Hacker News Reader

Comment by speedplane | Hacker News Reader

> Billionaires are criminal by definition

Sadly, billionaires aren’t criminal by definition (no such laws), but the existence of billionaires sure does cut against the idea of a perfect market (in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits).

View on HN

> in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits

I'm curious what your definition of a perfect market is.

In free markets, without profits the companies will fail.

There is a mathematically based definition of a perfect market. It’s only an approximation of real life, but it’s heavily used: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp

Your reference says:

"Companies earn just enough profit to stay in business"

which contradicts your comment:

"in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits"

I think the idea is that in the limit T->inf the profits go to zero.

That's not what the referenced definition of a "perfect" market says.

Besides, who would run a business that could not make a profit?

I've had this exact discussion with friends who study economics. The idea is that in a market with perfect flow of information (i.e. fairy land) then the profits tend to zero, I don't think this is a model for much of the real world if any.

> then the profits tend to zero

That makes as much sense as people working for nothing. I don't see any explanation for profits tending to zero, either.

I wonder why "perfect" markets are even a thing. It has no applicability to actual markets. It offers no insight on actual markets, and offers no useful predictions about markets. It's about as useful a model as the Monopoly game is - i.e. none.

I've seen many people claim that a "perfect" market is a requirement for free markets to work well. This isn't remotely true. "Perfect" markets and free markets have nothing in common.

"Perfect" markets just seem to be a strawman put forth by people who argue that since "perfect" markets are unachievable, therefore free markets are no good.

Definition of a "perfect" market, first line:

"All firms sell an identical product"

Seems one of those cases where perfect doesn't mean anything like "good". It's entirely irrelevant to the case at point.

It is the whole point.

By "definition", if it's being bought in a "perfect-free-market" it is only because it's been deemed good enough.

That assumes infinite number of competent, driven and well funded market participants that jump on every opportunity or inefficiency .

The real world is anything but that. There is very small number of competent driven people and vast ocean of opportunity and value waiting to be created. If you deliver the value people will be more than happy to pay. Maybe someone competes with you if the field is ripe enough or maybe not if they choose another one. There is a lot of fruit out there and we are far far away from the point where people need to compete for the same one.

Have you seen the realstate market? Competition is all there is. The food market, probably the oldest market, is full of startups and more enter the space each year. There is no shortage of untapped competition in any industry.

Unfortunately it's not possible to get major cities to work, at least not the Californian ones. The second best answer is to build more major cities. The irony of course is that the next major city won't be in California either.

in a functional market, competition for profit exists. because billionaires exist, we know they control their market, squeezing out competitors through artificial and illegal means.

> squeezing out competitors through artificial and illegal means.

Their means are legal. They make them legal though "regulation". It is why they do not get fines (most of the time) nor are in jail.

So which particular billionaire-funded business adventures would you like to see abandoned or especially, never begun?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com