Hacker News Reader

Comment by ClumsyPilot | Hacker News Reader

> Then there were all the "bonuses" and "incentives" negotiated with big advertisers or publishers. We just referred to them as kickbacks

But every time I propose that market without rules at all leads to corriluption and inefficiency, people get up in arms

View on HN

Markets are, in a sense, defined by rules.

Perhaps the argument goes better if you say competition without rules leads to mafia, ie., people stop competing and form gangs -- since this is more efficient for them. These gangs then monopolise trade, and use violence to stop people competing with them.

If they disagree, you can always point to the state itself as an example. But likewise, without a winning mafia to set the rules, others arise quickly. No group wants to compete, the want to have already won.

> No group wants to compete, they want to have already won.

Or to put it another way: a capitalist fears nothing more than a truly well-functioning market.

They don't "fear" it any more than you or I "fear" going into work every morning, but competing honestly in the market is how they benefit society, and monopoly rents are the carrot that they're chasing. It's up to us to get our money's worth out of them.

No, because a capitalist (in the friedman, etc. sense) distinguishes between free markets and ancap-competition. A free market is a construct of a state with a functioning legal system, requiring as it does, property rights (, limited liability, etc.).

Capitalism is not ancap libertarianism. Indeed, it seems quite clear that ancap is an iterative contradiction, as "rule-free competition" cannot produce free markets.

There is no market that does not adjust itself with new circumstances. Crypto prices fell and GPUs are now affordable without any government intervention. Amazing isnt it ?

No one claims markets don't adjust. The claim is that unregulated markets often don't adjust for the benefit of the society at large. It weren't as amazing when the GPU prices soared due to mining, was it?

That's not quite right. The affordability increased slightly with the falling prices. But the merge basically opened the floodgates. It was a change in technology rather than a "market change" (as in business incentives balancing over time) that caused it.

> ". Crypto prices fell and GPUs are now affordable without any government intervention"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demerit_good

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_Parkinson%27...

And countless others.

This assumes these things don't operate in an environment affected by multiple nation states and their specific regulations

The markets are working.

1. Even with the bots, the price made sense for advertisers for so long because of how cheap ads were. 2. Its starting to not make as much sense and now we are getting these accusations thrown at platforms etc.

TLDR: Markets work but just not real time and not very perfectly. The issue with rules (esp excessive rules) is the corruption of the rule maker. To enforce these rules, the rule maker tends to have the ultimate capability for coercion.

And If you think "voting" prevents this corruption then you are r*ar*ed. Let alone the corruption of the masses which btw has resulted in the greatest acts of violence in history (USSR, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, 20th century Japan, French Revolution..)

> and now we are getting these accusations thrown at platforms etc.

What?! This problem existed for so many years! And it wasn't some niche knowledge but pretty mainstream already in 2014 (Veritassium video "Facebook Fraud" with 6M views):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag

I think the point is, the problem isn't a problem if it is priced into the product. It's cheap as hell to show ads on a cost per delivery model because the value is low, in part because of bots, in part because people don't click on ads much and in part because it's not clear how useful they are for building brand awareness. If there are more bots than previously suspected, sites will need to charge less to account for that. That's how the market functions, not a sign that it is not functioning.

Sounds like to you, even the casting couch and sexual favours are an example of working free market.

Something along the lines of secretary that provides blowjobs for the CEO ensures they are always at the top of their game?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com