Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | method_capital's commentslogin

Defense won't do it.

https://manhattan.institute/article/a-comprehensive-federal-...

"Deep defense cuts. Since the 1980s, the Pentagon budget has fallen from 6% to 3% of GDP—not far above Europe’s target of 2%. Cutting U.S. defense spending to the levels pledged by European members of NATO would save 1% of GDP, or less than one-fifth of the Social Security and Medicare noninterest shortfall by the 2040s and 2050s."

Read the budget. Learn something. None of the partisan mantras solve the problem. The only solution is to trim ss, trim medicare, and raise taxes across the board.


Since the 1960s, revenue from total taxation as a percent of gdp is unchanged. Not also the difference in tax revenue between Europe and America stems mostly from policies that tax the middle class not the "rich":

https://manhattan.institute/article/a-comprehensive-federal-...

The U.S. already taxes the rich—measured by both tax rates and tax revenues—at levels roughly equal to the OECD average. Yes, the other 38 OECD nations collect tax revenues that, on average, exceed the U.S. by 7.5% of GDP (at all levels of government). However, nearly this entire difference results from the other 38 OECD nations hitting their middle class with value-added taxes (VATs) that raise an average of 7.2% of GDP. And while the progressive avatars of Finland, Norway, and Sweden exceed U.S. tax revenues by 16% of GDP, that gap virtually disappears after accounting for the 14.5% of GDP in higher payroll and VAT revenues that broadly hit the Nordic middle class. Europe finances its progressive spending levels on the backs of the middle class, not the wealthy.[37]

This plan should be a must read for people from any spot along the American political spectrum.


Dogs have masters; cats have servants.


Overspending for decades. Rationalization requires economic pain. Big surprise: restraint lacks the support pissing money every which way enjoys.


They are planning a $4.5 trillion tax cut for the rich.

Not seeing much restraint there.


The answer is: nothing. The whole argument is predicated on a political conviction, not an economic reality.


This is naive and wrong. An example of this is Google Fiber and ironically Tesla. When Google Fiber came out, ISPs lobbied to sue Google and local governments to prevent Fiber from being available in their areas instead of competing. When Tesla tried to sell direct to consumer, dealerships sued to prevent it. Entrenched companies will always use the system to prevent competition. Regulatory capture is a term for a reason.


I doubt there are any regulatory or legal restrictions that prevent newcomers from selling frozen potatoes.


All of the FDA and USDA regulations and inspections.


...which even my local CSA seems to manage. Not saying there isn't a burden, but it's nothing like laying fiber or laws which specifically ban direct sales of automobiles.

If there was big money to be made undercutting Big Potato, someone would do it. Even my CSA grows potatoes.


The OP asked for examples of things that prevent ethical companies from outcompeting unethical ones and I provided a few. Hyper-focusing on potatoes doesn't invalidate that.

Your local CSA is also unlikely to be audited by the FDA unless they tried to go larger than your community.


Only argument I can think of is economics of scale. You need to have sufficient mass to enter the markets.

However even in this case customers, or Big Potato buyers, can simply ally and create a new supplier where they are shareholders.


Correct, which is why they agglomerated in the first place. Sectors where you see lots of agglomeration are ones where there are significant advantages to agglomeration.

And yeah, it’s hard to do once, but obviously it’s dramatically harder to do after someone has already done it.


Its interesting how the benefits seem to be dependent on market context. Go to the ralphs, its big potato no doubt. Go to the farmers market and people are there arguably to avoid big potato and big anything else for that matter.


You don’t think massive conglomerates have additional advantages they can deploy against competitors in order to retain their cartels?


Do you have some specific examples?


Oh sure: billions of dollars in cash? Hundreds of lawyers? Lobbyists on Capitol Hill? A buddy at USDA or EPA? Lower unit prices on just about every single thing they need to buy? Brand recognition? Strong negotiating positions in 100% of their deals?


Bundle web browser with your operating system.

Bundle operating system with CPU.

But, both lost in the end, despite abusing monopoly and government intervention did not really help.


No, abusing monopoly and government intervention didn't allow them to keep their monopoly forever. That is not the same as "did not help."

And in any case, no one is arguing conglomerated companies have no vulnerabilities or never lose.

I'm saying they have advantages, which is obviously true by the fact that conglomerated companies tend to dominate their sectors.


Naked Lunch? Unsubscribe. Burroughs, the degenerate murderer -- literally -- is the most overrated writer of all time.


Burroughs is the most visual author I know, but neither he nor the reader are fully in control of what's painted. He has the process. I think he works for people with a rich inner monologue, which is leveraged against you. Dredge up some odd childhood memories, rotate some shapes, and then give him another go.

Or you can read "Junky" or "Queer."


I think Burroughs is interesting as a person but I agree. I just can't take a list seriously that has Naked Lunch as some masterpiece.

I don't care who the person is. I can judge for myself and Naked Lunch is complete shit.


Wow, so much negativity in the early comments. I've been in the space decades and there's at least 2-3 years of education to be gained here. Great piece, thank you!


Thanks! I'm glad that you enjoyed it.


Good lord. Not voting for trump doesn't make us "blue".


yes. anybody who has ftx funds.


*had


Ouch


Yeah, let's base it all on a test mom and dad pay for after all the prep classes they paid for. High school is free most places, friend.


I'll take a standardized test over arbitrary grades any day. Grades are far, far easier to game in so many ways (switch to an easier major!) than the SAT. Just ask anyone gunning for med school or law school - they will opt for the easier class over the harder one if it means their GPA has less risk of dropping.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: