4 ms·

But why should this one, small group of consumers be subsidized? You haven't answered that. Meanwhile capital is getting sucked up for unproductive uses, puttin

But why should this one, small group of consumers be subsidized? You haven't answered that. Meanwhile capital is getting sucked up for unproductive uses, putting our entire economic system at risk and driving up costs for other products.

stale2002 9d ago
Because people value and care about consumers and regular people over that of large trillion dollar companies. Probably because the trillion dollar companies have enough money and market power and few people are sympathetic to wealthy people losing a bit of money, so thats why. This isn't a complicated argument here. It is literally baked into our court system to prioritize consumers over multi-trillion dollar companies. Those trillion dollar companies will be fine and people find its ok to help out the little guy over the trillion dollar companies.
- NewJazz 8d ago
  When a good is overproduced, and that good has negative externalities (emissions, water pollution, et cetera), there are real people being harmed. It doesn't matter if the "trillion dollar corpo" (401k holding for most people) is taking a loss. We all take a loss. We are all losers, except for a small group of subsidized consumers. Consumers =/= regular folk, arbitrarily. Much of the LLM business is B2B, so the consumer might be billion dollar corpos themselves.
  - stale2002 8d ago
    > When a good is overproduced there are real people being harmed. Its more complicated then that, actually. If you go back to your basic economics 101 text book, a price being outside of the equilibrium price cause total "deadweight loss", but still produces real benefit for one of the parties. > We are all losers, except for a small group of subsidized consumers. Actually it would be the very tiny group of multi trillion dollar companies taking a loss, and their customers winning. > so the consumer might be billion dollar corpos themselves. I am sure there are some. But the wide swath of all of employees and customers at all those billion dollar companies put together make up a much larger amount of less powerful people then the couple thousand or so at a few oligopolistic labs. This is why, once again, courts value consumers over trillion dollar companies, even when its comparing b2b market share (in which case, it is very very clear which side has more market power here, and which side represents a large number of "regular" people). > We all take a loss. Actually no. Go back to the econ 101. The couple duopolies lose, and their much larger amount of customers win. Go back to the courts again, which spell this all out very clearly and prefer consumers for a reason.

stale2002 9d ago

Because people value and care about consumers and regular people over that of large trillion dollar companies. Probably because the trillion dollar companies have enough money and market power and few people are sympathetic to wealthy people losing a bit of money, so thats why. This isn't a complicated argument here. It is literally baked into our court system to prioritize consumers over multi-trillion dollar companies. Those trillion dollar companies will be fine and people find its ok to help out the little guy over the trillion dollar companies.

NewJazz 8d ago
When a good is overproduced, and that good has negative externalities (emissions, water pollution, et cetera), there are real people being harmed. It doesn't matter if the "trillion dollar corpo" (401k holding for most people) is taking a loss. We all take a loss. We are all losers, except for a small group of subsidized consumers. Consumers =/= regular folk, arbitrarily. Much of the LLM business is B2B, so the consumer might be billion dollar corpos themselves.
- stale2002 8d ago
  > When a good is overproduced there are real people being harmed. Its more complicated then that, actually. If you go back to your basic economics 101 text book, a price being outside of the equilibrium price cause total "deadweight loss", but still produces real benefit for one of the parties. > We are all losers, except for a small group of subsidized consumers. Actually it would be the very tiny group of multi trillion dollar companies taking a loss, and their customers winning. > so the consumer might be billion dollar corpos themselves. I am sure there are some. But the wide swath of all of employees and customers at all those billion dollar companies put together make up a much larger amount of less powerful people then the couple thousand or so at a few oligopolistic labs. This is why, once again, courts value consumers over trillion dollar companies, even when its comparing b2b market share (in which case, it is very very clear which side has more market power here, and which side represents a large number of "regular" people). > We all take a loss. Actually no. Go back to the econ 101. The couple duopolies lose, and their much larger amount of customers win. Go back to the courts again, which spell this all out very clearly and prefer consumers for a reason.