Minimum viable product, maximum revenue extraction.
If you don't like the product, don't buy it or use it.
Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?
Oddly enough, yes. Successful businesses are motivated by maximizing their profit. But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit. The fact that the business is primarily motivated by its own profits is not a problem, because in a free market, the only
We have studies that show there is no market competition with fewer than 5 choices holding more than 70% of market share. Freedom and choices are a lot more limited than you are imagining, both theoretically and practically.
Which is why consumer survey's showed that 85% of consumers preferred low gloss/matte screens but over 95% of screens made were high gloss, a problem that has existed for MUCH too long.
When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable, cost of entry was relatively fixed for all players and there were usually multiples, and there were significant hurdles to the international behemoths commonplace today. Today, cost of entry is high for anyone attempting to enter an existing market, the number of players is so small as to be laughable to be considered a choice, a key to free markets
Today, cost of entry is high for anyone attempting to enter an existing market,
The cost of entry into most markets is high not because of capitalism or free markets, it is high because of government interference and regulation.
When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable
Nonsense. Read Adam Smith. Not only were there plenty of monopolies and barriers to entry, he recognized that the source of those monopolies and barriers to entry was g
The cost of entry into most markets is high not because of capitalism or free markets, it is high because of government interference and regulation.
I would disagree. Take a look at building a chip foundry, automotive assembly line, textile mill, or pretty much any manufacturing process.
When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable
Nonsense. Read Adam Smith. Not only were there plenty of monopolies and barriers to entry, he recognized that the source of those monopolies and barriers to entry was government. He argued for free markets and against government interference precisely because he wanted to end the vast monopolies and barriers to entry that existed.
Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.
I would disagree. Take a look at building a chip foundry, automotive assembly line, textile mill, or pretty much any manufacturing process.
You said that the "cost of entry was relatively fixed for all players", which presumably meant that you believed cost of entry was equitable for all market participants, and implicitly because you believe that there were no monopolies hindering that entrance. Historically, that is ludicrous.
When I say that "the cost of entry is high because of government regulation", in
Who isn't aware of the East India Company? That still didn't stop someone from making chairs, saddles, bridles, wheels, carts, tools, clothes, etc, right here in the US, or the colonies as it were at the time. Recall what the topic is - it was the existence of monopolies and barrier to entry in the 1776-1790 time period, in the US. I hold that there was very very little of either at that time for the US. The East India Company was irrelevant to the US at the time, as Britain was in some state of war until t
Who isn't aware of the East India Company? That still didn't stop someone from making chairs, saddles, bridles, wheels, carts, tools, clothes, etc, right here in the US, or the colonies as it were at the time.
You were implying that Adam Smith's writings aren't relevant to today because he didn't see "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry". I disproved that point: the monopolies of his day, and the barriers to entry, were higher. And, in fact, at the time, people could not simply make "chairs, saddles, bri
You were implying that Adam Smith's writings aren't relevant to today
I don't believe I made that implication at all. Relevant to late 1700s US? Not very much.
So, according to those criteria, quantum mechanics, psychology, neuroscience, and much of modern engineering is also pseudo-science?
psychology - yes. Neuroscience is still arguably in its infancy, and much of modern engineering is applied science. Quantum Mechanics is the one case I'd considered addressing previously, as it is the one obvious hard scientific field that we're still massively struggling to come to grips with.
There is actually much less disagreement about economics than you think. And the fact that people like you find it utterly confusing is no more a sign of a failure of economics than people seeing faces and pyramids on Mars is a sign of a failure of astronomy.
Who says its confusing? It's a fact you cannot predict the future, which most practitioners assert they can. IMNSHO, the best yo
Apparently, you just don't know what you are saying:
When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable
Nonsense. Read Adam Smith.
Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.
Who says its confusing? It's a fact you cannot predict the future, which most practitioners assert they can.
Most economists are not trying to "predict the future". They are more like physicians, in that they tell you what is likely to produce better outcomes and what is likely to produce worse outcomes. Mainstream economics is pretty clear that free trade and free markets generally provide better outcomes for everybody.
Economics apparently has failed to provide the path to global enrichment everyone says they want.
