Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the what's-mine-is-mine-and-what's-yours-is-mine dept.

On 4 November 2019, Techcrunch published an interview with Thomas Philippon, author of the book The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets, where he discusses the diminution of competition in many US market sectors.

From the Techcrunch article:

Economist Thomas Philippon's new book, "The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets," went on sale this past week, highlighting the United States' failure to block the country's largest companies from inhibiting fair competition.

"The broad picture is that competition is good, but surprisingly fragile," he said. "In today's environment, the U.S. is moving from a place where it was at the forefront of having free markets that worked pretty well for most people to being a laggard in many industries."

Philippon's premise isn't exactly breaking news, but the interview and his book give some good background as to how we got where we are, and how other nations are addressing these issues more (in some cases, much more) effectively.

The deregulation of major U.S. industries like telecom and energy in the 1970s and 80s sparked competition that lowered consumer prices and drove product innovation between competitors. Europe, on the other hand, lagged behind with more expensive internet, phone plans, airline tickets, and more until around 2000 when a major reversal of this trend began. Strikingly, when the EU strengthened deregulation and antitrust efforts to open its markets to more competition, it was the U.S. that reversed course.

[...] Based on Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data, the U.S. now has more regulations for opening a new business than every EU country except Greece and Poland — a complete reversal since 1998, when only the UK had fewer rules than the U.S. Per capita GDP growth in the EU outpaced that of the U.S. over 1999-2017. On a purchasing power parity basis, Americans have experienced a 7% increase in prices (relative to EU residents) for the same goods, due specifically to increased profit margins of companies with reduced competition.

The reason for this divergence? According to Philippon, corporate incumbents in the U.S. gained outsized political influence and have used it to a) smother potential antitrust reviews and b) implement regulations that inhibit startups from competing against them. As a result, the U.S. regulatory system prioritizes the interests of incumbents at the expense of free market competition, he says.

What say you, Soylentils? Is competition truly dead in many sectors of the economy, or are there ways to bring it back and keep it?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:08AM (1 child)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:08AM (#919294) Journal
    "What say you, Soylentils? Is competition truly dead in many sectors of the economy, or are there ways to bring it back and keep it?"

    Both.

    We're pretty far down the rabbit hole though. Given our population and natural resources in relation to the rest of the world, we would need perfect play for the next 20 years just to maintain.

    We're getting nothing near perfect play from our political system, obviously.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:41AM (#919321)

      or are there ways to bring it back and keep it?

      Love of my life, you've hurt me
      You've broken my heart
      And now you leave me

      Love of my life, can't you see?
      Bring it back, bring it back
      Don't take it away from me
      Because you don't know
      What it means to me

      (grin)

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Mer on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:05AM (14 children)

    by Mer (8009) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:05AM (#919307)

    It's a step in the right direction to want liberty over safety, but the next step is autonomy before liberty.
    We want liberty so that everyone can pursue their own happiness without collectivisation fucking up the whole. Happiness is the declared end goal here but we skip over important steps. It goes: liberty >>> autonomy >>> power >>> happiness
    We get it, abolishing property and redistributing everything is bad. But when power has enough means and supplies to operate at a loss long enough to screw over any uppities trying to grab a share, liberties don't do anything. Rather than clinging to the building foundation of the building leading to happiness because communism bit more than it could chew trying to give everyone happiness directly, politics should propagate private and individual means of production and housing, so that we can stop being dependant on a bigger entity to simply live and when we want to enter the glorious free market we can with our head above the water, not pushed underwater by actors that want to limit accessibility to it.

    --
    Shut up!, he explained.
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:34AM (13 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:34AM (#919318) Journal

      We want liberty so that everyone can pursue their own happiness without collectivisation fucking up the whole.

      Are you saying collectivism is inherently bad? No matter how large or narrow the scope, no matter of the willingness of the participants that chose to share, it will result in a fuckup?

      It goes: liberty >>> autonomy >>> power >>> happiness

      You are either deluded or have a pretty limited imaginations if that's the only way you see to reach happiness.

      politics should propagate private and individual means of production and housing, so that we can stop being dependant on a bigger entity to simply live and when we want to enter the glorious free market

      Oh gosh! Really, really? Like the libertarian dream, except handed to you on a plate by government?
      Like in "Dear govt, gimme gimme and when I see fit, I'll enter that market that you keep free for me"?
      Where do you think those 'politics' get the stuff to give you, teleported from the starship Enterprise straight from the replicators?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:43AM (12 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:43AM (#919323) Homepage Journal

        You are either deluded or have a pretty limited imaginations if that's the only way you see to reach happiness.

        As much as I'd like to say you're full of shit about that, you're dead on the money. Way too much of humanity are happiest when they're essentially well-treated and protected slaves. Unfortunately for them, you really can't count on slave owners to be especially altruistic.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:58AM (11 children)

          by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:58AM (#919328) Homepage Journal

          Yeah the well-treated and protected bits are so last century.

