this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
738 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59641 readers
2671 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This is 100% capitalism. It's not free market to have a goverment-enforced monopoly.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (7 children)

X - ~~The system is broken.~~

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

When did it start?

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Sorry have you been around to observe a lot of free markets ending?

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Gestures wildly at current state of things

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 1 month 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 1 points 1 month 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 2 points 1 month 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.

[–] ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You are correct. There would be no copyrights or patents in a free market.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] lud@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Or trade secrets. "Perfect information" is a bitch. Not to speak of "perfectly rational actors": Say goodbye to advertisement, too, we'd have to outlaw basically all of it.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To get closer to the free market there would have to be a duty to disclose any- and everything that's now a trade secret, no matter how easily kept. To not just get closer but actually get there we all would need to be telepathic. As said, perfect information is a bitch of a concept.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago (11 children)

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (31 children)

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

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)