Supply and demand 101 continues to work.
624 karma · joined October 30, 2012
It used to be that most people died young. If your genes weren't strong enough, disease would've knocked you out before you became a teenager.
It's only relatively recently that we've made it possible for people of all genetic types to survive into adulthood.
Because they don't have to do that. They could just operate at max efficiency all the time.
Instead, they spread the wealth a bit by having bullshit jobs, even if the existence of these jobs is dependent on the market cycle.
That said, I feel like going after Big Tech is a massive misuse of resources. Not because it's not a monopoly (it is), but because there's a far more important monopoly that should be broken up: healthcare insurance.
Something like 7 corporations dominate 70% of the healthcare insurance market. The AMA had a study last year that concluded these insurance companies are charging monopoly pricing.
This is why Americans are paying astronomical prices for healthcare.
This is IMO by far the most pressing issue. Yet the FTC is seemingly spending all its time going after Big Tech, which has a comparatively lower impact on the quality of everyday Americans' lives.
A sustained walk maximizes digestion and subconscious problem-solving benefits. Short bursts, especially w/ kids involved, maximizes spiritual fulfillment.
Both are probably great for metabolic health.
Our science is fairly reductionist. Nature is incorporating vast amounts of science, most of which we probably don't even know about yet.
Nature developed over millions of years of trial and error.
Running is great too. But be careful of doing it too much. Overtraining can break down your immune system and make you more susceptible to disease.
Our job is to get out of the way.
Noah Smith (left wing blogger) has a fascinating article on it: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/blue-states-dont-build-red-sta...
In Austin, TX, rent has been falling for 2 years because they've been building so much new supply: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/22/austin-texas-rents-f...
Massive labor force unrivaled by any in the world, all working to elevate 1 country.
Allowing capitalism, a competent government, and sheer volume of people - all critical to making their rise possible.
And if a monopoly were to form, it would step in.
The nature of the market is that you need a large network of drivers to succeed. That network is a powerful barrier to entry. And it likely requires a lot of funding to achieve.
A government could foster more competition within the industry by funding new start-ups, in an effort to bring the market closer to free market status.
This is what China does with many of their industries, and they do it really well. Despite their "communist party" brand, they are actually doing capitalism much better than the US in many areas.
Counter examples of capitalist industries that have lasted centuries without corporate concentration: restaurants, spas, bars, tailors, car washes, barbers, almost anywhere small businesses exist.
Adam Smith's original capitalism required free markets, which fundamentally require high competition, low barriers to entry.
The low barriers to entry component is missing from the examples you described, which is theoretically where government should step in (and lower those barriers for new companies looking to enter the market).
In healthcare, however, government is essentially working with the companies to raise barriers to entry.
Of course, what we have today is not Adam Smith's capitalism.
The bet would be that in the long run (talking 5-10 years down the road after the EU has built their defense), the EU would still be more likely to ally with the US than China.
The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually get serious about building military.
The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually get serious about building military.
Right now, it's basically the US vs Russia and China.
But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU + Russia vs China.
In order for this to happen though, the EU must build their own military.
The EU could and should be a superpower, but they're not. Instead they're living off the US military.
The US has been gently trying to get EU to boost its own spending. This goes as far back as Obama, and maybe even further back.
The difference is that Obama was somewhat passive aggressive with his approach. Whereas Trump is tearing off the band aid.
The public belligerence and positioning against the EU is an effort to kick them out of the parents' basement and get their act together.
Now, what is he doing regarding Canada and Mexico? That I have 0 clue. And his current stance honestly seems stupid.
I'd argue no. I have no idea if the cook that made my meal 30 seconds ago actually followed proper safety guidelines.
However, I think in general, the probability is decent that they did, as they are highly incentivized to do so. Because a failure to do so could mean the end of their business.
What I'm getting at is that there are specific scenarios where market forces are stronger than the ability to make an informed choice. And protect you as the consumer better.
In my original comment, I discussed why you can't have no regulations in an industry that's highly concentrated.
Deregulating only works if and only if the underlying industry is highly competitive.
The meatpacking industry is not highly competitive: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/january/concentrat...
Hence, regulations are needed.
But you could also argue the airline industry is fairly concentrated. There are only so many airlines. If a Delta flight crashes, you might still fly Delta again in the future, because there are only so many options.
Now imagine if there were as many airlines as restaurants. If one Delta flight messes up in any way, people would never fly them again. They'd go out of business.
Of course, a market with as many airlines as restaurants isn't practical in the current day (maybe when AI robots become feasible). Hence, agree that airline regulations are necessary.
Why is it that restaurants, barbers, car washes, and other small business industries have thrived for so long despite minimal regulation?
One reason is the high competition. If you've ever run a restaurant, you know the importance of making customers happy. Because customers have so many other options to choose from. They can easily take their business elsewhere. So you have to perform.
If a barber starts acting in a way that makes their customers come down with infections, customers will take their business to the other barber down the street. If this new barber does the same, you will simply go to the next barber.
In this scenario, the first barber to treat their customers well (in a manner that does not pass on infections) will gobble up all the business.
Hence, it makes no sense for any barber to act in a manner that gives their customers infections, as they will quickly go out of business.
Same reason restaurants are naturally incentivized to cook their food as well as possible. 1 food poisoning case is all it takes for their business to go poof.
A true free market (as in, one where there's sufficient competition) keeps businesses in check, and protects customers.
Less government/regulation is good if and only if the underlying market is highly competitive. High competition protects consumers. Examples: restaurants, barbers, tailors, spas, almost anywhere small businesses exist. All ancient, well-functioning industries that are comparatively minimally regulated.
The problem with deregulating banks is that the banking industry is low-competition. A few corporations dominate the landscape. So deregulation just strengthens the predators.
All deregulation should be accompanied by an equal effort to foster a massive amount of competition within the industry. Otherwise, things can go south rather quickly.