          --
          If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:17PM (10 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:17PM (#919339) Homepage Journal

            You'd think the slaves bit would be too but it appears to be inherent in human nature to not want to face having to make your own decisions and live with the consequences of them.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:45PM

              by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:45PM (#919394) Journal

              For too many people, its 'make a stupid decision and blame someone else for the results'.

              For politicians, its make a stupid decision and rake in the money. :(

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:31PM (8 children)

              by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:31PM (#919410) Homepage Journal

              When all the job offers you get are to work in conditions amounting to such slavery, your own decision regarding your immediate future becomes one between that slavery, trying to make a go of a self-sufficient hunter / gatherer lifestyle, or begging, borrowing or stealing. For many people, the slavery appeals as the least worst of those shitty options.

              --
              If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:47AM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:47AM (#919703) Journal
                So what happens when that's not the case? It's tiresome to have this same argument over and over. Sure, somewhere in the world there's people without choices. But how relevant is that to the rest of us who do have choices? TMB is getting at a universal problem. People often choose this sort of slavery.
                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:13PM (1 child)

                  by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:13PM (#920056) Homepage Journal

                  So what happens when that's not the case?

                  Yes, we get it. That's the only case that really matters to you.

                  It's tiresome to have this same argument over and over.

                  Yes, it's redundant. You can easily stop now and agree to disagree. But you don't want to.

                  Sure, somewhere in the world there's people without choices. But how relevant is that to the rest of us who do have choices?

                  Yes, khallous, we've already established that you don't care [soylentnews.org] about the ones without choices. I do. Accept this, agree to disagree and move on.

                  --
                  If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:54AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:54AM (#920190) Journal

                    So what happens when that's not the case?

                    Yes, we get it. That's the only case that really matters to you.

                    So what if that were true? Point is you're ignoring most of humanity, particularly in the developed world. Lip service to the "slaves" of the world just means we ignore the people who aren't. Policy based on that myopia just means you create more slaves not less.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:19PM (4 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:19PM (#919814) Homepage Journal

                Oh do fuck off. There are plenty of jobs out there with working conditions that vary from epic to cocktacular, even for the utterly unskilled. None of which even remotely resemble slavery. Coal mining a hundred years ago, that resembled slavery. And that's without even disputing the entirely wrong notion that jobs are magically shit out by the Corporate Fairy. Cut the bullshit socialist propaganda.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:59PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:59PM (#919944)

                  Many slaves were treated quite well, except for the threat of their lives being taken away from them. All the modern day system has done is tack on a few letters. They theeaten your livelihood, and for many people especially those with families it is tantamount to slavery.

                  Sure it isn't quite as bad as it used to be, but that doesn't make the comparison wrong. Wage slavery is real, it is just spread out so people can be suckered into focusing on individuals and thus miss the greater picture.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:23PM

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:23PM (#919994) Homepage Journal

                    Sure it isn't quite as bad as it used to be, but that doesn't make the comparison wrong.

                    It's not even remotely close to as bad as it used to be and yes that does make the comparison utterly wrong. Working at a coal mine meant you work all day for less than you got charged by the company store, company utilities, and paid for company housing. You literally couldn't leave because of all the money you owed them that they would demand payment on as soon as you quit.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:19PM (1 child)

                  by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:19PM (#920032) Homepage Journal

                  Then why do people have to settle for working for a pittance for a large, successful e-business that has them pissing into bottles because they aren't even allowed reasonable bathroom breaks? Clearly not everyone has the kind of options you daydream about.

                  --
                  If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:15PM

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:15PM (#920057) Homepage Journal

                    Because they're cowardly or grossly misinformed about how much better working for a corporation will make their life. Big corporations don't control all jobs. They don't provide a majority of them and they don't create more new ones each year. And that's entirely discounting working for themselves. So, yes, everyone does have those kind of options. Whether they choose to exercise them or not is entirely on them.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:25AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:25AM (#919312)

    > free markets that worked pretty well for most people

    haha, no and no.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:48PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:48PM (#919455)

      Yeah, I thought so too.

      Then I just checked in with my buddies, history economics and anthropology.

      They laughed. Then they cried. And they shook their heads.

      They don't really agree with you; sorry, dude.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:03PM (1 child)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:03PM (#919507) Journal

        Notice they're all history people.

        All the people the free market worked really well for are dead already.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:01PM (#919547)

          Are you rich? I'm going to assume not. Most people aren't. I certainly am not. Yet nonetheless here we are communicating with each other, probably half way around the world from one another, using our nice computing machines that are magnitudes more powerful than that which sent men to the moon. And we're doing it using incredibly sophisticated and expensive equipment installed literally all around the world. And I look about my desk, multiple monitors, all sorts of nice tools imported all the way from across the sea. And it's pretty hot outside but I feel damn comfy thanks to this air conditioning that keeps me chill constantly. All of these tools and technologies are things people of the past could not even imagine - all obtained for a mostly negligible cost.

          My wife wanted a new desktop for herself. It's getting crazy how cheap stuff is. For $180 we got a new setup that's quite reasonable - plays GTA V smoothly even! And that included the monitor and all other necessities. No clue how there's a profit margin in there. That $180 included free shipping as well. By contrast, less than a century ago companies started putting elaborate and beautiful designs on feed and flour sacks. Pretty unusual. Why? Because we had so little that people were retrofitting feed sacks into home-made dresses. This wasn't just depression era stuff either.

