You're just describing capitalist inevitabilities

Everything in the post screams unfettered, unregulated capitalism as the underlying cause since it's the system that allows and promotes this behavior.

Also as a 40+ year old, I can remember that this has been the case too since I remember the wal-marts moving in and killing every local business with everyone smiling about cheap Chinese goods. Same as it ever was.

Wrong community.

The bitch is that we need to not only overcome capitalism and the right, but also the brand of liberal consultant that makes 6 figures a year blaming bad actors in defense of the system that makes them.

There's a paradox I heard of that's pretty relevant in this line of thought that is pretty transportable to most things. I heard it in the context of IT security.

It goes something like this: you buy security and after 2 or 3 years when you need to renew, nothing bad has happened, so it seems like you don't need security. When in actual fact the extra security has been the reason there haven't been any incidents.

So it's almost impossible to prove that buying the security is helping without extensive analytics.

In many cases those analytics are either very difficult or impossible to get.

To demonstrate the transportable nature of this concept, let's transpose it to vaccines.

If everyone is vaccinated, then nobody gets sick from those diseases, making it seem like the diseases are not a threat anymore, which means that vaccines are no longer useful.

Meanwhile, in all actual fact, the only reason why polio is so rare is because there is a safe and effective vaccine for it that everyone has taken (replace polio with whatever disease you want that has an effective vaccine).

It's a paradox of: how do we prove this is working, without discontinuing it and possibly being eaten by rats/leopards/whatever.

If there's only monopolies in the market then is their product the best on the market, or is everyone using it because there's no alternatives?

Leaning that monopoly argument against capitalism, it's almost certainly not the best product. When you have a captive audience, those that need your service and don't have an alternative, there's no incentive to innovate, or invest in improving the product at all. Do innovation stagnates so that corporations can maximize shareholder value; because the focus of a corporation isn't to innovate, or improve what they do, their focus is always on extracting the most value for the least cost.

Therefore, monopolies will almost certainly lead to a sub-optimal product. The people that suffer for this are the users of that product. In the case of something like Google search, that's basically everyone.

There's a more modern term for this phenomenon: enshittification. Actively making a product worse specifically for the purposes of creating profits for shareholders.

Late stage capitalism is fun, isn't it?

Uncharacteristically self-aware of you to post this in the shitpost community.

Monopolies are bad in every sector with the exception of software development. Let me explain:

When you produce 5 cars, you have 5 cars. That's 5 times as good as 1 car. So it makes sense to produce more cars.

When you have 5 programs (that each do the same), you have effectively 4 redundancies and you could get the same work done with 1 program. So, 5 programs is worth just as much as 1 program, and the other 4 are a waste. So it is more efficient to only write every software once. This also reduces bloat and confusion. For example, if iOS and Android had more common code basis, it would probably be better for everyone.

Consider this meme, but with products instead of standards:

This is why monopolies make sense in software development. Google developed a lot of software, including Android, which doesn't need to be developed 10x times by 10 different companies. It only needs to be developed once. That's the difference between hardware (cars) and software.

The real problem is people. It doesn't matter which system you live under greedy shitty people will find every loophole they can to increase their own wealth especially if the consequences aren't seen or felt. It's not being evil it's just how people are.

Neoliberals didn’t do this solo.

Is that Cory Doctorow?

But that is the inevitable outcome of capitalism.
It's like saying "the problem isn't kittens, it's cats".

Small local businesses fuck over their employees too. Capitalism incentives it. It also incentives monopolies. And it seems when the wealth disparity gets large enough, it captures government and starts transforming into fascism.

The fundamental argument here is that it's not the system which incentivizes abusers that is the problem but rather the abusers who exploit the system. Sure, we can have another working class revolution, keep capitalism around and build institutions that keep exploitation in check but given enough time those with capital and the power that it represents will chip away at those institutions, continuing the cycle and harming people in the process.

The real problems is problems.

"capitalism is not the problem. The problem is capital and it accumulation."

Yeah. Great propaganda bro.