4 ms·
Ironically, that's the opposite effect that it is supposed to have.
by jdironman 7y ago
Ironically, that's the opposite effect that it is supposed to have.
- mcv 7y agoThere's sadly a big difference between capitalism in theory and in practice. Concentrating a lot of wealth and power in a single entity is going to skew the power balance. I think capitalism might be better off without corporations.
- randomsearch 7y agoMost supporters of neoliberalism don't know Adam Smith himself anticipated your observation and argued for the solution - i.e. regulation.
- mcv 7y agoAbsolutely. He was strongly opposed to monopolies and cartels, and I believe he even argued for what basically amounts to labor unions. He was incredibly prescient.
- randomsearch 7y agoIndeed. I got downvoted for the above, but Thatcher-Reaganomics involved crushing the unions - exactly the opposite of what Smith would have argued for.
- mcv 7y agoYeah, no idea where your downvotes come from; I upvoted you to compensate. Because you're right. Adam Smith was very aware that a free market requires protecting that freedom, which means regulation. A market dominated by only one or two big players is not free; it needs to be accessible to everybody.
- jessaustin 7y agoCapitalism, and also every other aspect of human life. People get riled up about peripheral issues like Citizens United, but they're uncomfortable considering the basic problem. Corporations are creations of the state. Their every quality, including their existence, is contingent upon continuous government action to protect and sustain them. Some government somewhere should try just not doing that anymore.
- mcv 7y agoI suspect most countries expect to be at a disadvantage on the international stage if they ban corporations. But certainly decreasing the power of corporations and increasing their liability might be a good first step.
- randomsearch 7y agoMy favourite take on this is Peter Thiel's discussion of monopolies and restaurants.