Re: My Dinner With Marc Andreessen

On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

D  <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:

On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
>

I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people
to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.

>
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to
keep them free.

>
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
That is not gard to priive under some mild conditions.
Go read about it, if zou can understand the math behind that.

>
Nope, actually governments tend to create oligopolies due to being such
big actors on the market that work according to politics and not according
to profit motive. FANG profit handsomely by government protection.

>
Both of these statements are true and they are in no way contradictory.
--scott
>
>

Nope, they are contradictory. The act of regulation decreases freedom, hence increases oligopoly/monopoly. It is of course a spectrum and not binary, but the more regulation, the more monopoly and the end station is socialism where the government is the monopoly with all the power, and the citizens being slaves.
Only less regulation and more free markets can counter that. Johan Norbergs book, The capitalist manifesto also proves conclusively that less regulation and more freedom is the only thing that leads to increase quality of life.
Of course, if by quality of life you mean that all power should belong to an authoritarian leader and politicians, then that holds little persuasive powers, but then the potential you and me have such a fundamental difference in values and ways of looking at the worlds that any further discussion just becomes pointless.
This is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, so every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.