This is how all capitalist markets progress, which is why I get annoyed when folks try to talk about this as though it is hypocritical. There is nothing hypocritical about a capitalist attempting to stifle innovation and competition for the advancement of their own personal wealth. This is what capitalism is about.
The “Free Market” is a fantasy originally pushed by Think Tanks funded by the Koch Brothers.
All the great things we’re told about The Free MarketTM only ever work in highly competitive markets with no barriers to entry were it’s easy for any Jane, Jack or Joe to enter the Market and start competing with the rest: thinks like soap or teddy bears.
As soon as something as simple as Land-ownership gets involved (for example, for your store in a prime location) it stops being perfectly competitive and all of a sudden you get feedback loops were the more money somebody does the more money somebody is capable of doing, meaning that first mover advantage is close to unassailable (and what we see in the modern world is that the ones with the biggest first mover advantages inherited them).
The Free MarketTM is really just an ideological excuse from neoliberals to convince people that the power of the vote should be indirectly weakenned (sure, you can vote, but the State, which is controlled by voters’ elected representatives, can’t regulate or otherwise “intervene in the market”, so de facto the vote loses most of its power) so that the Power of Money can do whatever it wants because “the Free Market knows best”. Dig through the technochratic pseudo-Economic mumbo-jumbo and what you find is a ideology to weaken Democracy and replace it by Oligarchy.
That’s why you work to make sure that there is competition. I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t come as a shock that a EV manufacturer doesn’t want to have to compete.
I agree that’s it’s a “hate the game, not the player”. The issue is how much influence he could have to steer the market to favor his product vs. the competition. It’s happened so many times in history where the better product fails because they can’t play the game like the inferior company.
To quote “Pirates of Silicon Valley”:
Steve Jobs: We’re better than you are! We have better stuff.
Bill Gates: You don’t get it, Steve. That doesn’t matter!
So is it fair for the consumer for big companies to be able to influence the game itself and not just play within the same rules? I’d say no.
I don’t think you’re really addressing my comment, which is just a criticism of how folks write about these “hypocrisies.”
Of course it’s not fair; that’s the entire foundational pillar on which capitalism rests. I’m not saying “hate the game, not the player”. Rather I’m saying the game is bullshit and the player should have his balls kicked with steel toed boot repeatedly.
This is how all capitalist markets progress, which is why I get annoyed when folks try to talk about this as though it is hypocritical. There is nothing hypocritical about a capitalist attempting to stifle innovation and competition for the advancement of their own personal wealth. This is what capitalism is about.
It’s not what free market is though. Which is what capitalists pretend they are for.
The “Free Market” is a fantasy originally pushed by Think Tanks funded by the Koch Brothers.
All the great things we’re told about The Free MarketTM only ever work in highly competitive markets with no barriers to entry were it’s easy for any Jane, Jack or Joe to enter the Market and start competing with the rest: thinks like soap or teddy bears.
As soon as something as simple as Land-ownership gets involved (for example, for your store in a prime location) it stops being perfectly competitive and all of a sudden you get feedback loops were the more money somebody does the more money somebody is capable of doing, meaning that first mover advantage is close to unassailable (and what we see in the modern world is that the ones with the biggest first mover advantages inherited them).
The Free MarketTM is really just an ideological excuse from neoliberals to convince people that the power of the vote should be indirectly weakenned (sure, you can vote, but the State, which is controlled by voters’ elected representatives, can’t regulate or otherwise “intervene in the market”, so de facto the vote loses most of its power) so that the Power of Money can do whatever it wants because “the Free Market knows best”. Dig through the technochratic pseudo-Economic mumbo-jumbo and what you find is a ideology to weaken Democracy and replace it by Oligarchy.
Yep. Democracy dies when regulation does, basically.
That’s why you work to make sure that there is competition. I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t come as a shock that a EV manufacturer doesn’t want to have to compete.
I agree that’s it’s a “hate the game, not the player”. The issue is how much influence he could have to steer the market to favor his product vs. the competition. It’s happened so many times in history where the better product fails because they can’t play the game like the inferior company.
To quote “Pirates of Silicon Valley”:
Steve Jobs: We’re better than you are! We have better stuff.
Bill Gates: You don’t get it, Steve. That doesn’t matter!
So is it fair for the consumer for big companies to be able to influence the game itself and not just play within the same rules? I’d say no.
I don’t think you’re really addressing my comment, which is just a criticism of how folks write about these “hypocrisies.”
Of course it’s not fair; that’s the entire foundational pillar on which capitalism rests. I’m not saying “hate the game, not the player”. Rather I’m saying the game is bullshit and the player should have his balls kicked with steel toed boot repeatedly.
Ok, what do you suggest? There isn’t any alternatives. You can just ignore the opinion of some billionaire and be done with it.
We do not have the option to ignore the opinions of billionaires. Their opinions become government policy through lobbying and it impacts us all.
The players make the game. It’s not a one or the other thing.