zlacker

> Coupled with the concentrating monopolisation of the economy,

There is no “monopoly” in the printer industry and it’s definitely not holding the economy “hostage”.

We do not need the government to break up “Big Printer”.

>>scarfa+(OP)
Capitalism optimises for monopolies. Everyone agrees on this - this is why we have antitrust mechanisms. Unfortunately, they tend to facilitate and reinforce the problem instead of combat it.

My comment is a general one on markets at large, hyper-focusing on the printer market is only valid as a rhetorical device.

>>s0l1ds+p2
I shouldn’t be focused on the printer market when commenting on a post about printers?

The printer market is a commodity market - the very opposite of a monopoly.

>>scarfa+R9
Yes, when replying to my general comment, you shouldn't use the typical conservative rhetorical tactic of using the specific to ridicule the principle.

I was making a general argument about the pattern one can see across the economy. The printer market is another example of the same pattern that we see all over the place.

I don't claim that the printer market is a single entity that towers over all - my point is that our economic system optimises for this eventuality. Again: this isn't controversial, antitrust laws have been in place for a very long time.

>>s0l1ds+3h
It’s not “being conservative”. It’s “commenting on the topic of the post”

But which technology market is a legally defined “monopoly”? Before you mention the phone market, that was already adjudicated during the Epic trial and found not to be the case.

As far as “everyone agreeing that capitalism optimizes for monopolies”. The car market has been around for over a century, is it a monopoly? The computer market? Exactly which market around technology is a legally defined “monopoly”?

>>s0l1ds+p2
> Capitalism optimises for monopolies. Everyone agrees on this - this is why we have antitrust mechanisms.

This is not even close to being correct. First, monopolies are almost always the products of government interference with markets; "natural" monopolies are rare. Second, antitrust mechanisms were not put in place by benevolent governments to help consumers; they were put in place by governments who were getting political contributions from the failed competitors of the so-called "monopolies", who could not compete on a level playing field and so went to the govenrment to buy favors. The actual results of antitrust enforcement have been to make things worse for consumers, not better.

>>s0l1ds+p2
> Everyone agrees on this

If you don't know the argument against your point of view, that is a good time to do some reading, not more writing.

>>s0l1ds+3h
Your point ill suits the topic of discussion, and you're being called out on it. You shouldn't then resort to tribal epithets like "typical conservative", it only diminishes whatever point you were trying to make.

> my point is that our economic system optimises for this eventuality. Again: this isn't controversial, antitrust laws have been in place for a very long time.

This is a very strange argument, the fact that laws exist to prevent/punish something doesn't mean that everyone agrees that society is optimized to cause such eventualities. Laws are on the books in case something "bad" happens, it doesn't mean that society or the economy is structured to hurtle us towards those "bad" situations. It just means, they could happen and we need to deal with them. There are numerous laws against murder, but I doubt anyone would argue that everyone agrees that our society is inexorably optimized towards common and widespread homicidal tendencies.