5 ms·

Hmm, then we also need to stop Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Dropbox, TimeWarner Cable, military industrial complex, some big oil companies, a few hedge funds,

Hmm, then we also need to stop Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Dropbox, TimeWarner Cable, military industrial complex, some big oil companies, a few hedge funds, a few banks, etc. Probably might as well call it quits with this whole capitalism thing. In all seriousness though why don't any of these articles ever address the underlying issue of why this stuff happens. If you have a certain kind of economic system then some things are inevitable. It is the exact analog of traffic on highways. It is just an emergent property of the system.

rtpg 12y ago
that's why anti-trust laws exist. If we break them up as they grow, we still reap the benefits of economic growth without the dangers of the monopoly.
- dkarapetyan 12y ago
  Sure but that still doesn't address the actual problem and from a certain viewpoint two companies doing the same thing is less efficient than a large company doing it because of economies of scale. So which is it? Do we want efficiency or fairness?
  - jamespo 12y ago
    Maybe we should no longer have elections as there's a lot of duplication between > 1 political parties too
    - bibonix 12y ago
      Indeed :)
    - dkarapetyan 12y ago
      There is an entire field of mathematics dedicated to answering such questions and the answer is a lot more complicated than your simple quip. In fact the way most democracies are set up they are theoretically much less optimal than they could be and in some cases are as good as dictatorial systems because of susceptibility to being rigged. As usual wikipedia is a pretty good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system.
      - ende 12y ago
        Would you mind slapping a name on said field of mathematics, because I dig that stuff but only ever stumble upon smatterings of it here and there. I'd love to get to the core of that field. Its like game theory + lots of other stuff. (Sorry for off topic)
        nitrogen 12y ago
        There might be something here: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
        dkarapetyan 12y ago
        It's not one specific subfield but a combination. A good starting place though is probably social choice theory with a bit of a background on Arrow's impossibility theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem.
        ende 12y ago
        Awesome. Thank you both!
  - alphadevx 12y ago
    Fairness. When would we ever want anything that is efficiently unfair? Two companies doing the same thing brings the benefits of competition, which forces down prices, promotes innovation, and actually increases efficiency as they have to be better than their rival. In addition, no reason why both of them cannot be large enough to benefit from economies of scale (think Samsung vs Apple for smartphones).
- Omniusaspirer 12y ago
  That worked fine before the modern global economy. Now? It's the death-knell for industry in your country. Without a global government agreement you simply can't bust up megacorps like you used to- they're effectively above the law.
  - davidw 12y ago
    Why does Google hide a bunch of search results in Europe if they are above the law? It seems to me that your statement is in error.
    - yulaow 12y ago
      Google also avoid to pay almost all the taxes it should in EU without anyone capable to stop them. The same thing is done by the others megacorps
      - davidw 12y ago
        Actually, it looks like you, too, may be incorrect, in that they're working to crack down on just that: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba95cff0-4fcd-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba95cff0-4fcd-11e4-a0a4-00144... Also, in the United States, Amazon has generally not fared well when it came to avoiding collecting local taxes when local authorities decided to put their feet down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax
        yulaow 12y ago
        As an eu citizen I knew that, and I can tell you they are "working on it" since decades of years (almost since Apple for the first time implemented it around the '80s), Nothing changed because Ireland doesn't want to change its taxation because the corps on its field lobby under the threat to move to another country, and the EU commission has not the power to impose the change to Ireland.
      - vixin 12y ago
        If Google 'should' pay taxes and have not, why haven't they been taken to court? That's tax evasion. Tax avoidance is what sensible people do. You look at the rules, follow them and minimize your tax bill. Google's shareholders also expect no less. No one can stop them (Google)? Of course they can. It's up to countries to change their tax laws if they think they are not fit for the job.
bonaldi 12y ago
There aren't many things on that list that we wouldn't be better off without. Is that really what you meant? You're in favour of big oil companies, hedge funds and the military-industrial complex? The latter is particularly surprising, unless you think 50% of America's budget going on weaponry to fight threats that don't exist is a productive use of capital
- dkarapetyan 12y ago
  I'm not in favor or against any of the things I mentioned. I was just trying to make a point about emergent properties of complicated systems like global economies and nation states.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  > unless you think 50% of America's budget going on weaponry to fight threats that don't exist is a productive use of capital That is flatly not true. Where do you get your numbers?
  - bonaldi 12y ago
    You're quite right, it's 20%, and still dwarfs other nations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/e...
- pestaa 12y ago
  Not as a call for citation as I have some basic understanding, but I'd like to learn more about why those threats are considered non-existent and why the USA keeps fighting them.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
If by "certain kind of economic system" you mean a heavily regulated pseudo free market system, then sure. But don't try to pretend, as I think you are, that regulation isn't the important bit there and that somehow the free market is the cause of these monopolies. The systems of regulation we have today are both not very effective and also generally hugely advantage consolidation, working against the often inherent advantages of fresh startups as competitors.
- dkarapetyan 12y ago
  I'm not pretending. I also disagree that a truly and freely competitive system is the answer. I don't think in the entire history of the world there has ever been any kind of free marketplace and the discussion on these matters are very often mired by ideological biases. Economics falls in a weird gray zone buffered by pure economic theory on one side and practical social constraints on the other.
- mtbcoder 12y ago
  I hear this expression, "heavily regulated", a lot from Americans but I never understand in context to what? Are you making comparisons to Canada, the EU, China or other countries with different economic systems? Also, how do you further differentiate necessary regulation from overbearing regulation? Surely you aren't suggesting all regulation is inherently bad?
Vulkum 12y ago
On a related note about the economic system have a look at this: http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2 http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely... This is what happens when wealth accumulates at the top of the pyramid. The video is talking about people, but those people are those behind the companies you mentioned (including Google, Facebook, hedge funds and oil companies). The problem with capitalism in my opinion, is that it's not truly capitalism: i.e. it's not the free competition system they claim it to be, but a system which is "more free" for some.
- zyx321 12y ago
  9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact Was Upworthy really the best source for this? The transcript is very nearly useless. Furthermore, 'true' captalism with a truly free market is quite unrealistic, since it would require all participants to be effectively omniscient and infinitely rational (and even then you would have to compare it to 'true' communism, where no one is ever selfish or lazy)
  - Vulkum 12y ago
    I think the original source is on a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM . The video aggregates data from multiple sources: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequalit... http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealth-inequality/ http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealth-inequality/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-... http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.h... How reliable these sources are, I'm not sure. If the information is wrong, I wouldn't blame it on Upworthy, it's a distribution channel after all.
    - zyx321 12y ago
      I'm not disputing the video. I haven't been able to watch it yet. I'm saying we shouldn't be supporting the likes of Upworthy under any circumstances.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jiggy2011 12y ago
This is one of the main criticisms of the capitalist system. If it inevitably results in socialism in disguise then you could have actual socialism.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
> Hmm, then we also need to stop Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Dropbox, TimeWarner Cable, military industrial complex, some big oil companies, a few hedge funds, a few banks, etc. Probably might as well call it quits with this whole capitalism thing. Now you're getting it! Yes, that is exactly what we need to be doing.