          I think the problem is that the free market and nuclear deterrence has worked too well. Because we now live quite comfortable lives absent any real threat and with each passing year we generally become capable of acquiring ever more crap. The problem is that it's a completely pointless and empty existence when you do not move beyond that. "We" need an enemy, we need a cause, we need change. Imagine a Star Trek style utopia where there was minimal to no animosity and where, thanks to holodecks, you could be anyone, do anything, do anyone. What that really be a utopia? For the vast majority it'd likely be a year or two of heaven, followed by 80 years of hell til you die. There'd no doubt be a suicide epidemic because what would be the point of anything anymore...? Kind of a terrifying thought actually. The Great Filter of the Fermi Paradox might be finally reaching what we think we want.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:37AM (36 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:37AM (#919320) Homepage Journal

    What say you, Soylentils? Is competition truly dead in many sectors of the economy, or are there ways to bring it back and keep it?

    It ain't dead, it's pining for the fjords.

    Seriously though? This shit right here is why I will always be a capitalist. You get pretty much exactly the same results when you let the government take too much control because the government is full of corrupt fuckwads who will happily sell you and me right the fuck out for money, power, or sex with underage kids.

    Competition keeps prices down and drives progress. If either of those things sound like good things to you, you've got zero choice but to back honest competition above all else anywhere it's remotely possible. You can never count on either companies or the government to have your back. If either of them say they're behind you, they're technically telling the truth because they're about to fuck you right up the ass.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:49AM (29 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:49AM (#919324) Journal

      Competition keeps prices down and drives progress.

      And you reckon that's possible forever, right?
      Like that progress will always keep the barrier of entry in the market so low anyone can decide to compete.
      Like, it's the meddling of the govt the only reason there are only a handful of microprocessor manufacturers on the market, eh?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:21PM (26 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:21PM (#919341) Homepage Journal

        No, or low, barrier of entry is not a promise of capitalism or competition and never was. If it's an honest barrier of entry rather than someone running at a loss or otherwise trying to hamper competition, I have no issue with a high as hell barrier of entry; that's what investors are for.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:06PM (15 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:06PM (#919357) Journal

          If it's an honest barrier of entry rather than someone running at a loss or otherwise trying to hamper competition, I have no issue with a high as hell barrier of entry; that's what investors are for.

          Yeah, what were your words? Other people's money?
          Will go until the small people's money run out** and only the big money people would get to invest... except there's no real motivation to do it, when mergers, acquisitions and reduced competition serve their interest better.

          ** those angel investors hunting unicorns? The scam is layering the shares, with guaranteed return for the initial investors and then "raiding" the pension funds at IPO stages - those are the only ones that small people still have money into.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:37PM (14 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:37PM (#919822) Homepage Journal

            Dude, grow the fuck up and quit blaming others for your problems. Someone else having more than you does not mean you do not have enough. Thinking otherwise is the fucking definition of envy.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:53PM (13 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:53PM (#920004) Journal

              Dude, grow the fuck up and quit blaming others for your problems.

              Dude, don't waste your straws on me, personally I don't have problems in the financial areas now, I already have enough.
              Others don't and I'm dispassionately looking on why is that.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:17PM (12 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:17PM (#920060) Homepage Journal

                Then quit your bitching. You know fuck all about poor people and you're not inclined to treat them with even a thousandth of the skepticism you aim at employers. So stop speaking for them until you know what the fuck you're talking about.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:51PM (7 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:51PM (#920076) Journal

                  Then quit your bitching.

                  Free speech and all that.
                  Does it irritate you? Though if so, but not my problem to deal with.

                  You know fuck all about poor people...

                  [Citation needed]
                  (I might not know about all the poor people, but I know about enough of them. On this, you'll have to take my word for it. Or not.
                  But if you make categorical assertions about anything, be prepared to support them with evidence. Good luck)

                  ... and you're not inclined to treat them with even a thousandth of the skepticism you aim at employers.

                  Does free-speech come with the non-bias string attached to it or what?
                  What happen with your position "let them speak and refute them", you started to lose your might and get sick of it suddenly?

                  So stop speaking for them until you know what the fuck you're talking about.

                  (I can be soooo boring repeating yourself. Yeah, my problem, I think I can deal with. Carry on.)

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:24AM (6 children)

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:24AM (#920086) Homepage Journal

                    You're confusing telling someone to stop being stupid with telling them stop being stupid or I'll force you to.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:43AM (5 children)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:43AM (#920091) Journal

                      You're confusing telling someone to stop being stupid

                      Thanks for caring enough about me, really appreciated.

                      To return the favor: TMB, your reply suggests that you may not be old enough to understand the futility of telling anyone to stop being stupid.
                      It rarely works in general and it never works when the person telling it shows signs of stupidity himself**

                      ---

                      ** before you ask - yes, that is in part derived from personal experience. Maybe you should try looking at you through the eyes of an outsider to really grok this lesson, your position of "I'm always right" can be a serious impediment to such learning

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:52AM (4 children)

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:52AM (#920098) Homepage Journal

                        Rarely is enough. Every little bit of unnecessary stupidity avoided makes the world measurably better.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:06AM (3 children)

                          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:06AM (#920105) Journal

                          Every little bit of unnecessary stupidity avoided makes the world measurably better.

