5 ms·

There is a lack of competition. Watch and you'll see all sorts of things happening that shouldn't be possible in an economy with healthy amounts of competition

There is a lack of competition. Watch and you'll see all sorts of things happening that shouldn't be possible in an economy with healthy amounts of competition. An example that has been on my mind recently is dynamic pricing [0], where everyone is charged a different amount based upon what an algorithm thinks the company can get away with. When healthy competition exists, you can't just arbitrarily charge people more, because they'll just go buy from a competitor. What does it mean when the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening? I grew up listening to right-wing news radio, and one of the first things I learned in the realm of politics is that "our economy is great; offer quality goods and services at a competitive price and you will make a modest profit and grow and succeed". My political journey in the following decades is a tale of me seeing more and more that idea is false. The companies that truly shape our world first curry favor from those who already have wealth and power, and then focus on crushing competition and establishing a monopoly rather than making a profit; that's why these huge world-changing companies go a decade or more without ever making a profit--the news radio people never gave me an explanation for that. [0]: https://youtu.be/16i7bPQtoCY?t=720 https://youtu.be/16i7bPQtoCY?t=720

jack_tripper 10mo ago
>When healthy competition exists, you can't just arbitrarily charge people more, because they'll just go buy from a competitor. Competition is meaningless when they're all owned by Blackrock and Vanguard to an extent. They can easily sacrifice a brand to test the waters, knowing consumers will move to buy from their other brands which the also own.
- reactordev 10mo ago
  Macro capitalism is pretty crazy stuff. Look at the US food industry how it’s primarily 5 companies that own ALL the brands.
reactordev 10mo ago
To be fair, it was true when they said it, it just didn’t remain true and they kept on keeping on. The idea of not turning a profit was to keep reinvesting it into the company. Growing the business. This “eat it all and figure it out later” mentality grew Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, just to name a few. The goal was to become dominant so that the world depends upon your existence. Without being labeled a utility. You and I agree though that the moat has been carved pretty wide. The market is no longer a free market. It’s a “I must play to stay” market. Meaning that all these companies are depending on each other for specific goods as they have crushed competition to the point where there are, at most, 2 choices.

jack_tripper 10mo ago

>When healthy competition exists, you can't just arbitrarily charge people more, because they'll just go buy from a competitor. Competition is meaningless when they're all owned by Blackrock and Vanguard to an extent. They can easily sacrifice a brand to test the waters, knowing consumers will move to buy from their other brands which the also own.

reactordev 10mo ago
Macro capitalism is pretty crazy stuff. Look at the US food industry how it’s primarily 5 companies that own ALL the brands.

reactordev 10mo ago

To be fair, it was true when they said it, it just didn’t remain true and they kept on keeping on. The idea of not turning a profit was to keep reinvesting it into the company. Growing the business. This “eat it all and figure it out later” mentality grew Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, just to name a few. The goal was to become dominant so that the world depends upon your existence. Without being labeled a utility. You and I agree though that the moat has been carved pretty wide. The market is no longer a free market. It’s a “I must play to stay” market. Meaning that all these companies are depending on each other for specific goods as they have crushed competition to the point where there are, at most, 2 choices.