rtpg 12y ago

that's why anti-trust laws exist. If we break them up as they grow, we still reap the benefits of economic growth without the dangers of the monopoly.

dkarapetyan 12y ago
Sure but that still doesn't address the actual problem and from a certain viewpoint two companies doing the same thing is less efficient than a large company doing it because of economies of scale. So which is it? Do we want efficiency or fairness?
- jamespo 12y ago
  Maybe we should no longer have elections as there's a lot of duplication between > 1 political parties too
  - bibonix 12y ago
    Indeed :)
  - dkarapetyan 12y ago
    There is an entire field of mathematics dedicated to answering such questions and the answer is a lot more complicated than your simple quip. In fact the way most democracies are set up they are theoretically much less optimal than they could be and in some cases are as good as dictatorial systems because of susceptibility to being rigged. As usual wikipedia is a pretty good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system.
    - ende 12y ago
      Would you mind slapping a name on said field of mathematics, because I dig that stuff but only ever stumble upon smatterings of it here and there. I'd love to get to the core of that field. Its like game theory + lots of other stuff. (Sorry for off topic)
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        There might be something here: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
      - dkarapetyan 12y ago
        It's not one specific subfield but a combination. A good starting place though is probably social choice theory with a bit of a background on Arrow's impossibility theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem.
      - ende 12y ago
        Awesome. Thank you both!
- alphadevx 12y ago
  Fairness. When would we ever want anything that is efficiently unfair? Two companies doing the same thing brings the benefits of competition, which forces down prices, promotes innovation, and actually increases efficiency as they have to be better than their rival. In addition, no reason why both of them cannot be large enough to benefit from economies of scale (think Samsung vs Apple for smartphones).
Omniusaspirer 12y ago
That worked fine before the modern global economy. Now? It's the death-knell for industry in your country. Without a global government agreement you simply can't bust up megacorps like you used to- they're effectively above the law.
- davidw 12y ago
  Why does Google hide a bunch of search results in Europe if they are above the law? It seems to me that your statement is in error.
  - yulaow 12y ago
    Google also avoid to pay almost all the taxes it should in EU without anyone capable to stop them. The same thing is done by the others megacorps
    - davidw 12y ago
      Actually, it looks like you, too, may be incorrect, in that they're working to crack down on just that: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba95cff0-4fcd-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba95cff0-4fcd-11e4-a0a4-00144... Also, in the United States, Amazon has generally not fared well when it came to avoiding collecting local taxes when local authorities decided to put their feet down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax
      - yulaow 12y ago
        As an eu citizen I knew that, and I can tell you they are "working on it" since decades of years (almost since Apple for the first time implemented it around the '80s), Nothing changed because Ireland doesn't want to change its taxation because the corps on its field lobby under the threat to move to another country, and the EU commission has not the power to impose the change to Ireland.
    - vixin 12y ago
      If Google 'should' pay taxes and have not, why haven't they been taken to court? That's tax evasion. Tax avoidance is what sensible people do. You look at the rules, follow them and minimize your tax bill. Google's shareholders also expect no less. No one can stop them (Google)? Of course they can. It's up to countries to change their tax laws if they think they are not fit for the job.

