This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Can you imagine a US Constitutional amendment that, if proposed, would actually get passed these days?
The relevant part of the US Constitution is:
So, either 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, or 2/3 of the states must propose it, and then 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions in those states must support it, for it to become part of the Constitution... as I understand it at least.
What sort of possible amendments could you imagine would actually pass and become part of the US Constitution in today's political climate, if they were proposed?
I find this to be an interesting question because it is a barometer of what the various factions of US politics actually agree on, despite their various differences, and also a barometer of how much polarization there is in today's US political situation.
The most likely candidate I can think of is an amendment regularising the administrative state if it appears to be under serious threat from the conservative majority on SCOTUS. Nobody wants to live in a world where the clownshow that is Congress has to deal with the technical detail of bank capital adequacy or aviation safety, and very few people want to live in a world where those things are not regulated at all.
Before the McCarthy speakership fiasco, it looked like an Administrative Procedure Amendment would pass easily if needed with votes from Democrats, moderate pro-business Republicans, and conservative Republicans bought by the incumbent banks, airlines etc. I suspect in today's climate a lot of Republicans would be afraid of being primaried if they supported it (a majority of the voters in low-turnout non-Presidential Republican primaries appear to be the kind of anti-establishment conservative who would be happy to watch the world burn if libs were sufficiently owned as a result), so it would be difficult to get the required supermajority.
* IANAL, but my reading of the Constitution is that the administrative state is unconstitutional for the same reasons as the Air Force under any sensible interpretation scheme other than "living constitutionalism". But both the administrative state and the Air Force are good ideas, and should have been regularised by constitutional amendments which would have passed easily at the time.
Do you mean "not regulated at all" or "not regulated by a federal bureaucracy"? If you mean the first, then yes I think no one really wants to live in that world, but also that is not what is at stake in this SCOTUS decision. The latter statement is what is at stake, and I think many people would want to live in that world if they could actually experience it. I wrote this comment in last week's thread. There are serious and fundamental problems with centralized bureaucracy. The kind of problems that constitutional amendments don't fix.
There are three serious alternative to centralized regulation by a bureaucracy:
#1 is striking in its naïveté. A free market, one that is functional annd competitive, actually requires a certain amount of governmental regulation to remain free, functional, and competitive. It does not happen by magic. Even the holy texts of capitalism make this point explicitly. For example, companies can do a number of things to stifle new entries to existing markets, which breaks the system. There are clear mechanisms that keep the system going, and they are somewhat easily circumvented with lax enforcement. Companies can temporarily collude or take other related actions to undercut a rising newcomer’s prices (the Walmart strategy), blanket them with legal fees (the IP/copyright route), contractually freeze them out (the Microsoft strategy), deceptively manipulate popular perception, or even outright lie, snipe key hires, unleash massive financial war chests, the options go on and on.
Walmart for example should not have been possible. They deliberately bankrupted thousands of companies if not more in their rise to the top. Do you remember this era? They are like the classic case of using their financial heft to artificially lower prices, drive local grocery stores out of business, and then raise the prices again. (And cheat countless suppliers and business partners along the way). And the scandals don’t stop. Why, even just yesterday I saw a story about how Walmart enriched itself by ignoring massive fraud and even lied to the government in the process. Note that Walmarts are too physically entrenched in various communities for much meaningful action to be taken, and boycotts just don’t work very well anymore.
There has been a century and a half long propaganda campaign against market regulation. Your using some of the ideas they came up with a century ago that have long since been neutered and debunked.
The pricing stuff is extra silly because you can talk yourself into thinking there is a monopoly or collusion based on any price change. Price goes down, ah it's the beginning stage of predatory pricing. Price goes up, ah it's the end stage of predatory pricing. Price stays the same ah they must be colluding because they don't have to change their prices.
It's the perfect example of reasoning backwards from a conclusion.
Intellectual property is generally only possible through centralized regulatory regimes. Prior to global trade markets it was more about trade secrets and being first to market was the main benefit of innovation. I am much more sympathetic to the argument that IP is one of the good use cases of centralized bureaucracy. But it's ridiculous to blame the results of abuse of centralized bureaucracy on markets.
Walmarts are still cheap. They are still convenient. They do face competition with online ordering.
"Walmart complaints" often say so much about the priorities of someone complaining. Wal Mart is mostly fine and doesn't do anything wrong. Most economists, even left leaning ones are on board with that. They do have a PR problem in politics though. And it's great to appeal to voters when complaining about Walmart.
However, you either ignored the rest of my list or didn't read it. Third bullet points was "local regulation". If a city or locality wants to ban Walmart that seems fine to me. I'll try to avoid living there, or fight the ordinance if it comes up locally. You have not provided any mechanism by which a centralized bureaucracy could even fix this supposed "problem", in fact they often do the opposite! A centralized bureaucracy is more likely to tell all localities "no if Walmart follows these specific rules then you have to allow them in".
If Walmart is your biggest complaint you should be agreeing with me, not getting hung up on an ideological fight.
More options
Context Copy link
IMO selling at a loss to push market share and destroy competitors is already illegal. Probably not enforced enough.
I don't understand why. Uber is a great recent example of that. Their shareholders basically funded them selling below market price for a while. And then Lyft comes along and it turns out people that are price sensitive really don't have that much "brand loyalty". The shareholders bought a whole bunch of cheap rides, not a monopoly.
I thought it was more illegal than Wikipedia claims or I’m forgetting a key features of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
It becomes illegal if it bankrupts Lyft and the man Uber have a credible threat of doing another price war with a new entrant discourages competition. At which point Uber can hike prices.
Things with network effects seems more prone to these claims. Things with weaker network effects wouldn’t. Truth is it’s stupid to sell below costs (unless you just forecasted wrong) unless you have a plan to make more from those sales later.
Predatory pricing is BS. Almost any company can be "guilty" of it. The courts have over time had to reign in the excesses in enforcement. But the original applications of those laws were comically and transparently political. As I sort of asked of Jiro: consider what kind of price change disproves predatory pricing. The answer is 'nothing' as far as I can tell.
Economists have a saying "dont reason from a price change". It naively applies to just understanding how supply and demand have changed. But it can also be some sage wisdom about not rushing to judge the activities of some company.
I don’t think it’s BS. It is tough to prove though.
That phrase I believe was coined by Scott Sumner and popularized my marginal revolution. I once had a prof use it all the time and didn’t know where it came from. Golden Age of the Econ blogosphere.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did they ever actually do that step? Is there a documented case of it actually happening? Or did they just have lower prices by being more efficient and focusing on cheap goods, and then continue to have lower prices? And for that matter for groceries specifically I don't think they tend to be significantly cheaper in the first place, they just have similar prices to any other discount grocery store.
Do Walmart's prices even vary enough from store to store to justify such a strategy? They're not always the same between stores or compared to their website (in large part due to the cost of shipping if you're looking at groceries specifically) but it hardly seems like a big enough difference to be part of some predatory pricing strategy.
One possible problem: you can compare prices iff there's competition, which will depress prices.
Yup people have done that. One of the main findings is that existing competition doesn't actually matter very much. It's potential competition and goods substitution that matter a lot.
Imagine someone buys up all the old fashioned wood pencil producers. They then jack up the price. Suddenly no one is buying the pencils. They switched to pens and mechanical pencils.
Many people confuse a product for the market. The product was pencils, the market was "writing implements". Also there is often an option to just not have the thing at all.
The only way people actually corner markets these days (the last half century) without IP is by going after specific metals/elements, which rarely has impacts on end consumers, but definitely screws over certain producers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link