3 ms·

As a history lover it's hard to argue with Reich's analysis of the past examples he cites. The pattern he describes is indeed repeated time and again. But when

by markbnj 11y ago

As a history lover it's hard to argue with Reich's analysis of the past examples he cites. The pattern he describes is indeed repeated time and again. But when decrying the slow-down in the formation of new businesses since the 1970's it seems a little disingenuous to leave the government right out of it. His implication is that the centralization of power in huge corporations is primarily responsible for the lack of dynamism, but over that same period there has been a dramatic increase in government regulation at all levels. This is well-documented and has been discussed ad nauseum. Reich should at least allow for the possibility that the increasingly regulated business environment in fact favors large corporations who have the resources to deal with and influence regulators.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> But when decrying the slow-down in the formation of new businesses since the 1970's it seems a little disingenuous to leave the government right out of it. Reich doesn't "leave the government right out of it", in fact, he specifically argues in the article that the business consolidation is very intimately tied, in a two-way relationship, with government policy. > Reich should at least allow for the possibility that the increasingly regulated business environment in fact favors large corporations who have the resources to deal with and influence regulators. Reich -- both in this piece and his whole mass of writings on business and political consolidation (its a recurring theme) -- does more than allow for the possibility that the legislative and regulatory regime contributes to consolidation, he pretty directly says the two are directly intertwined. Of course, he takes a much more complex view of the nature of that interaction than a simplistic "moar regulation => moar business consolidation" view.
- markbnj 11y ago
  As far as I can tell the only such acknowledgement he makes in this piece is in the opening nod to the symbiotic nature of markets and government. I can't speak to what he has said in other forums, so I'll take your word for it.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > As far as I can tell the only such acknowledgement he makes in this piece is in the opening nod to the symbiotic nature of markets and government. He explicitly points to the two-way relationship between consolidation and government policy in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, and each of 9-19 of the 19 paragraph article. So, unless the whole article is the "opening nod" you are referring to, I don't really see what you are talking about.
    - markbnj 11y ago
      If that's your idea of explicit then we can just agree to disagree. In an article that spends several paragraphs "explicitly" discussing the ominous tidings of growing corporate power (and with which I wholly agree) what you see as an "explicit" acknowledgement of the role of government regulation in the problem is a vague allusion at best. Imo, of course.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > In an article that spends several paragraphs "explicitly" discussing the ominous tidings of growing corporate power (and with which I wholly agree) what you see as an "explicit" acknowledgement of the role of government regulation in the problem is a vague allusion at best. I'm trying to understand how you see -- as just one, though the biggest single, example -- a seven paragraph section of a 19-paragraph article (more than a 1/3 of the article by paragraph count) devoted exclusively to discussion of how changes in the application of antitrust law are involved in the consolidation as a "vague allusion" to the role of government. (And that seven-paragraph run followed a two-paragraph section on IP, and particularly, patent contributions.) It seems to me your problem isn't really that he isn't acknowledging the role of government enough, its that the government policies that he points to aren't the ones you want to blame, as you clearly have laid out that you would prefer he take the simple "regulation bad" approach. And, you know, if you want to make a coherent argument that other government policies are too blame, that's an appropriate thing to do and could lead to a fruitful discussion. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to blame Reich for not acknowledging that government is involved.

by markbnj 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> But when decrying the slow-down in the formation of new businesses since the 1970's it seems a little disingenuous to leave the government right out of it. Reich doesn't "leave the government right out of it", in fact, he specifically argues in the article that the business consolidation is very intimately tied, in a two-way relationship, with government policy. > Reich should at least allow for the possibility that the increasingly regulated business environment in fact favors large corporations who have the resources to deal with and influence regulators. Reich -- both in this piece and his whole mass of writings on business and political consolidation (its a recurring theme) -- does more than allow for the possibility that the legislative and regulatory regime contributes to consolidation, he pretty directly says the two are directly intertwined. Of course, he takes a much more complex view of the nature of that interaction than a simplistic "moar regulation => moar business consolidation" view.

markbnj 11y ago
As far as I can tell the only such acknowledgement he makes in this piece is in the opening nod to the symbiotic nature of markets and government. I can't speak to what he has said in other forums, so I'll take your word for it.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > As far as I can tell the only such acknowledgement he makes in this piece is in the opening nod to the symbiotic nature of markets and government. He explicitly points to the two-way relationship between consolidation and government policy in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, and each of 9-19 of the 19 paragraph article. So, unless the whole article is the "opening nod" you are referring to, I don't really see what you are talking about.
  - markbnj 11y ago
    If that's your idea of explicit then we can just agree to disagree. In an article that spends several paragraphs "explicitly" discussing the ominous tidings of growing corporate power (and with which I wholly agree) what you see as an "explicit" acknowledgement of the role of government regulation in the problem is a vague allusion at best. Imo, of course.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > In an article that spends several paragraphs "explicitly" discussing the ominous tidings of growing corporate power (and with which I wholly agree) what you see as an "explicit" acknowledgement of the role of government regulation in the problem is a vague allusion at best. I'm trying to understand how you see -- as just one, though the biggest single, example -- a seven paragraph section of a 19-paragraph article (more than a 1/3 of the article by paragraph count) devoted exclusively to discussion of how changes in the application of antitrust law are involved in the consolidation as a "vague allusion" to the role of government. (And that seven-paragraph run followed a two-paragraph section on IP, and particularly, patent contributions.) It seems to me your problem isn't really that he isn't acknowledging the role of government enough, its that the government policies that he points to aren't the ones you want to blame, as you clearly have laid out that you would prefer he take the simple "regulation bad" approach. And, you know, if you want to make a coherent argument that other government policies are too blame, that's an appropriate thing to do and could lead to a fruitful discussion. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to blame Reich for not acknowledging that government is involved.