[erhardm]

Welcome to the new world of closed ecosystems. May be a wakeup call for others who think they can directly compete with those who actually pull the strings of the ecosystem.

When the TA from my university told us updates for the laboratory will be on facebook, I told him I want them on email. Everyone in the room looked at me like I was a dinosaur who doesn't have a facebook account.

TA was surprised too as well, until I asked rhetorically "why facebook? Why not Google+, LinkedIn, Twitter, Snapchat, Kik, DropBox etc?". The TA then understood my point and updates were sent on email.

Although Meerkat vs Periscope is not exactly the same thing, but its problems are from the same reasons, open vs closed ecosystem.

[amelius]

The problem is that everybody wants to be the "gate keeper", and become the regulator of their own market. But there can at most be a few of them for a particular market.

It is ironic that the "free market" eventually leads to such an outcome.

[codeulike]

It is ironic that the "free market" eventually leads to such an outcome.

The best way to win in a free market is to stop the market from being free (form a monopoly, influence the governmrnt, etc) ... Surely every good capitalist knows that.

[sgentle]

Relevant (dead) reply from vegedor:

  From the perspective of a monopolized, unregulated etc. market, it is free of
  competition, free from regulation, etc.
  off-topic: what's the preposition to use with free?

Actually not off-topic at all! Here's a quote from The Handmaid's Tale: "There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from."

These two kinds of freedom are the very two you're asking about. The free market is the ultimate "freedom to" - freedom to compete, freedom to sell at the prices you want, freedom to buy anything you can afford.

Proponents of regulated markets point out that there are important "freedom from"s not covered by a free market: freedom from inequality and injustice, freedom from rent-seeking and predatory pricing, freedom from unsafe products and environmental damage.

Of course, for many things the distinction is arbitrary. What is the "freedom to" compete but the "freedom from" monopolies? How is the "freedom from" unsafe products different from the "freedom to" buy products without being harmed?

As you point out, perhaps it's just a matter of perspective.

[shit_parade2]

Sleight of hand and linguistic gymnastics.

Freedom from inequality comes from freedom to buy and sell goods and labor without* restrictions or borders, inequality is near all time highs because of crony capitalism and corrupt governments.

Edited for clarity

[dylanjermiah]

You're no longer winning in a free market if it isn't free.

[drdeca]

This may be true, but as true is it also that when one has checkmated the opponent's king, one is no longer winning at chess. Instead, one has won at chess. And if play continues, the game is no longer chess. This would not mean though that one has not won at chess.

[dylanjermiah]

I would say it's more like physically hitting the opponents king off the board and claiming you've won at chess.

[pdkl95]

We call this reprehensible "Rent-Seeking", and it is one of the larger problems with modern laissez-faire capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

[icebraining]

Nah, it's one of the larger problems in any known economic system (including in the form of corruption).

[pdkl95]

I could see is being a problem in other economic systems, now that you mention it. My point was more that the epidemic move to rent-seeking based business models in the last few decades has become one of the larger problems with our current implementation of capitalism.

[guelo]

The economic model we're looking for is free markets regulated by uncaptured, strong democratic governments. We all know this but political conversations are always dominated by extremists that only focus on one or the other, full communists or full libertarians. But the truth is you need both a strong market and a strong government.

[AndrewKemendo]

No way.

It is harder and harder to economically squat because competition is now seamlessly global for basically everything except infrastructure. Only in a few very limited circumstances is rent seeking even a viable option today - namely those providers with natural monopolies like water/cable etc...

Across all industries, no one is safe from small disruptive providers. Wasn't even close to that case even a few decades ago.

[lukifer]

The paradox is that rent-seeking does create an incentive to build infrastructure, be it a social app, a mobile platform, or a toll road. Whether that sort of Faustian bargain is preferable to a collectist/community solution is debatable.