Hacker News Reader

Comment by bandushrew | Hacker News Reader

The counterpoint is that this isn't a step that is being taken because we are desperately trying to feed all of humanity. Its a step thats being taken because these providers want to increase their profit margins.

The question is whether thats a good enough reason to take whatever risks are being taken here.

View on HN

The underlying point was never discussed enough. We just had too many people on earth and our technology is not good enough to feed all while being sustainable

that's simply not true. there is both enough food and space and technology (and energy).

the problem is allocation and distribution of that.

eating industrial salmon is not a necessity for anyone.

And the counterpoint to that is that it’s searching for profits that push for greater efficiency in the presence of competition. They aren’t searching necessarily for larger profit margins, just more profit. Sure if they have a monopoly either in practice or classically they’ll just pocket more of the money, but ideally someone will realize they could make even more money by lowering prices. Ryanair is successful not because they have a huge profit margin, but because they move a lot of people.

> it’s searching for profits that push for greater efficiency

Efficiency like John Deer using the copyright law to stop Farmers from repairing their tractors?

https://capturedeconomy.com/how-copyright-enabled-john-deere...

Good thing capitalism is against the right to an idea.

The definition of capitalism used by 99% of people is one that includes copyright.

The one that goes “force is only justified in response to force” does not.

Where do I find this capitalism, which country, i an packing my bags right now.

Is it China, since they are the ones that seem to flout patents all the time?

Why is it that the 'Capitalists' on here want to take all the credit, but when there is a problem it's got nothing to do with them?

There's a reason they call them externalities. When you use fancy terminology for "not my problem", you gain legitimacy.

There is none, because there are no pure economies.

Is capitalism for or against government intervention?

Can you define government intervention?

For example is it capitalist or socialist to have a national bank and currency? Should each private bank print their own currency?

When government provides employees protections against unfair dismissal we call that government intervention.

But we regularly prosecute and imprison employees for 'stealing intellectual property' at the taxpayer's expense, or enforse non-competes using the power of the state, and thats never called government intervention.

The way I see it, people who use term 'government intervention' are trying to have their cake and eat it.

If government should not intervene when Amazon pays no taxes and abuses its monopoly position, then it should also not expend taxpayer money to protect them from shoplifting.

It's intervention if it's done without consent. You're free to have a national bank, it's intervention if you force me to pay for it or use it.

If you and your employer agree to have a contract enforced by the government then enforcement of the contract is not government intervention (and you should be forced to pay for the cost of that contract, not the taxpayer). There is also no such thing as stealing intellectual property.

Shoplifting violates the 'force is only justified in response to force' principle, which arguably the government's only purpose is to prevent. Not paying income taxes or being a monopoly does not. Not wanting to give you something is not the same as taking something away from you, as much as you wish it was.

> You're free to have a national bank, it's intervention if you force me to pay for it or use it.

I am not clear what you are saying.

Are you currently forced to use the US Dollar, and by extension national bank (the Fed) in the United States? Would you prefer to see every private bank create it's own currency?

Given that: "Under 18 U.S. § 486, it's a criminal offense to make or pass any metal coins "intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design."

> There is also no such thing as stealing intellectual property.

According to the FBI official website: "Preventing intellectual property theft is a priority of the FBI’s criminal investigative program. It specifically focuses on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts."

At this point and seeing the way you argue, I’m not interested in debating about what I would prefer private banks to do. I simply stated that it’s intervention to force me to use some currency, and yes I am forced to use the USD. As is any business in the United States, which is legally required to accept it.

I don’t see the relevance of “it’s illegal” to anything in this conversation.

If I “take” something from you and you still have it, nothing has been stolen.

Did I say anything about John Deere or about capitalism being flawless? Though there is a recent trend of companies selling things at a loss, game consoles are probably the biggest example, and planning on making it up in later sales and indeed while John Deere’s profit margins are up, they aren’t dramatically so as far as I can tell and it seems to have more to do with the general post pandemic trends. I totally support making it obvious when your buying vs renting vs acquiring a right of use to something though. I hate that for example I can click a button that says buy on Amazon and receive an ebook that I don’t in a practical sense own. My understanding of the John Deere, right to repair situation is that it’s similar.

This is basically intervening in the market though, by papering-over negative externalities. A true market efficiency scenario would mean that more sustainable upstarts have their shot. But if we keep giving established industries a pass, then we're essentially giving them an unfair advantage and removing the very competition that capitalism prides itself on.

More pesticides means more pollution. The farms are in the open rivers. Which means damage to the ecosystem and to the wild life (i.e. pesticides are to fight infection and that infection affects the wild fish population).

So, basically getting more profits by introducing more issues for "someone else to solve".

I’m replying here just to the person above. I don’t have an opinion about if this single action was a good policy or not. Though, I am generally supportive of capitalism as a system that has moved a huge number of people out of poverty, but I obviously acknowledge that externalities at least need managed by counties (along with lots of things actually). But it is wrong that companies merely act to maximize profit margin. It feels like it’s part of the same recent trend of acting like the reason we have global warming is because of a handful of selfish people. There are trade offs. Turning the world into a organic farming utopia would be forcing billions to starve. Banning pesticides here would likely result in higher fish prices. Turning off oil right now would mean trillions dying as the world’s economy stopped. That doesn’t mean we can do nothing, but we can’t pretend like problems in the world are created exclusively by bad selfish people because then we’ll pretend we never need to change

Reply on news.ycombinator.com