Thread

1. xnx · 1790708570 · focus · HN ↗

   Competition, and being willing to shop around is the only thing that has ever kept prices down.

   1. horsawlarway · 1790711308 · focus · HN ↗

      Which is why we're entering that fun stage of capitalism where the winners have won enough that they just buy up any possible competition in the market, and regulators absolutely fail to enforce any sort of anti-trust/anti-monopoly measures because they're just another thing that's been bought up.

      Nothing like

      - Major bank consolidation

      - Major media condolidation

      - Major tech consolidation

      - Major grocery store consolidation

      etc... to really provide wonderful competitive options.

      1. gbacon · 1790713528 · focus · HN ↗

         I reject the eschatology that your comment assumes. I believe we agree, however, that the answer is more competition, not less.

         But imposing heavier regulatory burdens has disproportionately adverse effects on smaller would-be competitors. The big, established players know this and actively engage in enlargement of regulatory scope and regulatory capture to widen their moats. Historical examples of this are Jeff Bezos encouraging states to be more aggressive in requiring sales tax levies on internet purchases and more recently the calls by Sam Altman and Dario Amodei to “pace” AI through regulation. On the surface, they appear to be public-spirited moves but are deeply self-interested.

         1. antisthenes · 1790714901 · focus · HN ↗

            Breaking up big players does not impose anything on smaller competitors.

            It's just that breaking up large companies has taken a very distant back seat to imposing "good for the consumer on the surface, but actually a moat" type regulations.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.