bonaldi 12y ago

There aren't many things on that list that we wouldn't be better off without. Is that really what you meant? You're in favour of big oil companies, hedge funds and the military-industrial complex? The latter is particularly surprising, unless you think 50% of America's budget going on weaponry to fight threats that don't exist is a productive use of capital

dkarapetyan 12y ago
I'm not in favor or against any of the things I mentioned. I was just trying to make a point about emergent properties of complicated systems like global economies and nation states.
humanrebar 12y ago
> unless you think 50% of America's budget going on weaponry to fight threats that don't exist is a productive use of capital That is flatly not true. Where do you get your numbers?
- bonaldi 12y ago
  You're quite right, it's 20%, and still dwarfs other nations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/e...
pestaa 12y ago
Not as a call for citation as I have some basic understanding, but I'd like to learn more about why those threats are considered non-existent and why the USA keeps fighting them.

InclinedPlane 12y ago

If by "certain kind of economic system" you mean a heavily regulated pseudo free market system, then sure. But don't try to pretend, as I think you are, that regulation isn't the important bit there and that somehow the free market is the cause of these monopolies. The systems of regulation we have today are both not very effective and also generally hugely advantage consolidation, working against the often inherent advantages of fresh startups as competitors.

dkarapetyan 12y ago
I'm not pretending. I also disagree that a truly and freely competitive system is the answer. I don't think in the entire history of the world there has ever been any kind of free marketplace and the discussion on these matters are very often mired by ideological biases. Economics falls in a weird gray zone buffered by pure economic theory on one side and practical social constraints on the other.
mtbcoder 12y ago
I hear this expression, "heavily regulated", a lot from Americans but I never understand in context to what? Are you making comparisons to Canada, the EU, China or other countries with different economic systems? Also, how do you further differentiate necessary regulation from overbearing regulation? Surely you aren't suggesting all regulation is inherently bad?

Vulkum 12y ago

On a related note about the economic system have a look at this: http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2 http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely... This is what happens when wealth accumulates at the top of the pyramid. The video is talking about people, but those people are those behind the companies you mentioned (including Google, Facebook, hedge funds and oil companies). The problem with capitalism in my opinion, is that it's not truly capitalism: i.e. it's not the free competition system they claim it to be, but a system which is "more free" for some.

zyx321 12y ago
9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact Was Upworthy really the best source for this? The transcript is very nearly useless. Furthermore, 'true' captalism with a truly free market is quite unrealistic, since it would require all participants to be effectively omniscient and infinitely rational (and even then you would have to compare it to 'true' communism, where no one is ever selfish or lazy)
- Vulkum 12y ago
  I think the original source is on a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM . The video aggregates data from multiple sources: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequalit... http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealth-inequality/ http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealth-inequality/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-... http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.h... How reliable these sources are, I'm not sure. If the information is wrong, I wouldn't blame it on Upworthy, it's a distribution channel after all.
  - zyx321 12y ago
    I'm not disputing the video. I haven't been able to watch it yet. I'm saying we shouldn't be supporting the likes of Upworthy under any circumstances.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jiggy2011 12y ago

This is one of the main criticisms of the capitalist system. If it inevitably results in socialism in disguise then you could have actual socialism.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

> Hmm, then we also need to stop Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Dropbox, TimeWarner Cable, military industrial complex, some big oil companies, a few hedge funds, a few banks, etc. Probably might as well call it quits with this whole capitalism thing. Now you're getting it! Yes, that is exactly what we need to be doing.