[HN Gopher] How Monopolists drive the power and wealth divide
___________________________________________________________________
How Monopolists drive the power and wealth divide
Author : simonebrunozzi
Score : 23 points
Date : 2024-01-17 21:58 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.globaljustice.org.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.globaljustice.org.uk)
| boringuser2 wrote:
| >Who are Global Justice Now?
|
| >We are a democratic social justice organisation working as part
| of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more
| just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change,
| and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly
| in the global south
|
| Seems like you might want to vet your sources, this is a highly,
| highly polemic group: you can especially tell because moderately
| polemic groups will at least try to obfuscate their bias.
| phartenfeller wrote:
| Why not debate what they say? Whoever brings up an argument
| doesn't matter if they have a point, in my opinion. Otherwise
| it would be ad hominem:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem .
| boringuser2 wrote:
| You're skirting on the fact that what I've stated isn't an ad
| hominem because I'm not directly refuting any specific
| argument.
|
| I'm applying a heuristic.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > Why not debate what they say?
|
| Because it's not worth debating to us and the vast majority
| of us aren't policymakers when it comes to matter of global-
| economics. I suspect the link to posted here to HN on the
| off-chance a CTO or tech-savvy CEO of an influential SV
| company sees it and decides to bring it up at Davos this
| week.
| jdewerd wrote:
| Ah, yes, all the economic think tanks funded by people and
| organizations of a certain economic background promoting policy
| that coincidentally serves the purposes of those same parties
| are more trustworthy because they try to obfuscate their bias.
|
| What?
| boringuser2 wrote:
| You've erected and demolished a strawman, this is an actual
| logical fallacy, unlike the attempt below.
| amelius wrote:
| The least we can do is agree that money is a societal construct,
| and if money grows all by itself then the gains should be fully
| taxed and given back to society.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| This is an incredibly pointless statement.
|
| Nobody thinks that money isn't a contract.
|
| Calling everything a "social construct" -- or, rather, calling
| _anything_ a social construct is meaningless. Everything is a
| social construct, even "I" as a concept.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| What does "money growing all by itself" mean?
| amelius wrote:
| That you did not perform significant work for it, and did not
| take a significant risk.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| So significant work and/or significant risk are required to
| justify returns.
|
| What if these things are offloaded to a secondary party, in
| exchange for a portion of the returns?
| brigadier132 wrote:
| Another organization ran by college educated burnouts claiming to
| be advocating in favor of the "working class". Blue collar manual
| laborers hate this shit.
| l33tbro wrote:
| While there is a public thirst for breaking up monopolies, it
| really does seem that antitrust has become something of a bygone
| era. Matt Stoller's fascinating book Goliath [1] really lays out
| the history of monopolies and how they formed the bedrock for
| these companies.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-
| Dem...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-17 23:00 UTC)