Comment by Herring
15 hours ago
More generally I'd say it's a power grab, like a monopoly. Yes abuses always happen, but even if it was all legal and above-board, the main problem is this mentality of "more power for me less power for you".
Most Americans love this idea of being powerful, which is why he won the popular vote. The rapes probably even helped him in some quarters. This idea also appeals strongly to a lot of HN - Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat".
It's anti-competitive. In reality a more distributed power structure is much better for overall progress, and even for the monopolist in the long run (Example: Intel, Russia).
> Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat".
The moat Buffet talks about is not the moat you appear to think it is. It does not belong in the same category as the other things you mention. Moats are a defensive structure, in Buffet terms, its about being a sustainable business "it’s the low-cost producer in some area, it can be because it has a natural franchise because of surface capabilities, it could be because of its position in the consumers’ mind, it can be because of a technological advantage, or any kind of reason at all, that it has this moat around it." -- the moat is "protecting a terrific economic castle with an honest lord in charge of the castle" [0]
A moat is about a business having an "it" factor that sustains it, it's not offensive (attack) feature like the power grabs you talk about are.
The important part, that is missed here of Buffet talking about it, is having an honest person in charge: "And then if we feel good about the moat, then we try to figure out whether, you know, the lord is going to try to take it all for himself, whether he’s likely to do something stupid with the proceeds, et cetera. But that’s the way we look at businesses."
[0] https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/1995/05/01/morning-session---...
Going by this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat
Those are all anti-competitive things. The article even links to "natural monopoly" and "barriers to entry".
It doesn't matter if they're used defensively or offensively, honestly or otherwise, the eventual distribution of power is what matters: a monopoly. At the end of the day you have very few vendors, with all the power to set prices at will, and get Buffet his massive return.
None of those things is an active power grab though, which is what I was replying to.
a "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself?
Or other things on that list (I am referring to Buffets moat, which is not entirely wikipedias moat):
How are those things themselves, which Buffet is talking about, not simply good business?
Doing shady, power grabby things to drain the moat of another business into your own moat is anti-competitive. That's not what Buffet talks about though. Which I highlighted and why Buffets moat is misplaced in your list.
A Trumpian "moat" would probably fit nicely, thou currently he's more concerned with draining others moats to flood the villages around them and then take the land that's left to build a personal use golf course
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly