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

Technology

59504 readers
3998 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
[–] [email protected] 78 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The free market is going very well here

[–] [email protected] 33 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 42 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

X - ~~The system is broken.~~

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

When did it start?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 weeks 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)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (13 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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not so much that they're wrong is that they're impossible in practice. Axioms, by their very nature, cannot be justified from within the system that they serve so "true" or "false" aren't really applicable.

The model does have its justification, "given these axioms, we indeed get perfect allocation of resources", that's not wrong it's a mathematical truth, and there's a strain of liberalism (ordoliberalism) which specifically says "the state should regulate so that the actually existing market more closely approximates this mythical free market unicorn", which is broadly speaking an immensely sensible take and you'll have market socialists nodding in agreement, yep, that's a good idea.

And then there's another strain (neoliberalism) which basically says "lul we'll tell people that 'free market' means 'unregulated market' so we can be feudal lords and siphon off infinite amounts of resources from the plebs".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

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. ☺️

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (5 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago (26 children)

That's not a government enforced monopoly. A government enforced monopoly means nobody else is allowed in the market. Like utility companies.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago

Lots of Utilities are consumer cooperatives which is funnily enough Socialist, but the people working there wouldn't like to hear that.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)