3 ms·

Even without lobbying and corruption, economies of scale favor larger corporations over smaller ones. This concentrates wealth, and power, into the hands of eve

Even without lobbying and corruption, economies of scale favor larger corporations over smaller ones. This concentrates wealth, and power, into the hands of ever fewer people - unconstrained, the free market leads to feudalism.

teekert 10y ago
Fast growing startups seem to prove you wrong, just like the fact that Linux concurred the Server market or that Microsoft and IBM lost a lot of market share to Apple which in turn lost market share to Google. I think these are examples of fair competition: A large company grows stale or is aware of a trend to late and someone else jumps into a market hole they missed. This is a natural stop for monopolies (ok, the ISP situation in the US is something else, I agree, the cost to enter that market is extreme and you don't "share the copper/fiber" with multiple companies as other countries do). The lobbying problem however pertains to companies such as Bechtel, Halliburton (construction), Raytheon (weapons manufacturer) and Monsanto (Genetically engineered crops) and many other operating at a level known in "Confessions of an economic hitman" as the Corporatocracy. In general these are companies further removed from the voters, and politicians serve as their proxies in order to obtains funds to be an influential politician in the first place.
- alphabettsy 10y ago
  What startups? They all seemed to be backed by people with money and power.
  - teekert 10y ago
    I'm talking Rothschild, Bush, Rockefeller, deep state, old money. Such people don't mess around in the bay area, they mess around with the Fed and the IMF.
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  So you would be in favour of an otherwise free market, but with the government breaking up companies that grow too* big? I.e., you agree excessive concentration of money and power is harmful, and would be willing to compromise free market ideals to prevent it? Also, just because -some- companies can outperform larger ones in some areas, does not mean greater size does not have significant advantages. There's a good reason there's no mom&pop car manufacturers. *E.g. so big that consumers no longer have a meaningful choice, or so big that they start to benefit from monopoly pricing or price collusion, or are able to make use of anti-competitive practices, such as stores selling their own brands more prominently.
  - teekert 10y ago
    I'm not arguing for intervention at all. I arguing against lobbying. Lobbying makes a market non-free, you know, when voters have to save an investment bank that is too large to fail while said bank cost them their jobs and their house. Such things can only happen in a corrupt society. I'm not claiming to have the solution I'm merely claiming that we should decouple politics from the wealthy and recouple it with everybody else.

teekert 10y ago

Fast growing startups seem to prove you wrong, just like the fact that Linux concurred the Server market or that Microsoft and IBM lost a lot of market share to Apple which in turn lost market share to Google. I think these are examples of fair competition: A large company grows stale or is aware of a trend to late and someone else jumps into a market hole they missed. This is a natural stop for monopolies (ok, the ISP situation in the US is something else, I agree, the cost to enter that market is extreme and you don't "share the copper/fiber" with multiple companies as other countries do). The lobbying problem however pertains to companies such as Bechtel, Halliburton (construction), Raytheon (weapons manufacturer) and Monsanto (Genetically engineered crops) and many other operating at a level known in "Confessions of an economic hitman" as the Corporatocracy. In general these are companies further removed from the voters, and politicians serve as their proxies in order to obtains funds to be an influential politician in the first place.

alphabettsy 10y ago
What startups? They all seemed to be backed by people with money and power.
- teekert 10y ago
  I'm talking Rothschild, Bush, Rockefeller, deep state, old money. Such people don't mess around in the bay area, they mess around with the Fed and the IMF.
DarkKomunalec 10y ago
So you would be in favour of an otherwise free market, but with the government breaking up companies that grow too* big? I.e., you agree excessive concentration of money and power is harmful, and would be willing to compromise free market ideals to prevent it? Also, just because -some- companies can outperform larger ones in some areas, does not mean greater size does not have significant advantages. There's a good reason there's no mom&pop car manufacturers. *E.g. so big that consumers no longer have a meaningful choice, or so big that they start to benefit from monopoly pricing or price collusion, or are able to make use of anti-competitive practices, such as stores selling their own brands more prominently.
- teekert 10y ago
  I'm not arguing for intervention at all. I arguing against lobbying. Lobbying makes a market non-free, you know, when voters have to save an investment bank that is too large to fail while said bank cost them their jobs and their house. Such things can only happen in a corrupt society. I'm not claiming to have the solution I'm merely claiming that we should decouple politics from the wealthy and recouple it with everybody else.