RE: Steem, Democracy, and Modern-Day Capitalism
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Well, you created a very fine and interesting "product" for me to "consume" as a curator... and I am doing so because it provided something I felt was highly worthwhile.
Ideally, that's how free-market capitalism in a democracy should work.
The challenge is that we often see — both in society at large, and in a microcosm such as Steemit — a tendency for those with power (and sometimes those without, as well) to exploit the system, rather than merely use it to their benefit as it was designed. And so, "pseudo-monopolies" (think Wal-Mart, Amazon or even Steemit "whales") create an environment where the "barrier to entry" for the small person is not centered on merit anymore, but on being able to push your competition out of the way, or into bankruptcy.
Still, a great essay you wrote!
=^..^=
Thank you for your comment. Yes I do agree. While I believe that capitalism is still the best economic system, if the big players are consumed by greed and lust for more money, it will only widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. And it will make it difficult for the small players to thrive and establish themselves. Those pseudo-monopolies also happen when big companies buy out smaller ones before the latter get bigger to challenge established businesses. "Eliminate the threat" as they say.
From a society point of view I don't think "pseudo-monopolies" are a problem provided that the laws are not constructed in a way to favor these big businesses. Often they are. It's funny you mention Wal-Mart and Amazon as "pseudo-monopolies" given that they are direct competitors. Just because a company is very large doesn't mean they are monopolies or even "pseudo-monopolies". As long as there are not artificial barriers to market entry (e.g. regulations new businesses have to follow that large ones get exemption to, etc.) then the market will regulate itself. Blockbuster failed when Netflix replaced it. Now there are many online streaming services despite Netflix dominating the market for a time. Malls replaced "mom and pop shops" which were in turn replaced by online sales. Wal-Mart replaced local grocery stores (well, personally I still shop at Publix) and now Amazon competes strongly with them. Plus there is the natural food trend that has caused all kinds of more specialized stores to pop up.
From a Steem perspective, it is a little different. It is an ecosystem created out of thin air with all or nearly all of the resources owned initially by the creators. It was always going to take time for wealth distribution to happen but I think it slowly has been. The real question is how big is the market for content creators? How willing are people going to be in the long run to accept Steem as currency? Steem is market driven, not democracy driven. Related things perhaps (especially in terms of free markets) but not exactly the same. Steem is more like a business controlled by its stakeholders. Those with the most stake get the most say in how it is run. But this is how a free market works. It doesn't work otherwise. Why keep adding stake if it doesn't help you? It isn't a charity.
What you say is definitely true; my main point is that there is a difference between functional barriers to entry, and effective barriers to entry. In most cases it's a free economy, and there is absolutely nothing (functionally speaking) stopping me from jumping into the market and competing with Amazon and Wal-Mart. But the fact that I can at best expect to maybe make $2 an hour doing so, effectively serves as a barrier to entry, because I can't live on $2 an hour. Economists and economic theorists tend to overlook that because it's not a quantifiable fact.
For example, I love the idea of only buying and eating organic eggs, but right now I can get a dozen "regular" eggs at Safeway for 89 cents on sale, and the organic farm eggs are $5 a dozen. And because I can only make aforesaid $2/hr in the giant company market, I can only afford the 89-cent eggs, so the cycle sustains itself.
The ironic thing (I have been self-employed for almost 40 years) seems to be that the only time you can make money at something (as an individual) is before anybody gets wind of the fact that you can make money at whatever it is you are doing.
=^..^=
But any competition is an effective (to some degree or another) barrier to entry. That's just part of free market dynamics. What drives prices down is competition. Having to price your product lower is an effective barrier. Lower salaries/profit may be a result but so are lower prices.
In order to make money working for others you have to work in a field that has high demand relative to supply. People sometimes have this idea about a living wage or whatever and while it is a nice idea, at the end of the day, your labor is worth what the market will bear and not every job provides the type of compensation that you can build a life with. However, artificially raising it just leads to a never-ending cycle...higher wages=higher prices=demand for higher wages rinse and repeat. Or it leads to lower employment levels. Today there are lots of things you can do to make a decent amount of money. Become a computer engineer or a plumber or electrician or whatever else there is high demand for. Not every high paying job requires a college education.
Retail is not going to do it unless you are very good at what you do and you are making a commission on high dollar items.
Effective barriers to entry into a particular market are overcome by innovation. If you aren't bringing anything new or unique to the table then yeah, it's hard to compete. It's always been hard. You aren't going to start a small business and compete with Amazon selling everything under the sun overnight. However, if you specialize you might compete just fine. Depends on the specialty and how you set yourself apart from Amazon of course. There are an awful lot of places to buy stuff on the Internet and I tend to doubt the owners of all those companies are making $2/hr.
Your right that the only time you can really make money doing something (at least good money) is when everyone else hasn't figured out you can. But this is exactly the dynamic that has made everyone richer in effect (in the sense that they can afford more stuff because prices are lower). If you were the only one making money doing what you were doing we would call that a monopoly, right? Then it's likely far fewer people could afford whatever service you provide or products you sell. It's that competition that changes that. The constant innovation required to complete is largely what has led us to our current state of prosperity. It's hard to look back in time and find somewhere you would be better off.
However, the idea that big business dominates is somewhat of a myth anyway. Approximately 50% of all private sector jobs are created by small businesses. It's been that way for a long time.
Because resources are not unlimited, we are never going to have a system in which everybody is rich or even one where everyone has "enough". Though the poor continue to be better off than they were in the past and no system has come close to bringing as much prosperity to the world as the free market. It isn't perfect but I don't think you can make it better.