3 ms·
I think what it comes down to is the appropriate amount and type of regulation that suits the market. As market concentration happens, those corporations must n
by Spartan-S63 8y ago
I think what it comes down to is the appropriate amount and type of regulation that suits the market. As market concentration happens, those corporations must necessarily become more regulated to ensure consumer choice and employee rights.
The less concentrated the market, the less regulation required because natural market forces will have larger impacts. Once a corporation reaches a significant size, they largely outgrow the market being able to influence them in a large way, hence the need for more (and stricter) regulation.
Monopolies, if well-regulated, aren't as evil as they seem.
- fiter 8y agoDo you think monopolies like PG&E in California are well-regulated? If not, could you tell me why this isn't due to systemic difficulties in setting up a well-regulated monopoly? EDIT: I should put my thesis in here: It is easy for regulatory capture to happen in the case of monopoly and regulator. I would also expect the monopoly plus regulator to perform more poorly than either a competitive company or a public entity.
- digitaltrees 8y agoRegulation generally is not the same as regulation specifically related to antitrust. You can create a well regulated monopoly where none of the regulations are designed to prevent negative effects of being a monopoly.
- ishjoh 8y agoThe hardest part of regulation is not erecting artificial barriers to entry. There are a lot of examples where regulatory capture happens to ensure that a near monopoly can comfortably maintain its position, and it strangles competition from startups.
- digitaltrees 8y agoTarget antitrust.