[rcentros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Guilds??
Sorry, but no.

That is not why, historically, guilds were created.

https://www.ancient.eu/Medieval_Guilds/

Guilds were created as barriers to entry, to keep newcomers out and enforce prices and practices. The memory of guilds is where price fixing and trusts come from. Guilds were unions of owners, not of employees. or consumers.

Guilds (the craft guilds, at least) were created for much more than "barriers to entry." They also barred unfair competition, insured high quality and performed charitable work. It wasn't ideal in practice, nothing is, but it was better than unbridled greed of "venture" capitalism (theft) we have today.

The craft guild policed its own members’ professional practices, and guild courts and officials investigated complaints of poor workmanship, unfair competition, and other problems, levying fines on those found in violation of the guild’s rules and standards.

Besides their economic and educational functions, guilds also served other purposes. A guild was often associated with a patron saint, and a local guild would maintain a chapel in the parish church to be used by its members. Guilds performed charitable work, not only among the poor and indigent among their own members but among the community at large. Guilds also built and maintained residences, called guildhalls, in which the membership would hold banquets and conduct official business.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/gui...de-association

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Guilds were anti-tech, anti-union, anti-progress.
*That* was rampant capitalism, nowhere ndar the restrained economic system of the western economies.

"Anti-tech?" Huh? "Anti-union?" By banding together? "Anti-progress?" How so? "Rampant capitalism?" In what sense? Maybe you're thinking merchant guilds and I'm thinking craft guilds. Not all guilds were merchant guilds, the craft guilds were their rivals and they were far more numerous.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Look around and you'll find that where guilds were strongrst and hung on the longest is where modernization and living standards lagged the most.

England? Germany?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Now, modern guilds are more typically unions and coops and professional associations, all good things for tbeir members even those have little concern for consumers or the "greater social good".

Not talking about modern guilds.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Like it or not the modern world is consumerist in focus.

I know. I don't like it. Calling customers "consumers" is, in itself, demeaning. Just because something is, doesn't mean it's right.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Even the most authoritarian regimes know the masses must be dealt with carefully. That was the key failure of communism. And if the CCP regime falls in China that will be their undoing come the end. They are in a constant struggle to maintain control under their social contract of "prosperity in exchange for freedom". And that is getting harder and harder for non-economic reasons.

This has what to do with greed and its necessary supposed relationship to capitalism?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Western capitalism (because there's at least three others) needs antitrust to provide a brake to human nature because, yes, greed is an intrinsic trait of humans. (Just put a young child in front of a plate of candy and watch.) Animals too. (Junkyard dogs are not unique.) And because self regulation doesn't work. Fear yes, but absent the stick there is no carrot to prevent people of striving for their own best interests well beyond what might offend others sensibilities. And fear doesn't work too well, anyway.

Lots of bad traits are intrinsic to human nature. It doesn't mean you glorify them or make greed (for example) an essential element of your economic system. Unlike animals, humans have free-will, they can decide to reign in their own appetites. Personally, greed has never been a problem for me. And kids eating candy until they get a stomach ache means they haven't learned proper behavior yet. That's why kids are minors under their tutelage of their parents – because they are immature, and will make poor (uniformed decisions). They need to be guided and protected until they learn how to control themselves. You don't say "greed is intrinsic we can't do anything about it," you say "quit being greedy, it's wrong."

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Without effective antitrust regulating otherwise free commerce you get oligarchs and kleptocracies regardless of whether you have laissez faire, directed economies, or state-granted monopolies (which is what medieval guilds were.)

Craft guilds were not monopolies. (I should have made it clear I was talking about craft guilds, not merchant guilds.) Unlike modern competition, they allowed all those who were in the guild to survive without undercutting one another. They also served the welfare of their communities. The also protected local merchants from outside merchants.

In modern Western "civilization," despite ineffectual anti-trust laws, we have corporations constantly becoming monopolies, we have collusion (gas prices "coincidentally" rising by the same rate at the same time throughout the same area), we have"venture capitalists" leveraging the value of established companies to run up debt, and then declaring bankruptcy and laying off thousands of workers. We have jobs sent overseas and H1B visas issued in corporations were native Americans are out of work (because they can be made to work for less). In other words, workers are totally at the mercy of fewer and fewer corporations.

I would rather have the guilds.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

To date the only two ways to run an economy are still either market-driven and state-directed. And state directed has always led to stasis and collapse. Bad as rampant consumerism might strike many, the alternative is worse.

One alternative you're missing is encouraging and protecting community businesses. When I was a kid (before the malls) there were still local businesses. Even in small towns (in attempt to get back on topic) there were often multiple local book stores. Then malls started coming in. Local businesses could move into them, but they had to pay several times the rate per square foot that national chains had to pay. It doesn't take a genius to guess how that worked out. Pretty soon the local businesses went belly up and all you had left were the national chains.

And now, with the decline of malls, it's consolidated a lot more. The real capper is that Walmart or Amazon are encouraged to come into communities with their huge warehouses and they get property taxes deferred for 10 years — so local businesses and property owners have to pay higher tax rates for the improvements necessary to bring their competition. Basically EVERYTHING is this country is rigged to benefit the huge corporations and give them advantages over small and regional businesses. This is not capitalism, it's theft. And it can be changed.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

There is no long-term middle ground so far.
Even small attempts at state-directed ("national champions") has always led to inefficiency, lack of competitiveness, and come disruption time, collapse.

Huge corporations have too many lobbyists and too many advantages. They've bought and paid for their politicians. This is called corruption.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Self-restraint is non-existent. (Look into the Tragedy of the Commons. Samaritanism has limits.)
And directed economies always fail.

Nope. Wrong on both counts. If self-restraint was non-existent than everybody would be rioting everywhere and taking whatever they wanted. Obviously, in a civilized society that doesn't happen. And it's not because the few cops keep from it from happening, it's because the majority of people restrain themselves. They live by a self-driven moral code. Greed is one of the many things they should (and often do) avoid.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In the end it all comes down to efficiency.
Open markets are dynamic and self-correcting, as we've seen with ebooks, which are a textbook case. A market driven by change and innovation, hampered by producer attempts to limit competition and keep out new entrants, seeking to maintain the stasis prevailing since the 90's, until ebooks hit the mainstream.

Stasis has been losing steadily this past decade, the rear guard attempts of the quasi-guild of the BPHs have lost them most of their market power and now they're in danger of losing their ground level enablers.

We're about to enter the third era of ebooks and even stalwart pbookers like Daunt are realizing the hole they've dug for themselves.

I personally think it's too late for the parrot.
We'll see.

Basically, in the U.S., Amazon has a monopoly in eBooks. I think they only restraint on their pricing is what the market will bear. Too high and people will quit buying eBooks. It has nothing to do with competition. They really don't have any.