Comment by spencerflem

Comment by spencerflem 4 days ago

5 replies

View on Hacker News

Funny you mention Raw Capitalism:

It shows a point I like to bring up often that Capitalism and The Free Market are directly opposed. What capital (a fancy word for shareholders) want is an infinite money machine and that is easiest with a monopoly. Hence, banning a competitor that's doing too well in the free market.

To the other part, I consider your 3 and my 2 the same, the US doesn't want us getting Chinese info and has their own perfered sources instead.

lolinder 4 days ago

They're strictly not equivalent—yours believes the US has a substantial amount of control over Facebook, mine does not. I can't change your belief, but I can draw a distinction between our beliefs.

Reply View 1 reply
  • pjc50 4 days ago

    I think it's better to say it the other way round: Facebook and to a much greater extent X has a substantial amount of influence over the US government.

    Reply View 0 replies
Workaccount2 4 days ago

In the free market the monopoly buys out the competitors. No need for banning. Shareholders, the embodiment of greed, will just follow the money.

Reply View 2 replies
  • spencerflem 4 days ago

    In a free market, there are monopolies, by definition.

    If you're saying that capitalists will inevitably contort a free market to an unfree one, via whatever means (often mergers) then we agree.

    IMO. a common misconception is that allowing all mergers is a "free market" policy when it is not

    Reply View 1 reply