Hacker News Reader

Comment by sfe22 | Hacker News Reader

This company is also beholden to its customers, they have to compete with other companies and individuals and can only profit if they are really good at what they do. If it is extremely profitable many others will jump on the opportunity, thus lowering prices. What incentive would a government granted monopoly have to improve?

And no, a government is almost never beholden to it’s people. It automatically has power, especially communist ones. The “democratic” one also only have to convince a few groups to agree on a few topics to get full controll.

View on HN

> This company is also beholden to its customers, they have to compete with other companies and individuals and can only profit if they are really good at what they do. If it is extremely profitable many others will jump on the opportunity, thus lowering prices.

Will the companies compete to lower their prices to their cost level? That is, to have 0% profit by default? I don't think so. But housing should absolutely bear 0% profit by default. Governments can subsidize housing to below cost (allowing some profit to be made) but the default should always be selling the housing at-cost. The ability to make a profit from this is the crux of the problem. That introduces all sorts of negatives into the equation.

> And no, a government is almost never beholden to it’s people.

Maybe not, but it is more beholden to its people than a corporation is. A corporation doesn't even have 'its people'.

Why is someone being more efficient than alternative and making a profit a bad thing? Besides you are free to create a non profit housing company, if you truly believe in what you preach. And you will have an edge with prospective customers. Why advocate for one big monopoly unless you have a potentially malicious agenda?

What exactly are they being efficient in? Are they raising the supply of housing while lowering prices on it to at-cost or below?

In a free market an entity has to be efficient to survive and especially make a profit. There are plenty of ways they can do it, creating more housing, better conditions, extras etc. and other things potential customers may value and choose them.

Care to reply to this: > Why advocate for one big monopoly unless you have a potentially malicious agenda?

And why you won’t create a non-profit company if you actually believe in what you preach?

> Care to reply to this: > Why advocate for one big monopoly unless you have a potentially malicious agenda?

No, because it premises that opposing the 'free market' for housing means I have a malicious agenda. If that is your supposition, I won't be engaging.

While I am confident prospective communist leaders are malicious, and want more easy power/wealth for themselves, without caring about the damage to everyone else, I apologize for trying to compare you to them this early in the conversation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com