> What part of economics isn't about power? Economics is about power in the sense that chemistry is about particle physics. I mean, yeah, sure, that kind of an

> What part of economics isn't about power? Economics is about power in the sense that chemistry is about particle physics. I mean, yeah, sure, that kind of analysis is technically admissible, but it's not useful because there are important emergent phenomena in the higher-level system (economics, chemistry) that become impossibly cumbersome modeled directly in the language of the lower-level system (individual incentives, particle physics). It's not particularly productive to apply the language of political science to things like Ricardo's examination of land rents. My point is that as companies become very large, the high-level phenomenon start to break down and we need to begin using the lower-level machinery to make sense of the problem in the extreme space. For example, the interior of neutron star is best understood by referencing physical effects directly. Likewise, when an economy has consolidated to the point that we basically have one giant company per economic sector, it starts being more useful to look at the situation through the lens of history and politics than through the lens of pure economics.