Are you blind? The world is enormously wealthy by historical standards, and it is largely due to the defeat of central planning and the adoption of free market economics and free trade.
The current free trade policies are a similar process, draining jobs and money out of the US, and it will continue for the foreseeable future. If congress had balls, they'd slap a general tax on all transactions, including at the border, to make up for the lost revenue but that's yet another conversation.
Apparently, you just don't know what you are saying:
When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable
Nonsense. Read Adam Smith.
Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.
Note that my statements are regarding the latter half of the 1700s.My statements had nothing to do with the question of Smith's relevance today. Previous to 1800, the only monopolies were state sponsored, supported, and sometimes enforced monopolies. IMNSHO, those types of monopolies don't apply. The first free market capitalism based monopolies formed in the mid 1800s. So we've had a pretty small window to study free markets and monopolies, but we've already concluded that unbridled free markets are bad, h
Note that my statements are regarding the latter half of the 1700s.
Yes, the statement "When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable" refers to that period and it is completely and utterly false.
Previous to 1800, the only monopolies were state sponsored, supported, and sometimes enforced monopolies
And that is still the case today. You postulate the existence of mythical stable "free market capitalism based monopolies", but those simply
Previous to 1800, the only monopolies were state sponsored, supported, and sometimes enforced monopolies
And that is still the case today. You postulate the existence of mythical stable "free market capitalism based monopolies", but those simply don't exist.... Large, stable monopolies are the result of, and require, government action.
While I may not have stated it clearly, I don't consider state sponsored monopolies as a valid point. They're propped up by other than economic forces.
Regarding pure free market monopolies: Standard Oil, Microsoft (virtual monopoly), Intel (virtual monopoly), The current ISP si
I don't consider state sponsored monopolies as a valid point. They're propped up by other than economic forces.
Those are the only stable monopolies that exist, because economic forces by themselves don't support stable monopolies.
Regarding pure free market monopolies: Standard Oil, Microsoft (virtual monopoly), Intel (virtual monopoly),
Microsoft and Intel never were dominant OS or CPU suppliers, they just supplied much of the desktop equipment. Even there, they were merely dominant, with alternatives always
Those are the only stable [state sponsored] monopolies that exist, because economic forces by themselves don't support stable monopolies.
I would hold those are no more or less stable than anything else. Once the state removes support, they're gone.
Microsoft and Intel never were dominant OS or CPU suppliers, they just supplied much of the desktop equipment. Even there, they were merely dominant, with alternatives always available. And even that dominance pretty much ended on its own after about a decade.
Are you serious? (My turn)
Microsoft was the de facto desktop operating system from at least 97 through about 2010. Yes, you could buy a mac in there which almost no one did, or if you had particular masochistic streak load one of 50K different Linux distros, which even fewer did. I'd call that a monopoly, as there were no other real choices if you wanted to interact with the world at large. That'
I generally cannot use things purchased with wealth to purchase things
That's what most reasonable people do: they use money to buy something productive, like a share in a company. That's wealth, not money. And it's also where the so-called "trade imbalance" comes from: it's simply incorrect accounting. Necessarily, people who we buy from get something in return, and it's not generally money.
Having a factory, on the other hand, can definitely be a wealth generator. And we're shipping quite a few of those ove
Microsoft was the de facto desktop operating system from at least 97 through about 2010.
Yes. And notice how it is not anymore? It took care of itself.
Yes, you could buy a mac in there which almost no one did, or if you had particular masochistic streak
In different words, throughout that entire time, Windows was merely dominant, but it wasn't even a monopoly.
It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop. Look at the pricing changes coming down the pike from MS. What has changed is that they can no longer
dictate Office apps, and that's primarily because they sold copies instead of a service. Just think if Win10 SaaS model had been implemented with Office 2003? No one would still be on versions previous to Office 2010, and MS might have been able to nuke at least Android, and possibly the iphone also and we'd all be using WinPhones because documents
It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop
What you are saying is just that they have a high market share in a niche market. And it bothers you because the market isn't giving you what you want at the price you want. Well, tough cookies; when 90% of people choose a product you don't like and get the benefit of economies of scale, that's not a monopoly. (And I should say, I think Windows is awful.)
