Comment

Comment on Consumer, we have detected that you are above the poverty line. The 99¢ price printed on this Arizona tea can only applies to those below the poverty line. Your total comes to $3.67.

<- View Parent

theparadox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

I think perfect competition is impossible. The incentive is not to compete fairly, it’s to maximize profits and the most effective ways to maximize profits are anticompetitive, exploitative, or both. Anyone arguing for a society built around such a system is either naive or trying to buy more time with false hopes.

Virtually every condition in the ideal scenario is a barrier for profit, and I don’t think any civilization has managed even a single one of those conditions. There will always be actors looking to take advantage of any loopholes or create unregulated markets.

It’s just not a system that is sustainable. The incentives are simply wrong and the society built around those incentives can’t maintain a system of perfect conditions even if one were to exist.

source

Sort:hotnew top

grue@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

I think perfect competition is impossible.

It is an ideal to be approached asymptotically, and a correct goal for consumer-protection regulation. Consider for example antitrust law, truth-in-advertising laws, product safety standards, etc. and how they directly match up with and promote those conditions.

It’s just not a system that is sustainable. The incentives are simply wrong and the society built around those incentives can’t maintain a system of perfect conditions even if one were to exist.

It’s not a system that is sustainable in a liassez-faire libertarian Hellscape, because of course capitalism left unchecked devolves into cartels. But it is a system that can be maintained with appropriate regulation.

source
- theparadox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  A theory to use as a standard for regulation assuming you are restrained to a capitalist system, maybe.
  
  But it is a system that can be maintained with appropriate regulation.
  
  The nature of Capitalism requires that some have while others have not. Many of those among the capitalist class will use the full force of their power to obstruct and corrupt regulation, find loopholes, and obtain more power. Regulatory capture, pivoting to the bleeding edge of industry where nobody knows how to regulate yet (financial derivatives, crypto, AI), or just leading a coup - they’ll find a way.
  
  The only way is something that resembles socialism, but you can call it “appropriate regulation” if it makes you feel better. Sure, competition has its place… but it doesn’t belong anywhere near basic human needs.
  
  source
  - grue@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Mind if I call it market socialism?
    
    source
    theparadox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Market socialism can be distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because most models of market socialism propose complete and self-regulating systems, unlike the mixed economy. While social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies, and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.
    
    I mind if you are simultaneously linking to a Wikipedia article defining it as being completely self regulated, lacking any form of social welfare.
    
    Capitalism’s problem is that, ultimately, it’s “compete” or die because you need to work to afford to live. I’m not necessarily advocating for the nationalization of all industries or a command economy. There can be competition, but the playing field needs to be leveled first. Workers owning the enterprise as a collective is a step in the right direction but that still leaves the door open for “B2B” exploitation when an enterprise’s failure can mean its workers now cannot afford to live.
    
    source