Comment by sooheon
20 days ago
This is misuse of language. Rent seeking is anti-competitive by definition. The current system, as far as it encourages and rewards rent seeking, is anti-capitalist.
20 days ago
This is misuse of language. Rent seeking is anti-competitive by definition. The current system, as far as it encourages and rewards rent seeking, is anti-capitalist.
Getting into a position where you can tilt the playing field exclusively in your benefit is 100% the logical outcome of for-profit companies in capitalism.
It’s so transparently and frequently stated outright, that building companies geared around achieving that has become the norm: it is the fundamental business-model of _every_ _single_ unicorn startup, or the company that buys them. Launch, squeeze out competitors by relying on VC money, capture the market, and become the sole dominant force in that market and use your position to then pull up the ladder behind you and cement your position. Uber and Facebook are prime examples of this.
Using power to tilt the playing field is the logical outcome of all political systems, not just capitalism.
> capture the market, and become the sole dominant force in that market and use your position to then pull up the ladder behind you and cement your position
This is worth discussing in detail. Becoming dominant by providing a better thing, or investing more capital, is not tilting the playing field, it's winning the game. Getting government protected monopolies, special tax write-offs, subsidies, exclusive grants is. Uber and Facebook are not anticompetitive just because they are dominant, they are anticompetitive to the extent that they specifically use their dominance to influence politics.
It isn't.
Both perfectly competitive markets and monopolistic markets are part of the broad term capitalism.
Capital consolidates over time and seeks to influence policy-makers to create anti-competitive regulations.
Every single time.
Like most words, capitalism has multiple definitions. Among the popular ones, the one that is about capital doesn't concern itself with markets, only capital, so you are quite right that any kind of market goes. It could even be centrally planned! But another popular definition is about the "invisible hand". Rent seeking is absolutely considered to be at odds with the "invisible hand". This is most likely what the parent is talking about.
And no doubt there are a bunch of other definitions that aren't so popular, so the parent commenter could even be using one of those. It might even be his own pet definition that he just made up on the spot right now. The author always gets to choose what a word means, so if something seems off "It isn't" isn't a logical retort. You first need to clarify what the author intended the word to mean.
> And no doubt there are a bunch of other definitions that aren't so popular, so the parent commenter could even be using one of those. It might even be his own pet definition that he just made up on the spot right now.
This is an absolutely insane take if you want to be taken seriously in a conversation. Making up definitions on the spot and "getting to choose what a word means" is deliberately acting in bad faith.
Rule #1 of logical debate is to agree on definitions, otherwise you're just yelling past each other.
3 replies →
Anticompetitive behavior is completely within lines for capitalism. Survival of the fittest and efficient marketplace and all that.
Besides, what's the other option, rent seeking is socialism? A barter system?
> Survival of the fittest and efficient marketplace
Rent seeking is an Econ 101 example of market inefficiency.
> what's the other option, rent seeking is socialism?
Rent seeking is rent seeking. It is a form of corruption, via regulatory capture. It is a way in which any political system can fail, not limited to an ideology like "socialism" or "capitalism".
Just like communism practice is not communism in theory.
Yes, but rent seeking isn't even capitalism in theory.
If monopolies are "non capitalistic", then why has every capitalist economy in history had such a tendency towards creating large monopolies? The same cab certainly not be said any those economies producing, say, worker control of the means of production.
Every economy tends towards monopoly because people like power and will corrupt and exploit any system to gain abd hold it.
That's a human problem.
Nice and did humans create these markets or were they emitted by the sun?