See, a lot of economic legislation is about politically powerful minorities trying to impose thei
It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop
What you are saying is just that they have a high market share in a niche market. And it bothers you because the market isn't giving you what you want at the price you want. Well, tough cookies; when 90% of people choose a product you don't like and get the benefit of economies of scale, that's not a monopoly.
The DoJ seems to disagree with you. Seems there was some sort of anti-competitive action on MS's part that forced competitors out of business or something. And no, it wasn't that people chose MS, it was that there was no other choice available due to MS's actions.
The history I am familiar with has Standard Oil being pretty much the only oil refinery company within the US, able to set prices at will.
Even monopolies can't set prices at will, so what you are saying isn't even self-consistent.
Do you have the slightest idea what a monopoly is? They can set prices at will, and extract higher profits than would be possible in a free market. As Standard Oil had stated profits of almost 840M between 1882 and 1906, it seems that they certainl
Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.
That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score:4, Insightful)
Minimum viable product, maximum revenue extraction.
Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like the product, don't buy it or use it.
Oddly enough, yes. Successful businesses are motivated by maximizing their profit. But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit. The fact that the business is primarily motivated by its own profits is not a problem, because in a free market, the only
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of entry into most markets is high not because of capitalism or free markets, it is high because of government interference and regulation.
Nonsense. Read Adam Smith. Not only were there plenty of monopolies and barriers to entry, he recognized that the source of those monopolies and barriers to entry was g
Re: (Score:1)
I would disagree. Take a look at building a chip foundry, automotive assembly line, textile mill, or pretty much any manufacturing process.
Nonsense. Read Adam Smith. Not only were there plenty of monopolies and barriers to entry, he recognized that the source of those monopolies and barriers to entry was government. He argued for free markets and against government interference precisely because he wanted to end the vast monopolies and barriers to entry that existed.
Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.
Re: (Score:2)
You said that the "cost of entry was relatively fixed for all players", which presumably meant that you believed cost of entry was equitable for all market participants, and implicitly because you believe that there were no monopolies hindering that entrance. Historically, that is ludicrous.
When I say that "the cost of entry is high because of government regulation", in
Re: (Score:1)
Who isn't aware of the East India Company? That still didn't stop someone from making chairs, saddles, bridles, wheels, carts, tools, clothes, etc, right here in the US, or the colonies as it were at the time. Recall what the topic is - it was the existence of monopolies and barrier to entry in the 1776-1790 time period, in the US. I hold that there was very very little of either at that time for the US. The East India Company was irrelevant to the US at the time, as Britain was in some state of war until t
Re: (Score:2)
You were implying that Adam Smith's writings aren't relevant to today because he didn't see "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry". I disproved that point: the monopolies of his day, and the barriers to entry, were higher. And, in fact, at the time, people could not simply make "chairs, saddles, bri
Re: (Score:1)
You were implying that Adam Smith's writings aren't relevant to today
I don't believe I made that implication at all. Relevant to late 1700s US? Not very much.
So, according to those criteria, quantum mechanics, psychology, neuroscience, and much of modern engineering is also pseudo-science?
psychology - yes. Neuroscience is still arguably in its infancy, and much of modern engineering is applied science. Quantum Mechanics is the one case I'd considered addressing previously, as it is the one obvious hard scientific field that we're still massively struggling to come to grips with.
There is actually much less disagreement about economics than you think. And the fact that people like you find it utterly confusing is no more a sign of a failure of economics than people seeing faces and pyramids on Mars is a sign of a failure of astronomy.
Who says its confusing? It's a fact you cannot predict the future, which most practitioners assert they can. IMNSHO, the best yo
Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score:2)
Apparently, you just don't know what you are saying:
Most economists are not trying to "predict the future". They are more like physicians, in that they tell you what is likely to produce better outcomes and what is likely to produce worse outcomes. Mainstream economics is pretty clear that free trade and free markets generally provide better outcomes for everybody.
Are you blind? The world is enormously wealthy by historical standards, and it is largely due to the defeat of central planning and the adoption of free market economics and free trade.
Your degree of economic illiteracy is stunning.
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently, you just don't know what you are saying:
Note that my statements are regarding the latter half of the 1700s.My statements had nothing to do with the question of Smith's relevance today. Previous to 1800, the only monopolies were state sponsored, supported, and sometimes enforced monopolies. IMNSHO, those types of monopolies don't apply. The first free market capitalism based monopolies formed in the mid 1800s. So we've had a pretty small window to study free markets and monopolies, but we've already concluded that unbridled free markets are bad, h
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the statement "When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable" refers to that period and it is completely and utterly false.
And that is still the case today. You postulate the existence of mythical stable "free market capitalism based monopolies", but those simply
Re: (Score:1)
And that is still the case today. You postulate the existence of mythical stable "free market capitalism based monopolies", but those simply don't exist. ... Large, stable monopolies are the result of, and require, government action.
While I may not have stated it clearly, I don't consider state sponsored monopolies as a valid point. They're propped up by other than economic forces.
Regarding pure free market monopolies: Standard Oil, Microsoft (virtual monopoly), Intel (virtual monopoly), The current ISP si
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the only stable monopolies that exist, because economic forces by themselves don't support stable monopolies.
Microsoft and Intel never were dominant OS or CPU suppliers, they just supplied much of the desktop equipment. Even there, they were merely dominant, with alternatives always
Re: (Score:1)
Those are the only stable [state sponsored] monopolies that exist, because economic forces by themselves don't support stable monopolies.
I would hold those are no more or less stable than anything else. Once the state removes support, they're gone.
Microsoft and Intel never were dominant OS or CPU suppliers, they just supplied much of the desktop equipment. Even there, they were merely dominant, with alternatives always available. And even that dominance pretty much ended on its own after about a decade.
Are you serious? (My turn)
Microsoft was the de facto desktop operating system from at least 97 through about 2010. Yes, you could buy a mac in there which almost no one did, or if you had particular masochistic streak load one of 50K different Linux distros, which even fewer did. I'd call that a monopoly, as there were no other real choices if you wanted to interact with the world at large. That'
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And notice how it is not anymore? It took care of itself.
In different words, throughout that entire time, Windows was merely dominant, but it wasn't even a monopoly.
Standard Oil was a supplier of fuel for a few pampered rich people who could afford a car back then, and eve
Re: (Score:2)
That's what most reasonable people do: they use money to buy something productive, like a share in a company. That's wealth, not money. And it's also where the so-called "trade imbalance" comes from: it's simply incorrect accounting. Necessarily, people who we buy from get something in return, and it's not generally money.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. And notice how it is not anymore? It took care of itself.
In different words, throughout that entire time, Windows was merely dominant, but it wasn't even a monopoly.
It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop. Look at the pricing changes coming down the pike from MS. What has changed is that they can no longer dictate Office apps, and that's primarily because they sold copies instead of a service. Just think if Win10 SaaS model had been implemented with Office 2003? No one would still be on versions previous to Office 2010, and MS might have been able to nuke at least Android, and possibly the iphone also and we'd all be using WinPhones because documents
Re: (Score:2)
What you are saying is just that they have a high market share in a niche market. And it bothers you because the market isn't giving you what you want at the price you want. Well, tough cookies; when 90% of people choose a product you don't like and get the benefit of economies of scale, that's not a monopoly. (And I should say, I think Windows is awful.)
See, a lot of economic legislation is about politically powerful minorities trying to impose thei
Re: (Score:1)
What you are saying is just that they have a high market share in a niche market. And it bothers you because the market isn't giving you what you want at the price you want. Well, tough cookies; when 90% of people choose a product you don't like and get the benefit of economies of scale, that's not a monopoly.
The DoJ seems to disagree with you. Seems there was some sort of anti-competitive action on MS's part that forced competitors out of business or something. And no, it wasn't that people chose MS, it was that there was no other choice available due to MS's actions.
Even monopolies can't set prices at will, so what you are saying isn't even self-consistent.
Do you have the slightest idea what a monopoly is? They can set prices at will, and extract higher profits than would be possible in a free market. As Standard Oil had stated profits of almost 840M between 1882 and 1906, it seems that they certainl