                          As an exercise, TMB:
                          * Look in the mirror
                          * Realize that the person you whose reflection you are seeing is the one over which you have the greatest control.
                          * Now, apply your advise to yourself too, the world may be better because of it. Or it may make little-to-none difference to the world, in which case you should come to the realization about where your true values stays - which may not be related with an advisor role.

                          --
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:13AM (3 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:13AM (#920159) Journal

                  You know fuck all about poor people and you're not inclined to treat them with even a thousandth of the skepticism you aim at employers

                  On a not grinning line.

                  First, show me were I specifically blamed employers.

                  Second, I'm absolutely ok with the 'You have to give a go to get a go, and giving a go does not always guarantee getting a go in return" This applied on all sides involved in giving or getting go-s.

                  The problem starts when no matter how much go someone gives, the chance of getting back a go is small to almost nill. Then something is amiss. And if it happens to enough many not receiving the go in return, you may have enough data to point to at least some causes. It doesn't mean other causes don't exist or aren't important. But also doesn't apriori mean that the causes one see or chose to point to are invalid.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:06AM (2 children)

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:06AM (#920169) Homepage Journal

                    no matter how much go someone gives, the chance of getting back a go is small to almost nill[sic].

                    You get that's precisely why there are so few with so much, yeah? Because life is hard and people with mad life skills are rare as fuck.

                    Punching a clock will not get you there. It never has and it never will. Hard work will not get you there. Amazing ideas will not get you there. Ambition will not get you there. Being able to see how to get there will not get you there. It takes a combination of hard work, amazing ideas, ambition, and thoroughly understanding how to get from po to sick bling. Just staying in the middle class takes things a hell of a lot of people simply do not mentally possess. It has nothing to do with anyone trying to keep you down; it's all about you simply not having the ability to do any better.

                    There's nothing wrong with the above. That's just life being as life should be. Giving lots of people something they value is how you get rich. Giving a small to moderate amount of people something they value is how you get to be generic ownership class. Giving the previous two classes of people something they value is how you get middle class. Giving them what they barely value at all is how you stay a broke motherfucker for your whole life. You get what you put in according to its value not according to how hard it was for you.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:17AM (1 child)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:17AM (#920198) Journal

                      Punching a clock will not get you there. It never has and it never will. Hard work will not get you there. Amazing ideas will not get you there. Ambition will not get you there. Being able to see how to get there will not get you there. It takes a combination of hard work, amazing ideas, ambition, and thoroughly understanding how to get from po to sick bling.

                      Agreed. Your listed the necessary but your continuation show that you believe is sufficient.

                      It has nothing to do with anyone trying to keep you down; it's all about you simply not having the ability to do any better.

                      Disagree.
                      To keep me down? No, I'm not that paranoid.

                      To keep many or anyone getting ahead? Yes, apart from the "play fair, may the best win" that's the other solution to the competition game**, an easier one once one gets enough clout.
                      And it does require sociopathic skills to take this path - "if I can't win on merit, then let's cripple the others that can". Unfortunately, after enough time in the competitive game, this becomes the only solution to stay ahead.
                      Don't tell me you believe in perpetual exponential growth in a limited world. Once most of the competitors got to the point in which the next competitive advantage can be obtained only at cost higher than the ability to extract profit (and the law of diminishing returns guarantees there is such a level), the fair play gets a boot and the "if winning means stepping on dead bodies, let's do it" sociopathy comes in.
                      This is one of the reasons why the big corporation of world started to behave the way they do.

                      Very much like the corruption and bureaucracy in other societal structures, the sociopathy necessary just to stay ahead in late stage capitalism is something that fits with "the fish rots from the head down" - if the CEO or the head of govt get no other option but to behave sociopathic, in a quite short time everybody in the hierarchy will behave the same.

                      ---
                      ** see the Prisoner's Dilemma for a very simplified and limited analogy

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 15 2019, @01:02AM

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 15 2019, @01:02AM (#920560) Homepage Journal

                        That is an issue once you get a significant market share, yes. It shouldn't be but it is once you enter Big Business. Short of that, the corporations really don't give a flying fuck about you because you're costing them less than lawyers and bribes would.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:57PM (9 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:57PM (#920476) Journal

          The problem there is that high barriers to entry prevent effective competition and so prevent the benefits of a market economy.

          Pretty much everything Smith had to say about markets assumed that buyer and seller were within an order of magnitude or so in economic power. Of course, he also warned against grants of corporate charters unless there was truly no alternative and even then that the corporations be kept on a tight leash and held strictly to their charters including a public good clause.

