3 ms·

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

• 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.