4 ms·

> John Deere may be out of touch, but it’s not alone. Other corporations, including trade groups representing nearly every major automaker, made the same case t

> John Deere may be out of touch, but it’s not alone. Other corporations, including trade groups representing nearly every major automaker, made the same case to the Copyright Office again and again. In Capitalism, the game is to make monetary profit & control the market, above all else. It makes sense what John Deere is doing. They are just being good Capitalists.

tacos 12y ago
They're also a great fucking company. Nerds care about this sort of bullshit. People who turn seeds into fruit into dollars care that the manufacturer will drop in with a helicopter to a field and get you going fast with a loaner part the size of your entire cubicle. They also have interesting jobs available on their test farm for software engineers.
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
> the game is to make monetary profit & control the market What you describe, basically is monopolism. It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market. > They are just being good Capitalists. When this is true, than something is very wrong with Capitalism itself.
- briantakita 12y ago
  > It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market. In ecology, there's a concept call Ecological Succession. Likewise, in Capitalism, the free market is a stage in a succession toward monopoly. Capital tends to pool, leading to monopolies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    Applying concepts from one scientific discipline to other disciplines does seldom fit. I think it is more a sign of pseudo-scientific trickery to back the own thinking, that is most often used in unsound economical theories. It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large. And no "ecological" concepts can convince me from the opposite. One example: While bigger banks are good for the bankers, because countries have to rescue them, it is very bad for those countries, as everybody (except politicians) can see since 2008. With your "ecological" theory, someone also could argue, that dinosaurs are better than mammals.
    - twobits 12y ago
      "It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large." And you are correct. But something different was being said: Unconstrained capitalism, leads to monopolies (or oligopolies). And that's true too. Read your own words. "monopolies are good for the monopolists". Isn't that another way to say "shareholders' profit"? There you have motive. And in a pond of fish, doesn't the bigger, eat the smaller, becoming even more big in the process? That's the process.
      - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
        What you say is correct. I know, that economy is always also in a field of different forces. What I basically was arguing against, was the notion (as I understood it), that "scientific theory" would justify monopolies as good for society.
    - briantakita 12y ago
      > Applying concepts from one scientific discipline to other disciplines does seldom fit. I find analogies useful. I also find the utility of Science to be valid but limited at times, particularly in complex systems that evolve. > I think it is more a sign of pseudo-scientific trickery to back the own thinking, that is most often used in unsound economical theories. You are assuming that my motivations are different from what they actually are, but yes, I agree it does happen... I'm also not trying to make a "sound economic theory". Observations & analogies are still valid & useful, though. YMMV. > It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large. And no "ecological" concepts can convince me from the opposite. I'm making an observation that the "free market" is an unstable system. It probably only exists in theory. IMO, the difference between the theory & reality limits the utility of Capitalism, or any imposed economic model for that matter. > With your "ecological" theory, someone also could argue, that dinosaurs are better than mammals. It's hard to find "better" in all circumstances. It usually depends on context. i.e. Dinosaurs were pretty well adapted for their environment & lasted millions of years (much longer than humans). Too bad they didn't consider that asteroid...
      - 12y ago
- twobits 12y ago
  "What you describe, basically is monopolism. It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market." Sure, but the problem is that unconstrained free markets lead to monopolies. The big fish eats the smaller fish. The big fish becomes bigger and more difficult to attack. (New competition.) And so on, and so on, until there can be only one, or an oligopoly.

tacos 12y ago

They're also a great fucking company. Nerds care about this sort of bullshit. People who turn seeds into fruit into dollars care that the manufacturer will drop in with a helicopter to a field and get you going fast with a loaner part the size of your entire cubicle. They also have interesting jobs available on their test farm for software engineers.

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

> the game is to make monetary profit & control the market What you describe, basically is monopolism. It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market. > They are just being good Capitalists. When this is true, than something is very wrong with Capitalism itself.

briantakita 12y ago
> It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market. In ecology, there's a concept call Ecological Succession. Likewise, in Capitalism, the free market is a stage in a succession toward monopoly. Capital tends to pool, leading to monopolies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  Applying concepts from one scientific discipline to other disciplines does seldom fit. I think it is more a sign of pseudo-scientific trickery to back the own thinking, that is most often used in unsound economical theories. It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large. And no "ecological" concepts can convince me from the opposite. One example: While bigger banks are good for the bankers, because countries have to rescue them, it is very bad for those countries, as everybody (except politicians) can see since 2008. With your "ecological" theory, someone also could argue, that dinosaurs are better than mammals.
  - twobits 12y ago
    "It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large." And you are correct. But something different was being said: Unconstrained capitalism, leads to monopolies (or oligopolies). And that's true too. Read your own words. "monopolies are good for the monopolists". Isn't that another way to say "shareholders' profit"? There you have motive. And in a pond of fish, doesn't the bigger, eat the smaller, becoming even more big in the process? That's the process.
    - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
      What you say is correct. I know, that economy is always also in a field of different forces. What I basically was arguing against, was the notion (as I understood it), that "scientific theory" would justify monopolies as good for society.
  - briantakita 12y ago
    > Applying concepts from one scientific discipline to other disciplines does seldom fit. I find analogies useful. I also find the utility of Science to be valid but limited at times, particularly in complex systems that evolve. > I think it is more a sign of pseudo-scientific trickery to back the own thinking, that is most often used in unsound economical theories. You are assuming that my motivations are different from what they actually are, but yes, I agree it does happen... I'm also not trying to make a "sound economic theory". Observations & analogies are still valid & useful, though. YMMV. > It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large. And no "ecological" concepts can convince me from the opposite. I'm making an observation that the "free market" is an unstable system. It probably only exists in theory. IMO, the difference between the theory & reality limits the utility of Capitalism, or any imposed economic model for that matter. > With your "ecological" theory, someone also could argue, that dinosaurs are better than mammals. It's hard to find "better" in all circumstances. It usually depends on context. i.e. Dinosaurs were pretty well adapted for their environment & lasted millions of years (much longer than humans). Too bad they didn't consider that asteroid...
    - 12y ago
twobits 12y ago
"What you describe, basically is monopolism. It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market." Sure, but the problem is that unconstrained free markets lead to monopolies. The big fish eats the smaller fish. The big fish becomes bigger and more difficult to attack. (New competition.) And so on, and so on, until there can be only one, or an oligopoly.