nostr:npub1d7jhhvfqxd3j0x38yc9m4eam7qf588dlkgh0gmshd3p09wwpztks4lu8xc

And you are missing the point.. The legal structure is such that their collusion is severely limited by ensuring they dont have the information about the internal workings of the company to collude in any way that would result in price fixing.

People are allowed to work together, companies and employees... what they can do is collude to carry out price-fixing, and owners are prevented from doing just that.

nostr:npub1ukcz3c3ek9ugnmrj37cjm2q9gsaqss5j9dqwpqmx0tgkzudsseqqcp40jn

nostr:npub1p34kn5su0fzjmsqx7wegqftnd34xr7as808udkxyltcl9zw6jrqqajwdy6

Of course there is a barrier to entry when it comes to work… Your success as a worker financially is largerly dependent on your education or skills. Aquiring those skills costs money.. there is a huge barrier of entry for those starting out in life with no skills or money and must compete with others int he labour force to grow their “brand” so they can make more money as they advance as a worker. Education for example (or other forms of training) is a huge barrier.

nostr:npub1jflcdvljl0n8hlz27798d0044rxwkqz69gapvcctt4p4gdt4kasqjgfmdd nostr:npub1ukcz3c3ek9ugnmrj37cjm2q9gsaqss5j9dqwpqmx0tgkzudsseqqcp40jn

nostr:npub1d7jhhvfqxd3j0x38yc9m4eam7qf588dlkgh0gmshd3p09wwpztks4lu8xc nostr:npub1ukcz3c3ek9ugnmrj37cjm2q9gsaqss5j9dqwpqmx0tgkzudsseqqcp40jn

Because the system is specifically designed such that multiple owners cant collaborate in large numbers.

If you want to start a company that has more than a few owners then it would be a corperation since other types of companies have severly limited numbers of owners.

In a corporation the owners must be isolated fromt he board and the board somewhat isolated from day-to-day operations. One of the reasons to isolate the owners from what happens in their own company is specifically so they cant collaborate and manipulate prices within the company.

nostr:npub1p34kn5su0fzjmsqx7wegqftnd34xr7as808udkxyltcl9zw6jrqqajwdy6

Well no.. all you need is enough people collaborating to artificially tilt the market, it doesnt have to be an exclusive contract.

This is why anti-trust isnt limited to company coalitions that require companies to join (which dont exist anyway)... even just two companies collaborating to fix price is illegal... just as even two people collaborting in a union should be.

nostr:npub1d7jhhvfqxd3j0x38yc9m4eam7qf588dlkgh0gmshd3p09wwpztks4lu8xc nostr:npub1ukcz3c3ek9ugnmrj37cjm2q9gsaqss5j9dqwpqmx0tgkzudsseqqcp40jn

nostr:npub1d7jhhvfqxd3j0x38yc9m4eam7qf588dlkgh0gmshd3p09wwpztks4lu8xc nostr:npub1ukcz3c3ek9ugnmrj37cjm2q9gsaqss5j9dqwpqmx0tgkzudsseqqcp40jn

If you want to argue that way then fine, id be forced to oppose antitrust laws if I were to be convinced to support unions. Since as you say they should be free to collaborate

nostr:npub1d7jhhvfqxd3j0x38yc9m4eam7qf588dlkgh0gmshd3p09wwpztks4lu8xc nostr:npub1ukcz3c3ek9ugnmrj37cjm2q9gsaqss5j9dqwpqmx0tgkzudsseqqcp40jn nostr:npub1p34kn5su0fzjmsqx7wegqftnd34xr7as808udkxyltcl9zw6jrqqajwdy6

No not at all this has nothibg to do with exclusive contracts

nostr:npub1nlua7kctkqjsvusz8cxx28jdmgmn8khclt38vxzvavxcmvm9llksatauac Its not the physical mechanisms that enable immutability that is the problem, there are tons of good approaches there. The issue is more around the elegance of the whole process (namely mutate-and-copy paradigms)

nostr:npub1f9mg4z24xq0r5qn4kxlucfn0v26f370mzgr687jyc0s83fnw33xqcx92kt Oh I agree, the handling of immutability has been less than elegant since the get go.. but its not really a ruby problem.. no OO language handles it all that well to be honest.

nostr:npub1f9mg4z24xq0r5qn4kxlucfn0v26f370mzgr687jyc0s83fnw33xqcx92kt indeed they do. I mean most languages attempt to handle the immutable problem in one way or another... I find most very lacking or ugly.

nostr:npub1k976fcfxdm6m7nwy4c4zkpjh0yatq9atulvwd45mmg7pm85q8mnqzsn2v4 Yea thats one solution, but thats a lot of additional code you now need to do, and doesnt give you the option of switching between mutable and unmutable versions without more code.

Again there are solutions, but most of them arent very elegant.

In an ideal world an object would be mutable by default, but can be made to be immutable. You pick what makes sense for the scenario. Ideally without needing to write a lot of boilerplate code. For this solution you'd need different methods entierly for the mutable way of changing an object vs the immutable change-and-copy way.

nostr:npub1k976fcfxdm6m7nwy4c4zkpjh0yatq9atulvwd45mmg7pm85q8mnqzsn2v4 The state is made of fields sure, but I usually dont want to manipulate the fields directly all in one place. Usually the fields would get manipulated through some methods attached to the object and usually in a way that will traverse many objects during the process. If I were dealing with a simple object with values then the problem wouldnt be much of a problem to begin with.

nostr:npub1k976fcfxdm6m7nwy4c4zkpjh0yatq9atulvwd45mmg7pm85q8mnqzsn2v4 That is a bit limiting since you can only specify fields. In an ideal world youd have a frozen class with methods that can do complex manipulations returning copies rather than being limited to dealing with fields.