          It's also noteworthy that competition needs to have more independent players than you can count on one hand if it is to have any hope of delivering on the promise of keeping prices under control and maintaining reasonable service. Transparency of information is also necessary to the process. 30 resellers of two products where they randomly switch which one of the two they slap their name on is not effective competition.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 15 2019, @01:07AM (8 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 15 2019, @01:07AM (#920561) Homepage Journal

            The problem there is that high barriers to entry prevent effective competition and so prevent the benefits of a market economy.

            A) Waah! I don't want to have to earn my way or sell the idea to investors!
            B) Only if you're an idiot. I've started more than one business with pretty much nothing I didn't already have at my house.

            It's also noteworthy that competition needs to have more independent players than you can count on one hand if it is to have any hope of delivering on the promise of keeping prices under control and maintaining reasonable service.

            Now that we agree on. You need competitors or there is no competition. Without competition, you might as well be communists. That's not saying communism is a good thing, it's saying lack of competition is that harmful to capitalism.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 15 2019, @04:56AM (7 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Friday November 15 2019, @04:56AM (#920612) Journal

              I think you mis-understand my first point. There are many markets, some have fairly low barriers to entry, others have high barriers. The markets where the barriers are high will suffer from too little or no competition while people like you and me out of necessity go in to other markets that we can afford to enter.

              The ISP is a great example. Back when 33.3K dialup was the best most people could afford, barriers were low and ISPs were legion. I personally knew more than one that started out in their garage. Prices slid downwards for several years while time limits went away. Then technology marched on, but the barriers to entry went WAY up, so many areas have only one or two to choose from. No amount of talking to investors fixes that, they're not interested in that market because the barriers are so high that ROI will not happen in a timeframe they like (if ever).

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:43AM (6 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:43AM (#920924) Homepage Journal

                You think? Hasn't been what I've seen. Mostly I've seen established markets (as opposed to growth markets) causing the lack of available, excited investors. That's always happened and will continue to happen, barring someone seeing a good opportunity to take most of the market share for themselves.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:47AM (5 children)

                  by sjames (2882) on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:47AM (#920925) Journal

                  So you do not, in fact, believe that markets work?

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 16 2019, @03:06PM (4 children)

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 16 2019, @03:06PM (#920976) Homepage Journal

                    Does not logically follow.

                    Most all markets eventually hit a point where they no longer offer much in the way of growth, only a steady profit. Investors don't generally like putting huge money into startups for these markets because growth makes them a better return on investment. That's not broken, that's just life. Nobody ever said you should be capable of starting any business you like and nobody ever said someone will invest in any business you start. Conducting whatever legal business you are able to should be an entitlement, conducting any business you want to is bloody stupid to even suggest.

                    Now a side effect of lightly regulated capitalism is there needs to be someone watching the landscape to make sure some asshole doesn't buy up every competitor so they can turn a competitive market into a monopoly or even just drive the amount of competition down to where it's no longer effective at driving innovation and keeping prices low. You know, some kind of commission to regulate trade, preferably on the federal level. Wait, we have one of those already. I guess what we need are some methods of better holding them accountable then.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:12PM (3 children)

                      by sjames (2882) on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:12PM (#921048) Journal

                      We have markets where there are less competitors than fingers on one hand with high barriers to entry that investors aren't interested in. That either means we will never have enough competitors there to bring market forces to bear unless those barriers are drastically lowered or the government itself enters those markets in some form.

                      This isn't about my (or anyone else's ) right or entitlement to enter those particular markets, it's about promoting the general welfare.

                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 18 2019, @02:14AM (2 children)

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 18 2019, @02:14AM (#921379) Homepage Journal

                        We have markets where there are less competitors than fingers on one hand with high barriers to entry that investors aren't interested in.

                        Yes, and the solution to that is roughly the same solution as we used with Bell back in the day. Monopolies, duopolies, and such are extremely bad for capitalism. That's one of the few areas the government legitimately needs to swing its regulatory dick around.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 18 2019, @04:34PM (1 child)

                          by sjames (2882) on Monday November 18 2019, @04:34PM (#921565) Journal

                          Breaking the link between local and long distance worked out OK, but the rest of the breakup just caused a bunch of name changes while they re-assembled like liquid metal in T2. It also failed to create competition in local phone service

                          The whole line sharing thing to foster competition in DSL failed miserably when the free market uber alles crowd removed all the teeth from regulators and the baby bells prioritized requests from Covad et. al. slightly below polishing the payphones.

                          Try counting how many different places you can get various items. You might be surprised how frequently you only need one hand to do it and how infrequently you need to take a shoe off.

                          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 18 2019, @08:18PM

                            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 18 2019, @08:18PM (#921660) Homepage Journal

                            Yeah, dyed in the wool capitalists hate what's happened with the phone carriers, especially wireless, more than anybody. That the US government has fallen down massively on its anti-trust responsibilities, that's one bit everyone but the merging companies and the folks they've bribed can agree on. Capitalism requires competition or it dies. Still better than socialism but regulatory capture and abuse of monopoly or monopoly-like powers are definitely not on my Christmas list.

                            --
                            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @05:49PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @05:49PM (#919480)

        If government interference in the form of patents and various abuses thereof were not the $$$major$$$ benefit to their bottom line, the microprocessor manufacturers would not be spending $$$billions on using it to harass the competition, now would they?

