• chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is textbook late stage free market ideals at work. This is how the free market always ends.

        • Final Remix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          X - The system is broken.

          ✅ - The system is working exactly as intended and must be destroyed.

            • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Yes but the statement was “this is how free markets always end”. And I’m just wondering if the commenter has actually been around to see “free markets ending.”

              • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                I think they were less talking about them ending as much as them tending towards the monopoly state over time.

                • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Got it. Saying “this is how free markets always end” if they meant “free markets tends to move towards monopolies” confused me.

              • chakan2@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                That’s a fair comment I guess…but it’s the reality of the game. The US was a free market through it’s early history and today is the result of that.

                It’s just how the free market ends, always. It starts with a few winners consolidating, abusing their monopoly and buying their government protections, and poof…welcome to late stage capitalism.

                “Free Market” people always disregard human nature at it’s worst. There will always be people and orgs that game the system. You simply can’t prevent that. The US is absolutely an end game free market.

          • Petter1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            There are lots of different kinds of markets, like phone market, grocery market, goldsmith market, etc.

            The governments have to interfere in many markets all the time, that there aren’t monopolies forming or Price-fixing agreement be done, which would lead to prices go ridiculously high, or last companies in markets fucking up taking tons of knowhow with them.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, the huge companies would dominate over small companies even more than they already do.

          • ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Copyrights and patents are literally government enforced monopolies for huge companies. Without them, there would be a lot more competition.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Really? Calling it a government enforced monopoly seems very disingenuous.

              Good luck trying to make a movie without Disney stealing it or making an invention with really effective solar panels or something without the biggest companies stealing it and bankrupt the original creator.

              Copyright and patents protect everyone involved in creation and while there are a LOT of problems with the systems. Removing it entirely seems like the biggest overcorrection possible.

              • ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                2 months ago

                Companies such as Disney have armies of lawyers to enforce their monopolies. Copyright and patent laws are designed exclusively for the rich.

                Disney can very well “steal” other people’s work and get away with it under this system. Without such laws, everyone else would be able to “steal” from Disney as well, which would level the playing field.

                • lud@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  The playing field won’t be level without patents or copyright. Why would I an average idiot make or invent something if the exact second I show the world my invention someone takes it and mass-produces it within a week? I have no chance to raise capital to make the invention myself if you can already buy it in every store. The Chinese manufacturing industry essentially does this already but to a lesser degree. Imagine if every company did that. No small companies or individuals would stand a chance against Goliath.

                  And again the word monopoly is very misleading in this discussion, especially when it comes to copyright. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from making superhero movies just because Marvel/Disney owns a lot of superhero rights. You are just not allowed to make an exact copy of their movie but you are allowed to make similar movies all day long.

                  Another example is a professional photographer. Do you really think that they should be awarded no rights whatsoever to the photograph they took?

                  The same obviously applies to huge companies as well. Why make a movie if it’s available for free download literally everywhere.

                  How do you propose that the makers of content, inventions and products get paid? Donations? Get real, that won’t happen.

          • frezik
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Trade secrets don’t need to be enforced much by law. You can create an ad hoc trade secret regime by simply keeping your secret between a few key employees. As it happens, there are some laws that go beyond that to help companies keep the secret, but that only extends something that could happen naturally.

              • lud@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                Being free to innovate and keep your own ideas to yourself sounds like it should be part of the free market though.

                Forcing people to disclose their (mental) secrets seems bizarre.

          • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            To be fair, we absolutely should outlaw at least 99% of all currently practiced forms of advertising and make it so that new forms of advertising have to be whitelisted by a panel of psychiatrists, sociologists, environmentalists and urban planners before they’re allowed.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Are you telling me that the axioms behind the simplistic model are wrong?? shocked-pikachu.jpg

              • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Wrong as in not sound. An argument can be valid assuming its assumptions are true. The argument is the model, which really is a set of arguments. Its assumptions which are taken axiomatically are as you say impossible, therefore they are not true (which I called wrong). So the argument is not sound. I’m not saying anything different than what you said really, just used informal language. ☺️

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What’s government enforced about it? Is ARM the only allowed chip designer for cellphones?

        • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          license enforcement is a thing because if someone bypasses it you can sue them, which is a government interaction. Technically, claiming X means nothing if there’s no one that enforces your claim.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes but that rule protects you the same as it does them. They can be a monopoly if nobody else can get their chips sold but they cannot be a government enforced monopoly unless nobody else is allowed to sell chips.

            • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s your interpretation and that’s fine but I understand that they have a monopolies because their patent is broad enough to be hard to create alternatives, and the patent is government enforced. That’s how I understood it at least.

              In any case, I don’t really mind if you want to keep using your interpretation, I was just trying to rationalise what the other commenter said and explain what I though was their point of view to say what they said.

              Have a great day.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                That’s not just my opinion. That’s the definition going straight back to Adam Smith.