You could of course always clone, modify, and refreeze.

But yea there are solutions (this being one of them)... none of them feel very elegant to me.

nostr:npub1hw99p7fh8fevafx7tpqcn4y3nnfgj2kcu2syqtv64f7yxwny0quqjfxfs3 Im not sure i agree there either. Non-oo coding becomes a mess unless you employ class-like organization (structs or something) in which case your right back to the same immutability/mutability problem

Ya know the more I reflect on the languages I know the more I realize that outside of functional languages none of them really handle immutability well.

Consider that you want most of your objects to be immutable most of the time. Thats all well and good till you realize you want to be able to edit the objects in such a way that it creates duplicates that have some data changed but are likewise immutable.

This tends to stop working, almost entierly, once you get into subclassing. If you parent class has a method that returns a copy of itself with some data modified, this will break in children classes, since you want children classes to return instances of itself, not its parent.

Its not that you cant fix that, but the code gets very ugly very quickly. Generally you are forced to let the code handling the classes do the copying and editing itself, but that is pretty ugly too.

I have had this pattern problem in almost every OO language i messed with, Java, Ruby, Python, etc.

#Ruby #Python #Java #Programming #CS

My god... #Ruby 's handling of immutability is absolutely horrific... I used to like ruby but I am coming to hate it real fast the more I use it...

nostr:npub19h7xd9z6skalpk053rqenfaqf6edljm7dj4s77kyf7xw05xvpz6slayzzp

Not sure just because someone at one point in the chain of custody someone traded time for the money doesnt mean money IS time... money represents value, most value requires time to create... but not all of it. I can buy something and resell it at a markup, and invested little or no time int he effort and just made money.

nostr:npub1jmae6q0wrv8l5rt8nu5qa489sjxee7h8pj4f8qyf4mhz7w3gg23sm50as2 nostr:npub1jflcdvljl0n8hlz27798d0044rxwkqz69gapvcctt4p4gdt4kasqjgfmdd

nostr:npub1r29408tx3gt5gjgm0gkhldta8zvd6vxkpuz3xmq7aucpvgkytsuqh0nhf6 I think you can look at this from many angles. In my opinion, our institutions should be regulated in a way that optimises for things like improved living standards for the average citizen, average life expectancy, average level of happiness etc.

I would mostly agree here. The caveat is that regulating institutions improperly can have the opposite effect. Ergo to achieve that one must be delicate (and usually light-handed) in how that regulation occurs. When companies engage in price fixing, the result will almost invariably be higher prices for the majority of society. This is bad, because it will limit access to goods for the average person.

Agreed When individuals collectively agree not to work for less than some amount (you said “price fixing”, which I suppose is accurate), the result will hopefully be higher pay for the individuals. This is good, because it improves access to goods for the average person. You might say the price of goods will increase, but prices in a competitive market can’t be raised arbitrarily.

Strongly disagree. If that were true we would just give everyone infinite free money and everything would be great. In reality it doesnt work that way. when workers are providing value and being paid specifically for that value, and at a fair price, then and only then, is it good. Realized value makes everyone more wealthy, but free money that doesnt represent value does not.

Now what does need to happen to be good for everyone is to increase the value of a worker, ergo let that worker be paid more as they are of higher value, and then the extra money will be a boon to society for sure. Morally if not legally, companies are not people. They don’t starve if they can’t earn a living, they don’t suffer when their kids are hungry etc. There are good reasons for companies to be restricted in ways that individuals are not. I see unions as a mechanism for individuals to collaborate.

I am totally fine with the restrictions we put on companies. Which is why i continue to support anti-trust laws. But regardless we must recognize they have less power than the people, intentionally so, and thats fine in its natural state (without unions).

nostr:npub1jmae6q0wrv8l5rt8nu5qa489sjxee7h8pj4f8qyf4mhz7w3gg23sm50as2

Doesnt ignore the power struggles at all. My stance is one where the power of the companies is limited (anti-trust) in much the same way unions should be limited.

nostr:npub19h7xd9z6skalpk053rqenfaqf6edljm7dj4s77kyf7xw05xvpz6slayzzp nostr:npub1jflcdvljl0n8hlz27798d0044rxwkqz69gapvcctt4p4gdt4kasqjgfmdd

nostr:npub19h7xd9z6skalpk053rqenfaqf6edljm7dj4s77kyf7xw05xvpz6slayzzp

If money were strictly equal to time then you cant be given money as a gift since I invested no time to earn that money.

Time is one among many things a person can invest to get wealth, and money is just a standard for measuring wealth at any one instance, but is uncomparable between instances (easily).

nostr:npub1jmae6q0wrv8l5rt8nu5qa489sjxee7h8pj4f8qyf4mhz7w3gg23sm50as2 nostr:npub1jflcdvljl0n8hlz27798d0044rxwkqz69gapvcctt4p4gdt4kasqjgfmdd

nostr:npub1jmae6q0wrv8l5rt8nu5qa489sjxee7h8pj4f8qyf4mhz7w3gg23sm50as2

Now you are getting it.. its because money doesnt define wealth.. When people take an unfair share through price-fixing then while it looks like they are taking more because they have more dollars and cents in reality the runaway inflation that results means you actually have less but are tricked into thinking you have more.

nostr:npub1jflcdvljl0n8hlz27798d0044rxwkqz69gapvcctt4p4gdt4kasqjgfmdd