3 ms·
I totally agree that capped capitalism would have it's own set of issues. Being from ex-ussr state I'm well aware of communism.. shortcomings. Communism was ki
by mantas 10y ago
I totally agree that capped capitalism would have it's own set of issues.
Being from ex-ussr state I'm well aware of communism.. shortcomings. Communism was killing innovation at very low level. Small business? Fuck you. Self-employed? Fuck you. Artist who don't recite gov position? Fuck you. Work in BigCo and have some interesting ideas? Fuck you. Innovation did happen but it was very rare. Well, except military tech etc.
The problem with capitalism is that once someone grows big, it's too easy for them to limit innovation. They either buy any innovation that may threaten them (and likely kill and/or damage it like Google) or make sure they have very hard time growing. Education alone won't help there. It may create more attempts to innovate, but the BigCo ceiling would still be there.
It'd be great to aim for market where no single player have even double digits of market share. If there were 10 google searches, it'd be much easier to create new google search. Then educated people could push for innovation under their own banner rather than be forced to make their way through google ladder.
I've seen somewhat similar development in my country. For example, clothes retailers. Not exactly innovative thing, but hear me out. In 90s, there were a lot of small shops with great (especially after soviet times) variety. In 00s, most of the clothes retail was run by single holding. They have franchises of several well known brands and are biggest renters in most shopping centres. There's not much of variety and pricing is shitty though. Thank god H&M squeezed in. But new small retailers seem to have a hard time. Once some brand/style starts getting popular, the big holding fills that niche too. There seem to be a narrow line between staying afloat and getting bigco interested in your niche.