Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

EDIT: I need to think on how to word this response

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

I honestly find it unfathomable why people put so much faith in large corporations. Large corporations are still a bureaucratic nightmare that stretch various laws to gain an advantage over its competitors whilst exploiting their consumers. It sounds exactly the same as anything the government does.

 

[w00twood]

I honestly find it unfathomable why people put so much faith in large corporations. Large corporations are still a bureaucratic nightmare that stretch various laws to gain an advantage over its competitors whilst exploiting their consumers. It sounds exactly the same as anything the government does.

Well, if a monopoly of power is what you're concerned about, why would you prefer the state? Which large corporation in history has controlled anywhere near as much of an economy as the typical developed democratic state does now (ie spending 40-odd per cent of a country's GDP)?

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, if a monopoly of power is what you're concerned about, why would you prefer the state? Which large corporation in history has controlled anywhere near as much of an economy as the typical developed democratic state does now (ie spending 40-odd per cent of a country's GDP)?

Because the democratic state has an inbuilt mechanism of control. Now that mechanism may become flawed (like I would argue the US has) but the people still exert greater direct control over the government then they do over a private power. This is especially true in monopoly situations where the people have literally no control over the private interest because the supposed control mechanism of capitalism, competition, isn't functioning.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

I don't necessarily favour either. Both have important roles. To paint one as the devil and the other as our saviour isn't the best way to look at these debates. I mean, the internet is a military creation that private companies have helped expand. Both parties need each other, whether they think so or not.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't necessarily favour either. Both have important roles. To paint one as the devil and the other as our saviour isn't the best way to look at these debates. I mean, the internet is a military creation that private companies have helped expand. Both parties need each other, whether they think so or not.

Oh most definitly. I'm perfectly fine, for example, with unfettered capitalism (withhin reason obviously, IP protection and safety regulations and stuff are important) when it comes to luxery goods.

 

[w00twood]

I don't necessarily favour either. Both have important roles. To paint one as the devil and the other as our saviour isn't the best way to look at these debates. I mean, the internet is a military creation that private companies have helped expand. Both parties need each other, whether they think so or not.

I think you've misunderstood me- I'm judging both government and business by the same standard, that monopolisation is bad (the point you made in your post). It doesn't matter if it's the government or a corporation, if they control almost half the economy in terms of taxation (let alone how it regulates the other half) then it's bad news. You said you don't understand how people trust large corporations as they could/will monopolise, and my point is that the government is the most obvious monopolist there is.

Also, just because the government created the genesis of the internet does not mean it wouldn't have been invented in the private sector sooner or later.

My reply to Technomancer is to reproduce an argument from (the brilliant libertarian and anarchist) David Friedman that dollars are in many ways superior to votes in that the cannot be reused. If you have 75% of the votes then you win every election 100%, whereas if you have 75% of the dollars you can buy up to 75% of the economy. It means you can't pass on costs to other people, which unfortunately is the main business of government. Private companies can't get anywhere without the dollars of the consumers, so just because they are elected does not mean they aren't shaped by the will of the people.

 

[The Technomancer]

My reply to Technomancer is to reproduce an argument from (the brilliant libertarian and anarchist) David Friedman that dollars are in many ways superior to votes in that the cannot be reused. If you have 75% of the votes then you win every election 100%, whereas if you have 75% of the dollars you can buy up to 75% of the economy. It means you can't pass on costs to other people, which unfortunately is the main business of government. Private companies can't get anywhere without the dollars of the consumers, so just because they are elected does not mean they aren't shaped by the will of the people.

This is, quite frankly, nonsense. I really don't say that often. I really don't. And maybe you have a point here and you're not explaining it coherently. The 75% of the votes thing only applies for positions like presidents, mayors, and governors and its precisely why we also have more granular system such as the senate, the house, and all the local bodies of representatives. I also don't see how it follows from "if you have X amount of the money you can buy X% of the economy" (which also seems nonsensical, there has to be something more refined behind that thought because on the surface it doesn't mean anything) to "thus you can't pass on costs" and it really doesn't make sense to jump from that to "the main buisness of the government is passing on costs to others". I mean, if anything it seems like businesses are the one's who's primary purpose is passing on costs to other people, since thats one of the primary ways you raise profit margins.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying what you've written here doesn't make sense and so I can't even evaluate if I think its wrong or right

If there's a broader argument I would make against the argument I think you're making its that I don't think history has held up what seems to be the fundamental assumption: that markets do not naturally optimize towards something close to a monopolistic system.

 

[w00twood]

If there's a broader argument I would make against the argument I think you're making its that I don't think history has held up what seems to be the fundamental assumption: that markets do not naturally optimize towards something close to a monopolistic system.

I had to butcher DF's point a bit, given it is several hundred words long originally. You can find it in full on page 56 here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf). When I said X% of the economy, I meant whatever was for sale. We could be talking about buying cars or apples or something. It would be far more proportionate to determine their ownership by dollars than by votes. Especially when you consider the economy as a whole where there are innumerable goods and services.

As for your second point, you're missing two assumptions. Firstly, you're assuming that the House has, say, 75% Republicans and 25% Democrats, but I used the word elections. If you have that 75/25 split in each constituency that would give you a 100% Republican House. You could say that there would still be debate even then as not all Republicans agree anyway, but this is not a universal rule.

Speaking about the US you are talking about what is called a weak party system, where there isn't much hierarchy and it's relatively difficult for a politician to get kicked out for ideological reasons. If you were talking about countries that have strong party systems, then they have official positions which it is very dangerous to go against. In the UK, a party can get win a majority of seats with 35% of the vote, and it is fairly uncommon for MPs to rebel against their party leader (who would also be Prime Minister, we don't have much in the way of separation of powers). Therefore 35% get 100% of the votes in the House of Commons.
Imagine if Coke had 35% of the cola market and Pepsi 65%, and yet Coke ended up with 100% of the market. It's a paradox in the private sphere but not in the political sphere. Tweak the percentages there a bit and it would be true in an American comparison too.

Could you elaborate what you mean by (presumably free) markets tending towards monopoly, and the ways in which businesses pass on 'the costs' as a way of increasing profits?