        You really should do a remedial course on your demagoguery, it's pathetic.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:06PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:06PM (#919548) Journal

          If government interference in the form of patents and various abuses thereof were not the $$$major$$$ benefit to their bottom line, the microprocessor manufacturers would not be spending $$$billions on using it to harass the competition, now would they?

          Yes, and patent lawsuits is the sole reason for which we can't create a microprocessor in our kitchen, right?
          Without those patents, everyone could just slice a bunch of silicon crystals with a chef's knife and shine that ultraUV laser pointer bought from ebay on them and, presto, there you have your own DIY microprocessor. For those too lazy to DIY, they can just go on the farmer's market and buy some together with the home made artisan soap - the cost of entry on the market is so low everyone can compete.

          Dam' government, how cheeky of them to keep those physics laws in the books. They should repeal them immediately.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by acid andy on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:02PM (5 children)

      by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:02PM (#919331) Homepage Journal

      Competition keeps prices down and drives progress. If either of those things sound like good things to you, you've got zero choice but to back honest competition above all else anywhere it's remotely possible. You can never count on either companies or the government to have your back.

      Zero? Never? That's black and white thinking. Reality is much more nuanced and variable than that, and I for one am glad of that. Societies problems are complicated and they need fairly complicated solutions.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:24PM (4 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:24PM (#919342) Homepage Journal

        Nah. When someone proposes a complicated solution, they're lying to confuse you with too much input while they snag your wallet. That or they're genuinely too dumb to simplify the solution.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:32PM (3 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:32PM (#919387)

          The obvious counterpoint is that when someone proposes a simple solution to a complicated problem, they're lying to appeal to your naivety or stupidity while they snag your wallet. That or they're genuinely dumb enough to believe that complex problems have simple solutions.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:39PM (2 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:39PM (#919823) Homepage Journal

            Nope, complex solutions just mean you don't understand the problem well enough to create a simple one. Rube Goldberg shit might technically work but it's always the wrong way to do something.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:13PM (1 child)

              by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday November 13 2019, @10:13PM (#920026) Homepage Journal

              Lots of complex problems don't have shortcuts. It's the pigeonhole principle. A set of data can only be compressed so much. Data compression is analogous to simplifying a list of tasks to solve a problem.

              --
              If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:23PM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 13 2019, @11:23PM (#920063) Homepage Journal

                See, The Roomie and I have this argument all the time. And he's always wrong. He always feels the need to spell out every possible related detail, at least three levels out. It's absolute hell when he's trying to explain a position. By the time he's gotten around to the point, I've long since forgotten what he was even talking about and tuned him out because he's spent 75% of his breath either telling me extremely tangential, irrelevant shit or telling me things I'd taken for granted the moment he got his introductory paragraph out. That shit ain't necessary. Save the nuance for when someone actually asks about it.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:29PM (3 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:29PM (#919345) Journal

    There is no way free market does not degenerate in plutocracy. There is no way communism does not degenerate in party aristocracy and totalitarianism.

    The solution? it is proposed as social democracy, but that is what the incumbent guys who are likely behind all of this degeneration propose. So I guess the problem is deeper and the solution goes beyond politics. Economy is a good starting point.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:46PM (2 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:46PM (#919418)

      >There is no way free market does not degenerate in plutocracy.
      Sure there is, but you have to *enforce* a free market - such a things can't exist on its own. And to do that you have to enforce the noninterference of the capitalists in government, which they'll otherwise inevitably twist to bolster their profits at the expense of the free market. That second bit is where we haven't had much luck yet.

      > There is no way communism does not degenerate in party aristocracy and totalitarianism.
      That does seem kind of likely, but that's a *really* strong statement considering that Communism has never existed at a large scale in order to degenerate in the first place. Plenty of groups have flown the banner, but ask yourself one question: are the government leaders living substantially the same material lifestyle as farmers and janitors? If not, then you haven't gotten anywhere close to communism yet. Meanwhile, small scale communism at the scale of communes and monestaries seems to work passably well.

      It seems to me you have the same problem in either case - any time you concentrate power, the people holding that power are almost inevitably going to be corrupted (or be replaced by those who are already corrupted), at which point they're going to twist the rules to create an autocracy that benefits themselves at the expense of everyone else.

      Democracy seems to be the only potential solution - keeping power in the hands of the masses rather than those of the would-be autocrats. Unfortunately we haven't figured out how to make it work very well yet. Representation seems to be essential, because most people don't have the time, knowledge, or incentive to make good judgments to do their some fraction of a millionth part of wielding government power. But when we give power to representatives, they seem to immediately set out to abuse that power for their own benefit as much as possible before we have the option to vote them out again - and then be on their best behavior in the lead up to the next election so that we'll forget their past abuse and make the same mistake again.

