4 ms·

We can kill two birds with one stone: let's onshore a productive non-virtual, "building shit" economy, and use geographical anti-concentration laws to ensure ar

We can kill two birds with one stone: let's onshore a productive non-virtual, "building shit" economy, and use geographical anti-concentration laws to ensure areas outside the professional-class urban centers get a slice of the pie.

germinalphrase 6y ago
“geographical anti-concentration laws” Any examples of this in practice?
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and... >What, then, is the missing piece? A major factor that has not received sufficient attention is the role of public policy. Throughout most of the country’s history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late nineteenth century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of “deregulation.” Understanding this history, largely forgotten in our own time, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around. ... >Sometimes referred to by its supporters as “the Magna Carta of Small Business,” Robinson-Patman prevented the formation of chain stores even remotely approaching the scale and power of today’s Walmart or Amazon by cracking down on such practices as selling items below cost (a practice known as “loss leading”). The legislation also prohibited the chains from using their market power to extract price concessions from their suppliers, Similarly, the Miller-Tydings Act, enacted by Congress in 1937, put a floor on retail discounting, thereby ensuring that large chains headquartered in distant cities didn’t come to dominate the economies of local communities. This did not prevent innovation in retailing, such as the emergence of brand-spanking-new supermarkets to replace small-scale butcher shops and green grocers. But into the 1960s, these and similar laws would ensure that no supermarket chain would control more than about 7 percent of any local market.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    Thank you.
throwafellow 6y ago
The anti-concentration laws seem like a super idea since it would create incentive for building a ton of infrastructure in areas that have been allowed to degrade.
JackFr 6y ago
The way to reduce government corruption, regulatory capture and corporate rent seeking is to dramatically increase government power and give it control over a greater share of the economy. Color me skeptical.

germinalphrase 6y ago

“geographical anti-concentration laws” Any examples of this in practice?

eli_gottlieb 6y ago
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and... >What, then, is the missing piece? A major factor that has not received sufficient attention is the role of public policy. Throughout most of the country’s history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late nineteenth century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of “deregulation.” Understanding this history, largely forgotten in our own time, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around. ... >Sometimes referred to by its supporters as “the Magna Carta of Small Business,” Robinson-Patman prevented the formation of chain stores even remotely approaching the scale and power of today’s Walmart or Amazon by cracking down on such practices as selling items below cost (a practice known as “loss leading”). The legislation also prohibited the chains from using their market power to extract price concessions from their suppliers, Similarly, the Miller-Tydings Act, enacted by Congress in 1937, put a floor on retail discounting, thereby ensuring that large chains headquartered in distant cities didn’t come to dominate the economies of local communities. This did not prevent innovation in retailing, such as the emergence of brand-spanking-new supermarkets to replace small-scale butcher shops and green grocers. But into the 1960s, these and similar laws would ensure that no supermarket chain would control more than about 7 percent of any local market.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  Thank you.

throwafellow 6y ago

The anti-concentration laws seem like a super idea since it would create incentive for building a ton of infrastructure in areas that have been allowed to degrade.

JackFr 6y ago

The way to reduce government corruption, regulatory capture and corporate rent seeking is to dramatically increase government power and give it control over a greater share of the economy. Color me skeptical.