Watch Chomsky's Requiem for an American Dream if you want a great analysis of the cyclical nature of corporate power being further and further entrenched as they gain more power to write the laws that benefit them.

Chomsky's solution? Moar state !

AKA Control of the society that is...

1) Openly documented 2) Viewable by all 3) Accountable to the people not the highest bidder

Exactly as the Founding Fathers wrote and spoke of it? They were pre-capitalist, saw the origins of capitalist philosophy beginning, and wrote of their fears about where that will lead a country of free people; straight into the back pockets of the elite (remember the crown was essentially the same way, owned/controlled all, required the masses to entertain them and provide value for THEM).

You seem convinced contributing to your government is a scam, and you should go shovel whatever for some rich wanker.

You got something else to add? Or are you going to just regurgitate the banal fear mongering of the last 200 years?

    Control of the society 

What does it even mean ?

How do you make the government accountable, transparent and openly documented ? Mystery to me

>How do you make the government accountable, transparent and openly documented ? Mystery to me

Sure but less of a mystery than how we can make corporations transparent, accountable and openly documented.

Producing information is costly. There is a market for it but no general magic solution (this applies to both govt and companies, but I guess it's easier to look into a bunch of small companies rather than one huge govt).

Corporations are accountable of the wrong they do to third parties. It's the whole point of having a judicial system.

How do you control a govt ? By rioting and voting every 4 years ? Here's how it can work for companies : http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarketforCorporateControl...

If the founding fathers were concerned about government capture by the elite, why did they limit the right to vote to land owners? They basically decided that only the wealthy could vote.

At the time (e.g. 18th century), it was the best proxy for education. In the age of the internet, we have at least the prospect of learning at our own pace regardless of financial means. This requires an interest in knowledge while minimizing biases.

Sure, but restricting voting to the educated is still restricting voting to the elite. It still doesn't seem compatible with limiting the influence of the elites on the government, which 32hkwejr claimed was their goal.

>restricting voting to the educated is still restricting voting to the elite.

At that time...

Buuuut we now live in the age of the internet, and knowledge is a pure commodity. There are authoritarians looking to muddy the waters and make knowledge more difficult to acquire, but for those interested in learning (like the kids I've worked with), there are plenty of free options I couldn't dream of at the public library I went to as a kid.

We still have an issue of poor education, don't get me wrong, though it is not a result of elitism (quite the contrary).

(I haven't watched the doc or followed Chomsky much)

I think a lot of the contention is putting faith in the "the market" (but I would hope even staunchest libertarians realize at times that can be disproportionately large companies) or governments. I feel like the extremes on both sides put too much faith in one or the other. To keep each other in check one can't be too much larger, or wield too much power over the other.

When companies become multinational, things can get weird because they can evade single governments. I'm not saying it's always bad, but it is hard to keep them in check.

I put my faith in voluntarily actions, competitive entreprises, innovative ideas and good mechanisms of check and balances.

The first word that comes to my mind is 'free market', not 'huge government'..

I guess I know what side you put faith in.

"Free market" is just an illusionary goal--there's no such thing in practice. Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another. Governments try to encourage competitive entreprises, innovative ideas and good mechanisms of check and balances by eliminating monopolies, reducing dynasties/incumbencies and other barriers of entry, in addition to other things like maintaining a fair legal system.

    Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another

? And every government action steals resources from someone and prevents them to do it on their own.

Have youbever seen govt reducing barriers of entry ? I need examples

Only govt can create monopolies, unless you're talking about mafias.

I wholly admit the government can do those things (that was the point in my original reply).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market

The only example there that could be remotely tied to the government is cable companies (I think the last-mile expense barrier to entry is the main contributor to those monopolies). All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them. Breaking up a monopoly reduces barrier to entry. After the breakup of at&t, long distance rates dropped due to the new competition.

A few things most governments do to reduce the barrier of entry when starting or running a business: maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties, educate a workforce so there's a pool of citizens with basic skills you can hire or sell things to, maintain open access roadways for transport of workforce and goods, maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services. All of those would be huge hurdles if I wanted to open a lemonade stand.

> unless you're talking about mafias.

So they're the only fly in the ointment if governments didn't exist? What is the solution to mafias if the government just steals resources?

I'm earnestly curious, if governments only oppress a market, where your best or ideal example? Is there any free market that doesn't have a government? How come when governments fail (or countries without strong governments) a strong free market doesn't develop to overtake the EU or US?

    All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them

What did govt do exactly to prevent, I quote the WP article, " food markets in cinemas, airports, and sports arenas, college textbooks, the Kosher food market in the United Kingdom, and phone calls and food in jails and prisons" ?

    maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties

Yes !

    maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services

Yes but they also forbid some forms of private currencies and make mandatory to keep using their currency. If their currency was so great, why would it need force to make it mandatory ?

    if governments only oppress a market

I didn't say that. Maybe govt are the best solution we have right now for homeland security, police and basic justice. For the rest of its activites, I'm pretty sure it's useless

> What did govt do exactly to prevent,

Who said government is the solution to every single problem? I implied too much government intervention was also bad in my original post. I do think the phone call situation in US prisons are exploitative and I hope it does get addressed. Jail/prisons being the responsibility of the government, economic arguments don't apply and they shouldn't exploit prisoners (I'm also not a fan of the "slavery" exemption for prisoners). Just because a captive market exists, doesn't mean it's bad and it has to exploit them...capitalism just tends to push it in that direction. Teddy Roosevelt, who started the "trust busting" didn't have a problem with monopolies, only the monopolies that exploited their position. That still applies to today's anti-trust laws.

> If their currency was so great, why would it need force to make it mandatory ?

Because too many people cause shenanigans when they don't? I'm kind of surprised you were cool with a single legal system, but not with currencies.

> I didn't say that.

You said, "every government action steals resources from someone and prevents them to do it on their own." Maybe I should have been explicit and said "free market" but I figured it was implied. How is "every action steals resources" not oppressing the free market you describe?

Of course, because he's so find of power structures in general. *Queue eye rolling

You seem to be overly fond of data structures! ("Cue", rather than "queue")

Well, regulations work pretty damn well for the FCC's control of the wireless spectrum.

So some regulations definitely work.

You inevitably need more state to combat antitrust.

Quote him. Don't interact with your own straw man, face the man.

Yes you are right. I actually was a fund of him years ago. 'More state' is definitely the feeling I remember of him

This is absolutely the key point here.

The reason large corporations have more power is ... they have more power. They can afford to not only find loopholes, but also exploit ones with higher barrier-to-entry, AND lobby for additional ones.

Many corporations probably DON'T want loopholes that are "too easy" because then smaller businesses would be able to use them as well and become potential competitors. Kind of like how Comcast sues any potential competitor into oblivion using frivolous lawsuits. The cost to entry into the ISP market? The price of a good legal defense that can defeat Comcast. (Read: Nothing to do with the actual hardware/manpower)

I wonder how many of these comments are made by Apple's legal or PR team posing as normal people... Certainly they have the reach and resources for this kind of thing too. Rarely do we get to have a real public discussion on such topics without adulteration by these parties with personal motivations and associated power.

Your comment basically breaks HN guidelines by calling into question the motivations of all commenters that disagree with you. Some of us simply believe that taxing corporations makes little sense because companies set their pricing with applicable taxes in mind. Ultimately, only people pay taxes, so only people that have not fully considered the implications believe they are "sticking it to the man," when in reality the government is abstracting the cost of these taxes on the people.

It's simply a consumption tax that people do not realize they are paying because it is built into the products citizens are buying.

Your comment asserts that corporate tax has zero impact on corporate profit. If you don't fully agree with that statement, you may want to consider whether you fully agree with everything you wrote.

>Your comment asserts that corporate tax has zero impact on corporate profit.

I didn't intend to "assert" that, and I think it's fair to ask you to elaborate, as I believe there are assumptions embedded in your interpretation of what I wrote.

edit: Grammar.

edit1: Do you think Apple incorporates the cost of the tax burden into the price of an iPhone? I think it really comes down to whether you think Apple would reduce their unit price if it would ultimately result in gross profit increases. It's like taking VC financing, "Do you want to own 100% of a $500K/yr revenue company or 49% of a $3M/yr revenue company?"

Imagine a world where there is no corporate tax. Apple does a price analysis and decides the profix maximizing sales point of a phone is $1,000. They price the phone at $1,000.

Then, a 10% corporate income tax rate is put in place.

Does Apple raise the price of the phone to $1,100? Is that now the profit maximizing decision?

According to your claim "Ultimately, only people pay taxes," the answer is yes - Apple would immediately raise the price of the iPhone to offset the loss incurred by the new tax. Except that then, fewer people would buy iPhones. We already know that $1,100 is not the profit maximizing price point for a phone. So, the amount Apple would increase its price is a function of the price sensitivity of iPhone buyers.

This is a little tricky to explain, but khan academy has a video that explains it quite well.

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...

> We already know that $1,100 is not the profit maximizing price point for a phone.

$1,000 is a profit maximizing price point with 0 % taxes. With 10 % taxes it would be different.

Correct. Was that not clear?

Be serious.

(1) You really think Apple cares about the discussions on one thread of Hacker News ?

(2) Even if they did how would it be an effective use of resources. It may shift a handful of people at most. When instead that time could be spent speaking with journalists or writing press releases that could actually shift a lot of people.

(3) It's a slippery slope to keep calling everyone you disagree with shills or employees of a company. Especially since on an anonymous forum they could never be able to defend themselves.

Oh, they definitely do keep tabs and actively participate in places like HN.

You must have missed seeing this a few years ago...

> Members of Apple PR seek tabloid photos of celebrities holding iPhones, while others read Apple-focused blogs actively, and keep tabs on prominent Apple beat writers using anonymized social media accounts. A former Apple PR employee notes that the team enjoys being an “overall watchdog,” monitoring what the media is saying about the company every day.

https://9to5mac.com/2014/08/29/part-3-strategies-the-art-of-...

I've got numerous concerns about YC, but I really like HN. There is a certain decorum we must not violate or we risk becoming like the mess that is the rest of much of the web right now. We need to focus on the content of the arguments being made, not trying to determine what tribes the others belongs to.