h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

pedro: The simplified-to-the-point-of-wrong explanation

A685055.

>> x86 CPU manufacture. What goes inside your computer will be either Intel (huge), or AMD (merely very big) <<

An excellent example. And they compete with each other by continually trying to innovate and differentiate themselves, which was exactly the point the Robin Hoode(?) was making.

RF

btw...I should point out that the simplification I was guilty of was of Marxist economic theory. Somewhere in the mix, it *does* cover money supply...but I don't understand that bit well enough to comment.

And neither am I proposing that Marxism is an infallible body of knowledge. It's only a model which describes various dynamics - a way of looking at a complex system.

>>An excellent example. And they compete with each other by continually trying to innovate and differentiate themselves, which was exactly the point the Robin Hoode(?) was making.

Yes...but innovation and growth are the same thing. To innovate, you have to yield enough funds (as profit or borrowing) to keep a step ahaead of your competitor.

Not necessariy. My local butcher's doesn't innovate.

RF

Mine does. This week he's offering a special, novelty promotion:

'Your name, in lights.'

They also compete by throwing anti-competitive practice lawsuits at each-other.

<> anhaga

Yeah, eventually something like that'll happen. But the main point of capitalism is the returns on *capital* won't necessarily go down as a whole. It'll keep its returns increasing by moving into other areas, like hydroponics to keep the moon colony supplied, or the genetic engineering industry which will create bread with vitamins A-K etc, will suddenly find its expertise can be applied to something more profitable. After all, the dwindling returns on, say, the shipbuilding industry have no effect on the returns on the aviation industry.


<>

I think water is going to be the only limit to cause any great difficulty (globally) in the next few decades. The others can be overcome *relatively* easily (ie without disrupting society to any great degree). It's a fascinating question though; people have been worried about limits for ever, and yet there are more, better fed, and richer people than ever before. Why won't this trend continue into the future, when it always has in the past?

<>

Well, I haven't seen any non-essentials in the shops recently..., but I think that we'll manage to think something that we want to buy in the future.

<>

That's the first time a Marxist's ever said that.

Sure - yer man's as misunderstood by Marxists as he is by everyone else.

Going back a bit, (sorry, been away most of the week), Pedro said "And you know the fair market value *how*, exactly?" in relation to Google refusing to pay WMG an extra 0.22 per track.

The market value is what the market is willing to pay. In this case Google (through YouTube, surely a sigificant proportion of the market) decided the higher price being set by WMG was unacceptable. Therefore Google resisted an attempt to inflate the market price.

I could make decorative wooden geegaws and offer them for sale at £5 each. If customers are only willing to pay £1 then *that* is the fair market value.

On a more general point, is it the perception amongst many here that big is generally bad/evil in business? That a big company works to the benefit of a minority and unfairly crushes competitors?

What's the difference then between a corporation and government?

>>On a more general point, is it the perception amongst many here that big is generally bad/evil in business? That a big company works to the benefit of a minority and unfairly crushes competitors?

Well...I'd really like to back away from the word 'evil'. This is the 'It's nothing personal' theme I've been battering away at ad nauseam.

I'd certainly agree that a big company such as Google, or even (shudder) Microsoft can benefit a majority. They provide goods and services that we're happy to purchase, after all. A better way of looking at it is that a market environment creates a dynamic in which a companies tend to succeed at the expense of its competitors, suppliers and employees. (This isn't even Marx - it goes back to Ricardo and the accumulation of rents by landowners). Another, related dynamic is that large enterprises tend to be better at controlling markets to their advantage. (although, granted, less fleet-of-foot in exploiting emerging market niches).

Which kinda seguees neatly into...


>>What's the difference then between a corporation and government?

That's a very good question indeed. Broadly speaking and oversimplifying as usual), there's a tension between two views of government:
- A controlling government (the divine right of kings, etc)
- A regulating government (as per Locke's view of the Social Contract - a government which we entrust to regulate society to our benefit)

In the 21stC, we've more-or-less veered towards the latter, so the role of government is broadly agreed as being to regulate markets so that we can continue to enjoy their fruits while being protected against unfavourable dynamics. Hence we have minimum wages, welfare benefits, regulation of monopolies, etc.

Another function - and I've a hunch that this is what you're alluding to (winkeye) - is the government as a market player itself...as a corporation. Modern governments supply various goods and services on the basis that these are best left undisturbed by the exigencies of the free market. On the one hand, there's a danger that they'll not manage these efficiently or fairly - eg are NHS staff really paid a fair market price for their work? Doubt it. On the other hand...would we feel comfortable in entrusting a public good such as defence of the realm to a multinational?

<>

That's kinda the whole point. Here, Google *is* the market, due to its monopolistic power. In your geegaws example, if there are other people selling them cheaper, they'll buy them there. With Google, people don't go elsewhere.

Of course, the reasons for that are probably worth a thread on their own. After all, you can just google another youtube type-thingy.

>>> On a more general point, is it the perception amongst many here that big is generally bad/evil in business? That a big company works to the benefit of a minority and unfairly crushes competitors?

That depends. Suppose, under deregulation that various companies were merged into one, and that nearly all the media outlets belonged to one single company. What happens to freedom of the press? What happens when that large media-owning entity also owns some large sectors of other industries? Would we ever find out about the effects of industrial pollutants from the press? Or how about the lead-up to war? President Eisenhower warned of this when he spoke out about the industrial-military complex.

>>> What's the difference then between a corporation and government?

When corporate interests are so big and powerful that their lobbyists have more influence over our elected representatives than we humans that actually elected them, really there is no difference at all. And yes, that is evil, because then the government acts on behalf of short-term corporate profits rather than the long-term public good.