
A fatal inconsistency within neoliberalism - deafcalculus
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-fatal-inconsistency-within.html
======
mr_toad
Interesting form of rhetoric.

1\. Invent a blanket term for your opponent. 2\. Ascribe extremism to their
views (“they say free market, but they mean pro-business”) - tarring everyone
with the same brush. 3\. Arrogate moderate positions to yourself (“some free
markets are OK”), thereby marginalising your opponent. 4\. Argue that anyone
who disagrees with your position is an <insert-invented-term->; cementing the
dichotomy and the marginalisation of your opponent.

~~~
peoplewindow
Yup. I stopped reading the article after I realised that it was simply an
eloquent argument against a straw man.

I have yet to encounter anyone who actually calls themselves neoliberal. This
term is used _only_ by the political left, who prefer to argue with a
political ideology they themselves invented.

------
closeparen
Reagan and Thatcher were _conservatives_. Why is everyone trying to rebrand
their ideology as something called "neoliberalism"? They were the arch enemies
of what most people seem to call liberal, even in economic terms (social
safety net, consumer and environmental protection, universal access to
healthcare and education, etc). What is insufficient about the term
"conservative"? What about their ideology close enough to liberal ideology to
conflate the terms?

~~~
rangibaby
In politics liberal meaning “left-wing” is a US English thing

~~~
dragonwriter
A lot of what is considered “left-wing” in the US is “liberal” (and somewhere
on the political right) in the global sense, though, confusing things more.

------
lend000
I have yet to hear of a natural, malevolent monopoly that formed without some
kind of government protection to keep out competition (a.k.a. rent seeking),
in the forms of direct government contracts, complex startup-averse
regulations, government LICENSING, etc.

~~~
b4lancesh33t
Microsoft would seem to be one counterexample.

~~~
lend000
How so? Not a malevolent monopoly in any sense. I still do not understand the
antitrust case to be some sort of proof of monopoly -- the court settled for
them making public the implementation of certain API's, and allowed them to
continue shipping IE with their OS (as they should -- how else would people
download a web browser? Force everyone to buy one at the store and install
them via CD?)

EDIT: incredible how many downvotes I've received on this thread, as I
continue waiting for that example :)...

~~~
dTal
What exactly constitutes "malevolence", in your view? The disadvantages of
monopolies are inherent and extend far beyond mere price gouging. Your
argument seems to be that if a monopolistic company doesn't innovate (at the
same pace they would if they had stiff competition) then some nimble upstart
will easily overtake them. But that's not how the world works. If the
incumbent has all the patents and all the money, nimble upstarts can be
combatted in all sorts of ways beyond "fair" competition - they can buy them
(as Facebook does to all upstart social networks that gain a foothold), sue
them unfairly and bleed them dry (as Creative did to Audigy), or use their
market position to change the rules faster than a competitor can keep up
(Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy).

Of course, if you won't accept any example of monopoly that involves unfair
government privilege, you neglect the fact of regulatory capture - once a
company gets to a certain size, it can often buy its way into an unfair
advantage (this is the usual order of things, rather than government
arbitrarily picking a company and then it becoming a monopoly).

~~~
lend000
Malevolence as would be described by the CONSUMER (low quality and/or high
prices). Something like Comcast, a successful business whose customers
typically hate it, and which is deeply entrenched as a 'utility' due to its
foothold in local municipalities.

> If the incumbent has all the patents

Is that not a form of government licensing?

> sue them unfairly and bleed them dry (as Creative did to Audigy)

Is that not exploiting flaws in the governing system? Wouldn't the best
solution be to fix the flaws, rather than create a workaround to attempt to
fix abuses of more fundamental problems?

> you neglect the fact of regulatory capture - once a company gets to a
> certain size, it can often buy its way into an unfair advantage

I don't neglect that at all -- that is _the_ problem to solve. Obviously,
humans are not perfect so no government will ever be, but we should strive to
solve more fundamental problems than to layer our legal system in thousands of
pages of bandaids, which have done nothing to solve the Comcasts of the world.

Do you disagree?

~~~
Can_Not
> Malevolence as would be described by the CONSUMER (low quality and/or high
> prices)

So how does this not heavily make MS malevolent? MS has done very malevolent
things specifically against the consumer. They set back browser technology
many years. They write majorily closed source software. They autoinstalled
windows 10 onto client hardware without permission and using dark patterns.
Windows 8/10 may have some internal technical improvements over xp/7, but they
forced in tons of anti-consumer changes like ads, telemetry, removed settings,
removed features, undoing user preferences, etc. Just this week my device
plays audio out the speakers and headphones when I plug in headphones. Ten
years ago you would have said "lol android or Linux will be stable one day".
No, it was windows 10. I can forgive early versions of software I didn't pay
for when it's a little unstable. But late versions of software I pay for maybe
once every four years?

In fact, I challenge you to name one monopoly that isn't malevolent. Bonus
points if it's government ran (oh no!) and not intentionally underfunded by
Republicans.

~~~
lend000
> They set back browser technology many years. > They write majorily closed
> source software. > using dark patterns

Sounds like you have some personal bones to pick with companies YOU dislike,
and yet the average consumer/company does not say "I hate Microsoft Windows"
when they buy a Windows desktop (or 1000) (like they might when the purchase
Comcast, which is closer to a real monopoly). Even if it seems to you like
there is a predominantly negative sentiment around Microsoft, realize that HN
and techie circles are little bubbles that do not well describe the market as
a whole.

Every malevolent monopoly needs to be sustained by government force,
especially the worst monopolies of all -- governments. The funny part about
the Microsoft example is that their biggest clients are governments,
especially the US government.

> In fact, I challenge you to name one monopoly that isn't malevolent.

Read this entire thread -- there are plenty of examples. Google and Amazon are
modern examples with great products. I actually like Windows 10 a lot as well,
even though I had to make some tweaks and Microsoft isn't really a monopoly
anymore.

> Bonus points if it's government ran (oh no!) and not intentionally
> underfunded by Republicans.

Careful not to let your personal ideology prevent you from learning new things
(applies to everyone). But I'll give you some examples: Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac :)

~~~
Can_Not
> Sounds like you have some personal bones to pick with companies YOU dislike

No evidence of this, I only used facts.

> Even if it seems to you like there is a predominantly negative sentiment
> around Microsoft, realize that HN and techie circles are little bubbles that
> do not well describe the market as a whole.

Not important, economic damage isn't measured in non-techies feelings.

> Careful not to let your personal ideology prevent you from learning new
> things

You first. :) :) :) :)

