3 ms·

If you're saying that monopolies only arise because of government interference, I'm gonna need a lot of citations. I don't want to replace free markets or have

If you're saying that monopolies only arise because of government interference, I'm gonna need a lot of citations. I don't want to replace free markets or have a totally planned economy because I agree with you that excessive power centralization is a problem, including when it goes to the government. I am just saying that the system of capitalism (which, again, doesn't just mean free markets, it means that individual citizens can own essential means of production) has power concentration as an inevitable consequence. Government interference on behalf of the super rich, which leads to more concentration of power, is a consequence of capitalism, not a foil to it. To be clear, I don't know what the best alternative is. But it looks something like more democratic control and accountability over the essential means of production. I'm not convinced government ownership would always accomplish this. But letting individual citizens own it and use it as leverage to increase their own personal wealth and power, virtually without limit, at the expense of those who depend on it and labor on it, is unacceptable.

WalterBright 6y ago
> If you're saying that monopolies only arise because of government interference, I'm gonna need a lot of citations. Name one that isn't. If your theory is correct, there should be free market monopolies everywhere. > But letting individual citizens own it and use it as leverage to increase their own personal wealth and power, virtually without limit, at the expense of those who depend on it and labor on it, is unacceptable. Who do you think sits in power in the government? Individual citizens. > virtually without limit Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc., cannot order you arrested. But the rookiest cop can arrest you. Amazon tried to influence the Seattle City Council election buy funding opposition candidates. This became a campaign issue, and Amazon failed badly at it. Hilary Clinton outspent Trump 2:1 and still lost the election. Bloomberg got trounced. Wealth buying power in America is not nearly as effective as you suggest.
- gotostatement 6y ago
  - Most industries in the US are largely dominated by oligopolies. I think it's on you to prove that they all, or at least most, arose due to government interference. - As I said in my answer (are you reading?), I'm not sure that giving control to government is always the answer. Maybe a syndicalist approach, maybe community ownership, more power in the workplace, more accountability in the community, etc. But the current situation is untenable. - Don't be pedantic. I didn't literally mean that every wealthy person has every possible power. Further, an example of wealth failing in one case doesn't disprove the 10 cases where it succeeded. For example, yes sometimes people lose in elections even when they outspend their opponents. This has no bearing on the fact that billionaires and their interest groups completely succeed at influencing politicians through lobbying, and even writing legislation for them to push. I'm going to bow out of this conversation now because I don't feel you are engaging charitably and in good faith. I think you are ideologically determined not to recognize how wealth and power function. I would still have engaged for the sake of argument, but I can't do that with someone who's not showing efforts to represent my argument faithfully and charitably. Bye.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Most industries in the US are largely dominated by oligopolies. Oligopolies are not monopolies. > an example of wealth failing in one case doesn't disprove the 10 cases where it succeeded I gave several examples off the top of my head. There are many more. What wealth does is enable one to get one's message out - it does NOT buy the election. Voters still have to like the message and the messenger. > completely succeed at I can point you to any number of huge government spending programs aimed at the not-wealthy. Social Security, for one.
averros 6y ago
Try to find a single monopoly existing over prolonged period of time (> year) without coercion by government (including coercion by enforcement of patents and such) or by criminal means. "Natural monopolies" is a unicorn. Never observed in nature, only in writings of economists.

WalterBright 6y ago

> If you're saying that monopolies only arise because of government interference, I'm gonna need a lot of citations. Name one that isn't. If your theory is correct, there should be free market monopolies everywhere. > But letting individual citizens own it and use it as leverage to increase their own personal wealth and power, virtually without limit, at the expense of those who depend on it and labor on it, is unacceptable. Who do you think sits in power in the government? Individual citizens. > virtually without limit Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc., cannot order you arrested. But the rookiest cop can arrest you. Amazon tried to influence the Seattle City Council election buy funding opposition candidates. This became a campaign issue, and Amazon failed badly at it. Hilary Clinton outspent Trump 2:1 and still lost the election. Bloomberg got trounced. Wealth buying power in America is not nearly as effective as you suggest.

gotostatement 6y ago
- Most industries in the US are largely dominated by oligopolies. I think it's on you to prove that they all, or at least most, arose due to government interference. - As I said in my answer (are you reading?), I'm not sure that giving control to government is always the answer. Maybe a syndicalist approach, maybe community ownership, more power in the workplace, more accountability in the community, etc. But the current situation is untenable. - Don't be pedantic. I didn't literally mean that every wealthy person has every possible power. Further, an example of wealth failing in one case doesn't disprove the 10 cases where it succeeded. For example, yes sometimes people lose in elections even when they outspend their opponents. This has no bearing on the fact that billionaires and their interest groups completely succeed at influencing politicians through lobbying, and even writing legislation for them to push. I'm going to bow out of this conversation now because I don't feel you are engaging charitably and in good faith. I think you are ideologically determined not to recognize how wealth and power function. I would still have engaged for the sake of argument, but I can't do that with someone who's not showing efforts to represent my argument faithfully and charitably. Bye.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Most industries in the US are largely dominated by oligopolies. Oligopolies are not monopolies. > an example of wealth failing in one case doesn't disprove the 10 cases where it succeeded I gave several examples off the top of my head. There are many more. What wealth does is enable one to get one's message out - it does NOT buy the election. Voters still have to like the message and the messenger. > completely succeed at I can point you to any number of huge government spending programs aimed at the not-wealthy. Social Security, for one.

averros 6y ago

Try to find a single monopoly existing over prolonged period of time (> year) without coercion by government (including coercion by enforcement of patents and such) or by criminal means. "Natural monopolies" is a unicorn. Never observed in nature, only in writings of economists.