I'm curious whether you're playing devil's advocate or if you genuinely believe that characterizing OP’s comment as “tin foil hat” thinking is fair.
The concentration of wealth and influence gives entities like Nvidia the structural power to pressure smaller players in the economic system. That’s not speculative -- it’s common sense, and it's supported by antitrust cases. Firms like Nvidia are incentivized to abuse their market power to protect their reputation and, ultimately, their dominance. Moreover, such entities can minimize legal and economic consequences in the rare instances that there are any.
So what exactly is the risk created by the moderation team allowing criticism of YC or YC companies? There aren’t many alternatives -- please fill me in if I'm missing something. In contrast, allowing sustained or high-profile criticism of giants like Nvidia could, even if unlikely, carry unpredictable risks.
So were you playing devil’s advocate, or do you genuinely think OP’s concern is more conspiratorial than it is a plausible worry about the chilling effect created by concentration of immense wealth?
The US was once a manufacturing powerhouse and, in theory, could become one again. Working-class people understandably want their jobs back, and you can’t blame them for being taken in by false promises to bring those jobs back.
But the harsh reality is that creating a regulatory, taxation, and broader economic landscape attractive to manufacturing would inevitably threaten elites and firms at the top of the economic hierarchy. While there’s nothing wrong with that -- in fact, it’s likely healthy for the economy -- it won’t happen[1]. Those elites and anticompetitive firms abuse their undue influence to subvert democracy and shape laws in order to further entrench their market power.
[1] Or more precisely, it won't happen soon. It's pretty clear that the era we're in is coming to an end but change will likely be slow unless there's a surprise shock to the system.
I actually wrote an article that you might be interested in. It connects competition policy, market power, and social unrest. If you’re interested, feel free to take a look -- I’d be happy to hear your thoughts. https://thecommongoodchronicles.substack.com/p/an-assassinat...
Higher taxes for the absurdly rich/corporations could be a good start if the money was put to good use, but taxes ultimately don't solve the underlying issue.
I agree that the core issue is antitrust policy -- and it doesn't have to be this way and wasn't always like this. After the Great Depression, antitrust enforcement ushered in an economic golden age during the 1950s and 60s, boosting prosperity across all socioeconomic groups and lifting lower-income groups the fastest by enhancing competition and preventing concentrations of market power.
Later, regulators embraced 'trickle-down economics' and 'corporate efficiencies,' enabling the rise of giant firms that overpower governments and laws. This shift has led to historically low profits, stagnant growth, declining productivity, and soaring income inequality.
Now the rules-based systems have been co-opted by these giant firms that exploit their market power to subvert democracy and shape laws to serve their interests (and further entrench their undue influence) at the expense of society.
You're speaking my language. Incentive-based programming of behavior drives optimization for rewards. For example, giant anticompetitive firms dominating our economies create corporate environments that shape executives to prioritize short-term profits by exploiting their undue influence to inflate their own compensation. This behavior depletes natural wealth, sacrifices long-term opportunities to more competitive firms abroad, and even jeopardizes their companies’ sustainability. Boeing and Intel are prime examples of how executives optimizing for short-term gains leave behind destructive long-term legacies.
Governments, too, create regulatory, taxation, and broader economic frameworks that influence incentives and shape behavior.
Is the problem Canada and Mexico, or is it corporations and business elites exploiting loopholes and abusing the system? Manufacturing in Canada was destroyed by competition in China.
The root issue is the unchecked market power of businesses and the complete lack of repercussions for corporations and business elites that destroy industries, social systems, and deplete natural resources—without accountability for long-term consequences.
> Loblaws is being boycott by a minor dwindling political party, with no impact. Six months ago, Loblaws' stock was trading at $126 per share, and today it's at $164 per share, a 30% increase. Loblaw's market cap is now $50 billion.
My primary interest is in the psychology of fairness and boycotts—I don't know how successful the boycott will ultimately be. Nevertheless, I also found the lack of impact on Loblaw's stock interesting. But does it meaningfully index the impact of the boycott? One could argue that the C-Suite's primary job has become financial engineering, and Loblaw did initiate a share buyback plan [1,2]. Stock buybacks have become the C-Suite's favorite financial engineering/stock market manipulation tool since they were legalized.
I think you're correct that there is plenty of blame to go around. But rather than increased taxation, I would argue that the government's allowance, or perhaps even facilitation, of the level of market consolidation we have today in the grocery retail industry is the bigger issue Canadians should be angry about.
In any case, I'm more interested in consumer perception, which doesn't perfectly reflect objective reality. Researchers have shown that consumers overestimate the impact of profit-seeking and underestimate the influence of inflation and increased costs on prices, making managing one's brand image more complex. However, as indicated in this quote from the article, the role of profit-seeking was clear in this particular case:
> The media reported that Loblaw’s intention behind the 50% discount discontinuation plan was to match higher competitor prices on near-expired foods.
The concentration of wealth and influence gives entities like Nvidia the structural power to pressure smaller players in the economic system. That’s not speculative -- it’s common sense, and it's supported by antitrust cases. Firms like Nvidia are incentivized to abuse their market power to protect their reputation and, ultimately, their dominance. Moreover, such entities can minimize legal and economic consequences in the rare instances that there are any.
So what exactly is the risk created by the moderation team allowing criticism of YC or YC companies? There aren’t many alternatives -- please fill me in if I'm missing something. In contrast, allowing sustained or high-profile criticism of giants like Nvidia could, even if unlikely, carry unpredictable risks.
So were you playing devil’s advocate, or do you genuinely think OP’s concern is more conspiratorial than it is a plausible worry about the chilling effect created by concentration of immense wealth?