Preferences

Unless they conspire in $20B/year search agreements.

Or conspire to cap engineer pay and get a slap on the wrist not equivalent to the money they saved, and then continued the collusion.
In that case Apple and Google are the consumer, though. It is the workers offering the service, who are competing for those capped positions, even while being aware of the situation. The consumer wins.
Why did consumer loose here? This would have definitely had effect on iPhone's cost.
That's not competition.
And there’s no true Scotsman. This sort of thing is - in practice - what capitalism looks like in the 21st century.
I believe Peter Thiel would say that capitalism and competition are opposites, and the goal of capitalism is monopoly.

https://morfene.com/021.pdf

I'm not sure why people always attribute this observation to Thiel, as if it was something fringe, given how obvious and apparent it is.

The goal of a profit-seeking entity is to maximize profit. That is achieved by becoming a monopoly. Competition is just the consequence of multiple entities trying to become a monopoly - there can be only one. This is the motive part of market economy. The energy source.

Now, monopolies are obviously bad for society. Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies. This turns the market into an engine. You have constant inflow of upstarts dreaming of riches, fighting each other out to reach the throne of a monopolist, only to be denied it by regulation, and eventually become broken and/or pushed out by the younger followers.

Or, via another analogy: the market economy is designed like a donkey chasing a carrot on a stick attached to the animal, while standing on a treadmill. Being surprised that monopoly is the goal of companies is like being surprised the donkey would chase the carrot.

> I'm not sure why people always attribute this observation to Thiel, as if it was something fringe, given how obvious and apparent it is.

Indeed. It's so obvious and apparent that even Adam Smith himself made this exact point.

> Therefore, markets are regulated to prevent monopolies.

Markets are regulated to enable monopolies. Bell would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't the regulation involved in laying copper and Microsoft would have never become a monopoly if there wasn't intellectual property regulation.

If you think capitalism like whe have today, using the government as regulation platforms, sure. If you think capitalism as a system where you free to pursue your capital, not so sure its sustainable to keep a monopoly.
I agree. The goal of capitalism is to crush all competition and become a monopoly - and that's ok. The problem is, we should treat the monopoly as the winning end state and then restart the game.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal