Hacker News Reader

Comment by YZF | Hacker News Reader

Finance doesn't have its own economy.

The question of how much do we have to pay to get various financial services should in theory be solved by competition. The problem is that some financial institutions are behaving like a cartel and the government is undermining competition by stepping in to save failing financial institutions.

The problem isn't that Finance is "bad" any more than energy companies are "bad" or retailers are "bad". There are people accumulating wealth in a whole bunch of industries, why is the service Google or Facebook provides more valuable than what Bank of America provides?

View on HN

I think its more than just what we pay for these services, I think there is the variability that is introduced to a market when people invest in that market not for the value of the good or service, but merely as an instrument of financial leverage.

If people bought houses merely to live in, prices would probably be lower and would be subject to much less volatility. Of course, there would be downsides as well (no houses available for rent, etc.) so I'm not suggesting we do away with finance.

In fact, I have no suggestions. I'm just pointing out that finance (treating goods and services as abstract financial instruments) creates opportunities for growth at the expense of added volatility to the markets being abstracted.

> Of course, there would be downsides as well (no houses available for rent, etc.) so I'm not suggesting we do away with finance. //

Local government could own rental houses, then rents would return to the local economy reducing taxes.

What other examples are there in this specific case, if people [could] only privately own[ed] houses to live in?

>The question of how much do we have to pay to get various financial services should in theory be solve by competition. The problem is that some financial institutions are behaving like a cartel and the government is undermining competition by stepping in to save failing financial institutions.

This is the endgame of all capitalist markets. There isn't any other end game, no matter how much people would like there to be one to satisfy their personal ideologies.

It would be nice if you had some evidence other than your own personal ideology.

There are mountains of evidence. Though none, I suspect, that will rock you off your little throne.

Edit: I should have made this comment with more tact and empathy, and maybe have been a whole load more hearable for it.

There is, of course, plenty of evidence for the narrative of capitalism as exploitation.

There is also plenty of evidence for the narrative of capitalism as spontaneous collaboration and growth.

Denying only one or the other of these statements is indicative of one beholden to an ideology.

The endgame is the endgame, not the beginning or middle. Ultimately, there is no capitalist mechanism to prevent the sale of the market, or the tragedy of any other commons.

> There is also plenty of evidence for the narrative of capitalism as spontaneous collaboration and growth.

There is? Has capitalism developed in any region of the world without the explicit help of a state? Even the birth of capitalism in Europe was facilitated by governments forcibly enclosing land into larger estates.

It involves garages and bootstraps, and tends less to mention ivy Alma maters, government subsidies, social connections, or sheer luck.

Can you share some evidence for people not on a throne?

Nvidia, Intel, YKK, Standard Oil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com