3 ms·

Monopoly is a concern, but so is trying to improve the situation through negative reinforcement, by breaking apart the company. Instead, foster competition by

Monopoly is a concern, but so is trying to improve the situation through negative reinforcement, by breaking apart the company. Instead, foster competition by handing out grants to competitors on the condition that they can't be sold to the Big Co for 10 years, and provide mentoring to those startups. Also, 10 billion vs 100 is arbitrary and could easily vary from market to market, and is determined by who? Here we edge into the moral question of whether it is ok to be a billionaire, and the discussion taps into the current outrage against the 1%. I think it is ok to be a billionaire, if and only if you give back to the community commensurately - something like a 50% flat income tax (no deductions, applies to all income including investment earnings/interest) if your net worth is over 1 billion.

logicchains 6y ago
>I think it is ok to be a billionaire, if and only if you give back to the community commensurately How is it even remotely your business how much money other people have given somebody? A billionare (assuming they didn't inherit it) has already given way more back to the community than the average person, because they brought into existance something that collectively brought billions of dollars of value to people.
ViViDboarder 6y ago
> Instead, foster competition by handing out grants to competitors on the condition that they can't be sold to the Big Co for 10 years, and provide mentoring to those startups. With what goal? More gigantic conglomerates? Or after ten years, they get rolled up into an existing one? To me, this sounds like it would make the problem worse. What is your concern with negative reinforcement? Pretty much our entire legislation is based on the concept of fines and punishment.