5 ms·
If you want a level playing field for competition, you need some mechanism that will level it. Whatever that is, clearly not laissez-faire. (I would also say t
by js8 1y ago
If you want a level playing field for competition, you need some mechanism that will level it. Whatever that is, clearly not laissez-faire.
(I would also say that capitalism is more than a competition of firms, in fact, private ownership of capital is by its nature anti-competitive for citizens.)
- echelon 1y agoCapitalism with strong antitrust enforcement should do the trick. We've been asleep at the wheel for the better part of a quarter century. We need to dust the rule book off and get back to work.
- umbra07 1y agoBailing out large corporations and heavy regulations are not laissez-faire capitalism. We haven't had laissez-faire capitalism for at least a quarter decade (I don't know enough about late 20th-century economics to hold an opinion there).
- toofy 1y agoIf the tech industry and the wider "disrupting" industries haven't been laissez-faire since the 90s then what on earth do you consider laissez-faire? Governments around the world have let these industries do whatever they want with almost zero oversight and almost zero repercussions for anything. For decades. These companies and industries do whatever they want. Its only in the last few years that a couple of governments have finally started to push back a teeny tiny bit.
- umbra07 1y agoIndustries cannot be "laissez-faire". Economies, or systems of governance, can be laissez-faire. > Governments around the world have let these industries do whatever they want with almost zero oversight and almost zero repercussions for anything. For decades. These companies and industries do whatever they want. Its only in the last few years that a couple of governments have finally start push back a teeny tiny bit. Are you claiming that the tech industry wasn't bound by intellectual property laws until recently?
- toofy 1y agoi didn’t say those words at all, but since you bring it up, yes, i think palantir, many AI companies trainings, and many many other companies have completely ignored IP laws, yes. these and surrounding “disruptive” industries have been behaving as if they’re in a laissez-faire environment for a couple of decades at this point. there are certainly strong arguments which would fairly argue “Look at the havoc they have wreaked on us. Like a small child who can’t control themselves, clearly some of them are incapable of self-regulation. it’s time to reign some of them in, and harshly. they’re behaving like uncontrollable spoiled and bratty children setting our house on fire. time for a spanking.” in too many instances those arguments would be on solid ground and tough to earnestly argue they’re wrong.
- amy214 1y agodude is saying it's even worse than laissez faire it's laissez faire towards monopolies, let them be but not laissez faire when a company is about to collapse, then the government rescues them. laissez faire would be less sympathetic. i.e. bank bailouts of 2008, automaker bailouts of 2020, current intel bailouts thus not only is the government allowing monoplies/duopolies, but in fact pumping money into them to continue their survival
- johnnienaked 1y agoAnti trust legislation has existed for decades, government needs to enforce it
- js8 1y agoI don't think that is a viable strategy, honestly. Antitrust regulation doesn't really punish anyone for misbehaving (geez this billionaire just got his company broken up, what a terrible thing we have done to him that will surely prevent someone from trying to merge something else) and doesn't address the crucial issue of emergent social inequality. It's a stopgap at best.
- johnnienaked 1y agoI don't think anyone claimed that antitrust laws can eliminate social inequality. The context is creating or preserving a more competitive business environment.