, et cetera. But that’s the way we look at businesses." [0] https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/1995/05/01/morning-session---1995-berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting.html https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/1995/05/01/morning-session---...
  - Herring 1y ago
    Going by this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat Those are all anti-competitive things. The article even links to "natural monopoly" and "barriers to entry". It doesn't matter if they're used defensively or offensively, honestly or otherwise, the eventual distribution of power is what matters: a monopoly. At the end of the day you have very few vendors, with all the power to set prices at will, and get Buffet his massive return.
    - 1659447091 1y ago
      None of those things is an active power grab though, which is what I was replying to. a "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself? Or other things on that list (I am referring to Buffets moat, which is not entirely wikipedias moat): Network effect: "value of a good or service grows" as it's used by existing and new customers Intangible assets: Brand Identity Cost advantage: Companies that can keep their prices low How are those things themselves, which Buffet is talking about, not simply good business? Doing shady, power grabby things to drain the moat of another business into your own moat is anti-competitive. That's not what Buffet talks about though. Which I highlighted and why Buffets moat is misplaced in your list. A Trumpian "moat" would probably fit nicely, thou currently he's more concerned with draining others moats to flood the villages around them and then take the land that's left to build a personal use golf course [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
      - Herring 1y ago
        > Are economic moats anti-competitive, or just good business? > A "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself? These are great questions, and you should ask your favorite frontier LLM. It's systems-level thinking, the ability to see the bigger picture, which takes a while to develop and a lot of reading. You're thinking: Great! I'm making the right decisions and winning and making money hand over fist. That's good business. I'm thinking: If your moat is super effective (shady or not doesn't matter), it limits competition (anti-competitive) => therefore eventually higher prices, lower quality, reduced innovation, potential for abuse, because there's less pressure to improve and more shareholder pressure for enshittification. If you identify with the monopoly you can't see that bigger picture. A healthy market has tons of options for customers to choose from and be served by. Again, talk to the frontier LLMs, they're pretty good at this level. Also fact check them, eg read or watch videos about antitrust enforcement under FDR, that was a crazy bit of drama.

Herring 1y ago

More generally I'd say it's a power grab, like a monopoly. Yes abuses always happen, but even if it was all legal and above-board, the main problem is this mentality of "more power for me less power for you". Most Americans love this idea of being powerful, which is why he won the popular vote. The rapes probably even helped him in some quarters. This idea also appeals strongly to a lot of HN - Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat". It's anti-competitive. In reality a more distributed power structure is much better for overall progress, and even for the monopolist in the long run (Example: Intel, Russia).

1659447091 1y ago
> Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat". The moat Buffet talks about is not the moat you appear to think it is. It does not belong in the same category as the other things you mention. Moats are a defensive structure, in Buffet terms, its about being a sustainable business "it’s the low-cost producer in some area, it can be because it has a natural franchise because of surface capabilities, it could be because of its position in the consumers’ mind, it can be because of a technological advantage, or any kind of reason at all, that it has this moat around it." -- the moat is "protecting a terrific economic castle with an honest lord in charge of the castle" [0] A moat is about a business having an "it" factor that sustains it, it's not offensive (attack) feature like the power grabs you talk about are. The important part, that is missed here of Buffet talking about it, is having an honest person in charge: "And then if we feel good about the moat, then we try to figure out whether, you know, the lord is going to try to take it all for himself, whether he’s likely to do something stupid with the proceeds, et cetera. But that’s the way we look at businesses." [0] https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/1995/05/01/morning-session---1995-berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting.html https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/1995/05/01/morning-session---...
- Herring 1y ago
  Going by this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat Those are all anti-competitive things. The article even links to "natural monopoly" and "barriers to entry". It doesn't matter if they're used defensively or offensively, honestly or otherwise, the eventual distribution of power is what matters: a monopoly. At the end of the day you have very few vendors, with all the power to set prices at will, and get Buffet his massive return.
  - 1659447091 1y ago
    None of those things is an active power grab though, which is what I was replying to. a "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself? Or other things on that list (I am referring to Buffets moat, which is not entirely wikipedias moat): Network effect: "value of a good or service grows" as it's used by existing and new customers Intangible assets: Brand Identity Cost advantage: Companies that can keep their prices low How are those things themselves, which Buffet is talking about, not simply good business? Doing shady, power grabby things to drain the moat of another business into your own moat is anti-competitive. That's not what Buffet talks about though. Which I highlighted and why Buffets moat is misplaced in your list. A Trumpian "moat" would probably fit nicely, thou currently he's more concerned with draining others moats to flood the villages around them and then take the land that's left to build a personal use golf course [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
    - Herring 1y ago
      > Are economic moats anti-competitive, or just good business? > A "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself? These are great questions, and you should ask your favorite frontier LLM. It's systems-level thinking, the ability to see the bigger picture, which takes a while to develop and a lot of reading. You're thinking: Great! I'm making the right decisions and winning and making money hand over fist. That's good business. I'm thinking: If your moat is super effective (shady or not doesn't matter), it limits competition (anti-competitive) => therefore eventually higher prices, lower quality, reduced innovation, potential for abuse, because there's less pressure to improve and more shareholder pressure for enshittification. If you identify with the monopoly you can't see that bigger picture. A healthy market has tons of options for customers to choose from and be served by. Again, talk to the frontier LLMs, they're pretty good at this level. Also fact check them, eg read or watch videos about antitrust enforcement under FDR, that was a crazy bit of drama.