Comment by epistasis

> They're not sitting down and deriving from first principles that AI is the way--they're seeing their buddies steering other companies and they're all saying AI is the way, so they say AI is the way, too.

I think you're underestimating a bit. We must implement AI because they were able to sell it so good that they got billion $ investors (see all the money coming from Qatar/saudi arabia etc). That's a lot of money coming in that allows to innovate/etc.

Sounds quite a bit like stock market. The more sober and cynical of them see fads as fads, irrational but powerful movements, and ride the waves, selling to a greater fool.

You're right, IPOs were not blocked by this. I wish I could still edit to add a correction!

IMO Khan was by far the best we've had in at least 2 decades. Her FCC even got a judge to rule to break up Google! The biggest downside Khan had was being attached to a 1 term president. There's just not that many court cases against trillion dollar companies you can take from investigation to winning the appeal on in 4 years

She was largely ineffectual because she was cock-blocked by the ruling classes. I lean libertarian-capitalist and still I think this. Although it's not a settled debate in the classic liberal or libertarian traditions, there are plenty of arguments in them against the excessive concentration of power.

> And the second is that taxes create a perverse incentive for the government. You absolutely do not want the government to have even more of a financial incentive to sustain and create more of the companies of that size. What you want is to have fewer of them.

That's not really a convincing argument. The government is the body for setting up the economic rules, it is not bound by it. The government doesn't have revenue or profit. Money is created by the government, it doesn't have a value yet. The direct financing of actions through taxes is not done for the government, but a way for the government to project the costs of the governmental action into the economy. Sure, there are a lot of idiots now-a-days, that think a state should work like a business and make profits, but they are misled.

> anybody can sue them.

who bears the costs of this suit?

And who determines what makes for a good market share size to be the threshold?

And by having such a rule, an industry that would have higher efficiency to when consolidated would not be able to (but you wouldn't know). It's a bad set of policy imho.

A better way would be for gov't to increase competition by adding supply, or demand, whichever one is the bottleneck to competition. If a company, such as AWS, is getting a lot of marketshare, but their profit margins is still high, then the gov't should incentivize competition by funding or giving loans to businesses that want to compete with AWS.

However, if AWS's profit margins, even at high market share, remains very low (e.g., amazon's commerce side), then there's no need for the gov't to "step in" at all, as there would be no incentive for any competitor to try enter the market due to low margins.

Nonsense, it would force vertical de-integration.

Chip fabs used to be like book publishers; you don't have to own a printing press to be an author. Carver Mead even described his vision of the industry that way.

Nowadays you have to get your cell libraries and a large chunk of your toolchain from the fab. Of course it's laundered through cadence+synopsys, but it's still coming from the fab. You have to buy your masks from the fab (heck they aren't even allowed to leave the fab so do you really own them?). And on and on.

For the record I don't agree with the "exponential" part, but otherwise this is an underappreciated and powerful technique.

revenue, obviously, but maybe it would scale with employee numbers... if you have lots of employees, you get taxed less.

The sane version of this proposal omits the "exponential" part, applies to profits (net income), and makes the tax rate industry-specific (just like Washington State's revenue tax).

Set limits so the top cant earn more than x times the lowest paid in the company then.

Corporate taxes specifically were quite high by European standards until 2027 and are not relatively that low today either

It's around 16% of the total federal budget. To be fair about 1/3 of "military spending" is actually Salaries, Medical, Housing and GI/Retirement costs.

It's also the case that none of the CIA, NSA or DHS budgets show up under the military, even though they're performing some of the same functions that would be handled by militaries in other countries.

We also have "black appropriations." So the total of the spending on surveillance and kinetic operations is often unknowable. Add to this the fact the Pentagon has never successfully performed an audit and I think people are right to be suspicious of the topline "fraction of GDP" number.

Military spending is a type of wealfare for the wealthy it is one of the only forms of public or government spending that doesn't crowd out private investors, the way public housing or publicly funded hospitals do. The high military spending and the contractor class often vote more conservative than typical for their demographic and economic peers It's been high since WW2, with maybe a slight drop in the late 70s. The current stat of "3.4 times gdp" ignores the fact that a large part of our national debt is from the military and war budgets. I saw a statistic in the mid 1990s that if we had kept our military budget at inflation adjusted levels equal to 1976 our debt would have gone to zero as early as 1994.

No? I'm saying that power concentration is pretty much unavoidable. The question is more about what they can do with that power. I suspect that people getting more power through wealth in the modern world is better than people concentrating power through politics.

Ok, but recall the context (see above): I’m saying one can understand how firms operate without making a connection to central planning (setting production targets and investment decisions from the top-down without prices).

Economists have concepts and models for monopolies and oligopolies — and the way they operate are quite different from the practice of central planning.

I’m talking from within the frame of economic concepts, and I’m striving to use words as understood in the field. At times I value metaphorical thinking, but here in the case of economics, we don’t need to bend words when other fitting concepts are readily available and battle-tested.

An example: If someone calls corporate consolidation “central planning,” they’ve lost the ability to analyze it properly. The relevant questions for oligopolies (strategic behavior, barriers to entry, tacit collusion) are completely different from central planning questions (calculation problems, information aggregation, incentive alignment).

When technical fields have already solved a conceptual problem through careful definition and model building, importing loose metaphorical language degrades analytical clarity.

If you want to point to or propose a different model than the usual economic dogma, I’m all ears, by the way.

> Company prices resources within itself completely arbitrarily.

I wouldn’t phrase it this way — to me, this implies unpredictability and/or a lack of rationale. Perhaps you simply mean “internal managers at companies do not necessarily price resources using market mechanisms” which I would agree with.

Many fields of study give insight to the various kinds of distortions that arise from human psychology and negotiation, etc.

To make sure we’re on the same page… In economics, “central planning” refers to a system where a central authority (typically the state) makes comprehensive decisions about production, investment, and resource allocation across an entire economy, replacing market mechanisms. This is associated with command economies like the Soviet Union’s Gosplan system.

And of course I will grant firms use hierarchical coordination mechanisms internally (managers allocate resources by command rather than prices).

I suppose my angle here is to be clear that firms are typically a kind of hybrid entity: they mix various coordination mechanisms (prices and hierarchy). This makes them quite different from centrally planned economies.