      I've been working on an idea that might help, by never giving representatives a firm grasp on power. I call it optionally direct democracy: Every citizen can, if they choose, vote on every bill and other legislative action. But they also need to pick a Representative that their vote will automatically follow if they don't cast it themselves (i.e. the normal situation for most people most of the time). Importantly they don't vote for their Representative - there are no elections. Instead after any scandal, or when some new, more promising candidate rears their head, you can immediately say "My current representative sucks, I'm going to follow this other, better one instead". Representatives aren't casting votes on your behalf, they're just casting votes that your vote will automatically follow - unless you vote directly because you don't like their stance on something.

      Right out of the gate that means that nobody ever "wastes" their vote by voting for a losing candidate. If there's a three-way 55:30:15% split in the candidates supported by a certain population, then those candidates will respectively wield 55%, 35%, and 15% of that population's legislative power. And if someone wants to select their wise old granny as their representative instead of some politician - that's fine too. We don't really need formally recognized representatives in such a system, though some sort of paid council of the N most popular candidates who can work full-time on governing is probably a good idea - they can cultivate the support of the minor representatives as they see fit.

      It also means that Representatives will have a much harder time cramming through legislation in the face of widespread public opposition - the people always have the option of voting directly instead, the only power a Representative is guaranteed to be able to wield is that of their own solitary vote - no more powerful than any other citizens.

      As an added bonus I think it would deal a severe blow to party politics, as well as discouraging corruption. No more "Vote for me or The Enemy will win" - I'll give you my vote until I find someone else that better represents my specific values. And that someone else will probably be another member of the same party, with similar positions on most things, just a bit more in line with my own values, or perhaps a bit more effective at getting things done.

      Really, you could probably even do away with the ability for citizens to vote directly and still get most of the benefits - Representative A starts advocating hard for unpopular "Policy X", and people can switch their vote to Representative B, who's otherwise similar but opposed to X. After all, we can always switch back later. In order to hold on to power, Representatives would have to continuously reflect the ideals of their base as broadly as possible.

      • (Score: 2) by mobydisk on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:24PM (1 child)

        by mobydisk (5472) on Wednesday November 13 2019, @04:24PM (#919897)

        First thought: OMG this sounds genius. Has anyone else written about it? This is a frieking great idea. This is very similar to how corporate shareholder elections work. I've read articles comparing Condorcet with ranked-choice with 57 variations, but all are under the concept of electing a single representative. But this sounds like a much better approach. I'm really interested in hearing some discussion about it.

        Now as I think... this works for voting, but there are other things a representative does. Where would we hold the debates? What is the process of introducing a bill? Who works with the lawyers and writes bills? And this won't work for offices like presidents and governors have individual powers. There's things to address on how exactly to make this work in practice.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:27AM

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:27AM (#920122)

          Thank you. I've never heard of anything like it, and am rather proud of it. I'm working on assembling a concise and evocative introduction as well as a more detailed "manifesto" in the hopes of getting it on the front page here to both get more feedback and spread the idea.

          For a lot of the non-voting aspects, one simple "traditional" way would be to restrict those to a Council of the N most popular Representatives. You'd need to work out how to change them out, since you probably don't want daily or hourly churn at the cuttoff point. Maybe a periodic "election day", or perhaps something like a Schmitt trigger - e.g. for a Representative to get on the council, they need to take the seat of the least popular councilor by becoming at least T% more popular.

          Debates might also be held amongst all Representatives (including your wise granny with her three followers) in some sort of online forum - screening by popularity would be easy, and you could also allow representatives to "mod" or "like" each other's posts to help the the most salient ideas rise top the top.

          It admittedly doesn't work well for individual offices, and I see no problem with that - it doesn't have to fix all problems to be really useful. I conceived it as a way to get individuals more engaged with democracy, while making and legislatures, councils, corporate (or school) boards, etc, far more beholden to the people on a day-to-day basis instead of just during election season.

          The same infrastructure might work well as an alternative to primaries and elections though. Instead of primaries, let everyone pick their favored Presidential candidate as their pseudo-representative, and let popularities shift and settle out over the course of the election season instead of relying on often biased polls and pundits to figure out which candidates are worth paying attention to. Then the most popular come election day gets the job. Hmm... Or perhaps there is no election day, and the job is treated as a single seat "council", with the incumbent being ousted whenever someone else manages to take their chair.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by mth on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:40PM (1 child)

    by mth (2848) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:40PM (#919346) Homepage

    While telcos in the US use regulations to stifle competition, in the EU regulations have increased competition in the sector. Specifically, net neutrality and regulations that force former state monopolies to open their networks to new providers. The issue isn't the number of regulations, but whether regulations are the result of lobbying by the big telcos or the result of politicians looking out for consumer interests.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:45PM

      by SpockLogic (2762) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:45PM (#919369)

      Here in the US, the incumbents have the best political system that money can buy.

      --
      Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:18PM

    by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:18PM (#919361) Journal

    We have the worst of both worlds, and neither your nor I nor any soylenti who is not lurking here from the command center of a government agency(+and we seeeee you...well not really but some likelihoods are just at over 100%), can even rationally hope to determine what kind of 'market' this is.

    Silicon Valley is a show no one is really contesting as being a wild fantasy, how 'free' is the market in which Hooli and Pied Piper go about their day? To me it seems hopelessly restrictive and fraught with meaningless peril.

    Then I also happen to have worked for 20 years in various companies, hardly any of which I have been able to determine how they even make money at all. Whether something is done or not, and when money is paid and when every penny counts, simply doesn't track reality. Money is spent generally where it is not needed by the truckload and places where things could really use an upgrade they languish and strict, authoritarian budgetary controls are imposed.

    THEN on top of that, I am an artist who has just been working that day job to break into publishing and/or entertainment, and here I can tell you that this is not in any way a market. There is not a free market for music, screenplays, comedy or actors. Pornography resembles a free market maybe the most because of the numbers, but I have looked into it and this is not a free market any more than prostitution is.

    Classic Soylent and general tech lore callback, consider The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Finding the bazaar nowadays is difficult and fraught with peril. It used to be, if you could hold it and judge its quality, you would know which sellers were good and who was selling something dodgy.

    Well now the virtual world has expanded by x1000000 and the malls are closing down, if you don't live in one of a few major cities, most goods of anything out of the utmost ordinary have to be purchased over distance using virtual tools.

    The virtual tools are leaning heavily towards cathedrals, like amzn. If you are profitable your product and model will be stolen. Like yeah underarmor makes good money but their knockoffs make just as much, and that money goes to thieves who are breaking the system. Apple has this problem, whatever they innovate, china takes and distributes in asia and africa but with much poorer quality.

    In everything there is the real thing and the idea underneath it or behind it. The ideas can exist independently of matter or the universe. Math exists without us.

    The primary marketplace is the one of ideas, and this is my primary concern, how freely ideas transverse society. I have spent most of my life watching this and I spent 10 years at least watching what happened to this one website you may have heard of called reddit. I watched a place that was a kindof free marketplace for ideas turn into one that is decidedly not, where the freedom of ideas is clearly more of a 'pirate signal' that makes it into the 'matrix' because of oversight or error. And now when I am at reddit that is what I am looking for, that is the fun, to see who has the guts to say the truth in a place where it is scary to do so? Or who is so upset that this is their scream out the window like the guy from Network?

    Or I clock shills(also here which you may have noticed) to track what the oligarchs are trying to push, in the case of epstein, we can argue for sure over whether he killed himself or was murdered, there are literally hundreds of people who come out of the woodwork to deny any assertion that he may still be alive. At this pointl, my view of the world is predictive of things like this, only it almost always turns out fo be more crass and obvious.. This pattern tracks across the JFK assassination releases recently and 9/11. Oswald was in contact with the cia, the one charge that was most vociferously denied by hundreds of authorities and supposed journalists for decades.

    And then you want to ask me about the free market. You want to talk about the free market. When I don't know if I can even state the most obvious facts without it somehow ruining my life because extremely powerful people have a long history of making the lives of their most effective critics impossible. Antoni Gramsci. Gary Webb. Michael Hastings. Michael Ruppert. James Padfield.

    Right now in Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile there are violent revolutions underway that are turning those countries into dictatorships, using the fun and friendly place for friends to determine which children in high school for masked police to kidnap.

    To this add intellectual property theft, monopolization, international finance, fiat currency, mainstreaming of monopolies, and any good intention in this world has very little chance of doing any good by the time it is through the ringer.

    So that is a no, we do not have a free market, anyone who says so or that is a clown. This is a bullshit ponzi system enforced with guns and weapons of mass destruction, and the people with the most money and power should be held responsible for their handiwork, for which the rest of us can only take secondary responsibility.

    thesesystemsarefailing.net (but especially this fake market and the sick cultural hegemony propping it up)
    https://jmichaelhudson.net/my-memes/ [jmichaelhudson.net] (some new stuff up, check out the ones with green background)

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:39PM (#919367)

    Honestly, what gives with this shit?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fadrian on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:21PM

    by fadrian (3194) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:21PM (#919406) Homepage

    Is competition truly dead in many sectors of the economy, or are there ways to bring it back and keep it?

    Yes, and yes. They're called anti-trust laws and they're pretty damned effective when actually utilized.

    --
    That is all.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @07:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @07:48AM (#919753)

    Any market that does not include the free flow of labor cannot honestly be called a free market. We currently have (mostly) free flow of goods around the globe but not free flow of labor. This means buyers of labor can usually shop around to other places for a better deal while those offering labor are often stuck where they are and forced to accept the deal that is offered them.

    While migration remains heavily restricted, there will always be exploited populations unable to pack-up and move to a country where they would get paid their fair share. As long as this occurs, the world will remain a shitty place where wealth and power inequality will keep rising, despite whatever technological advancements we may make. People say today's poor live like kings, but those kings rarely had to worry about paying for food and rent while working two or three menial jobs.

    Open migration is obviously not going to happen any time soon, for a variety of reasons. So the next best thing is to heavily regulate goods coming into countries so that they satisfy demands we place on them. These demands might involve the labor conditions using which they were originally produced and the wages offered to workers. Tariffs are a dirty word, but without them, it's hard to fix these kinds of issues. While we're at it, we could also put a cost on CO2, pollutants and other externalized costs and maybe make a dent in the climate problem.

(1)