undefined | Better HN

0 pointslapcat2y ago0 comments

> Consumers and regulators have most of the power there.

Regulators can be purchased.

> If people allocate resources in a way consumers don't like they go broke really quickly. That is one of the reasons free markets are so successful - they punish people quickly and effectively for bad decisions no matter how much economic power they used have.

That's not true. In fact, the wealthy are uniquely able to lose money for long periods of time, producing "loss leaders" to drive all competitors out of business and monopolize markets. In recent decades, this money-losing strategy has been weaponized time and again. It's practically a badge of honor for VC-funded startups to brag about how much money they're spending and losing.

It's also crucial to note that consumers are not an undifferentiated mass. They're not all the same. To go back again to your example of Musk, he become the wealthiest person in the world by selling a luxury brand to well-off consumers. Needless to say, Teslas are not cheap. It turns out that the wealthy catering to themselves is quite profitable, even if it doesn't help the non-wealthy much. And to look at another example, Apple became the wealthiest corporation in the world by selling luxury brands, iPhone and Mac.

> The most democratic successful society in the world is the US

I'm not sure I would agree with that characterization.

> The people who wanted to decentralise economic power were the communists and it turns out committees and big groups suck at making good economic decisions and lots of people literally starve.

Communist countries are not decentralized, nor are they democratic. To the contrary, they're extremely centralized. All power is in the hands of a small group of unelected (or sham elected) political party leaders. And you'll have noticed that both Russia and China have migrated from communism to capitalism while retaining their totalitarian governments. It turns out that political and economic systems are separate. There are plenty of other countries in the world as democratic or more so than the US but with significantly more socialism and social safety nets. The US is practically alone among industrialized nations in failing to have national health care, for example.

> On this point the article descends into nonsense. The authors believe this is a thing and will be proven wrong in an experiment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "will be proven wrong in an experiment", but it sounds like, uh, nonsense? It seems like a strange response, because you've already said multiple times that redistributing money from the ultra-wealthy won't get us very far, so doesn't it follow by your own logic that any significant redistribution of wealth in society and social safety net will have to come from the 99% rather than just the 1%?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

roenxi2y ago· 1 in thread

Regulators can be purchased but I spend a lot of time arguing in that space on HN and even here, with a educated and erudite population, a lot of people generally support the regulatory strategies in place. The ultra-wealthy might be purchasing details but the voters are generally in favour of consumer power being lessened.

> ...this money-losing strategy has been weaponized time and again...

Sure, but that strategy is a side effect of policies designed to protect borrowers and drive up house prices - which are often some of the more electorally popular policies. I typically take the side of the argument that thinks that loss making companies should go bankrupt and let me tell you, people do not like the implications of that once they start getting laid out.

> Needless to say, Teslas are not cheap.

We seem to be having some drift in this conversation. Are we talking about the ultra-wealthy or people who can afford Teslas? I can afford a Tesla. I'd agree that people earning less than me has very little real economic power since they aren't breaking in to the middle class where most of the consumer activity happens.

> Communist countries are not decentralized...

You've misread, I never said communist countries were decentralised. They wanted to decentralise economic power away from the wealthy and repurposed it to the benefit of the people - that was one of the core tenants of socialism. Of course it didn't work, but that was one of the goals - pulling power away from people like Musk.

Democracies are decentralised systems that centralise economic power towards people who best use it. Mainly by voting with their feet. Keeping with the Musk example, there is a big contingent of people who think he makes the best car and they centralise a lot of manufacturing power under his leadership. Democracys are very flexible though and move power around quickly when it seems to make sense.

> doesn't it follow by your own logic that any significant redistribution of wealth in society and social safety net will have to come from the 99% rather than just the 1%?

Sure, but that isn't ourselves to ourselves. That is from one group (traditionally the middle class because most of the choices about resource allocation happen there) and to a different distinct group (historically varies).

lapcatOP2y ago

> some of the more electorally popular policies

There are no electorally popular policies. We vote for people, not policies, and elections are usually popularity contests rather than policy choices. Not to mention that the Overton window is extremely limited in many cases, especially under the US political duopoly.

> Are we talking about the ultra-wealthy or people who can afford Teslas?

The latter. The point was that one can become ultra-wealthy while still ignoring the vast majority of consumers.

> the middle class where most of the consumer activity happens

I wouldn't say that Tesla is a middle class phenomenon. If you divide the population into thirds, calling them upper class, middle class, and lower class (I'm not sure whether this corresponds with the "standard" definition of class, if there is a standard, but that doesn't really matter for this purpose), there's a ton of money to be made by selling to the top third of earners while mostly ignoring everyone else.

> They wanted to decentralise economic power away from the wealthy and repurposed it to the benefit of the people - that was one of the core tenants of socialism.

Who is "They" exactly? Of course Marx wanted that, but he was merely an academic, not the leader of a country. It's not clear that the actual leaders of Communist countries wanted to decentralize economic power, nor did they fully practice the core tenants of socialism. After all, the economy of the Soviet Union was literally termed "central planning".

> Keeping with the Musk example, there is a big contingent of people who think he makes the best car and they centralise a lot of manufacturing power under his leadership.

The total number of Teslas ever sold is fewer than 5 million, and many of those vehicles were sold to repeat customers. The contingent is not that big, compared with the overall population. In my view, this appears to be mostly the upper income bracket empowering the ultra-wealthy.

> Sure, but that isn't ourselves to ourselves. That is from one group (traditionally the middle class because most of the choices about resource allocation happen there) and to a different distinct group (historically varies).

This is missing one of the main points of the article, which is that being part of the top 10% of earners for example is not necessarily a permanent state of existence. It can be temporary and precarious. I've personally been all over the economic map during my lifetime. Economic status is not static.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse