Thanks for your clarifications. However, if you don't want to make it a semantic debate, then try to have more grace in interpreting my semantics. I wasn't des

Thanks for your clarifications. However, if you don't want to make it a semantic debate, then try to have more grace in interpreting my semantics. I wasn't describing the abolition of private property. The emphasis is on major capital. That I can own my own computer and chair and even car is not comparable to the idea of organized capital owning massive factories and land etc. Yes, of course there's no clear defining line. If I own a car, I can use it to run a delivery business etc etc, and other than legal distinctions, there's a continuum from that to a massive factory. I don't happen to support any extreme position on these things. Absolute free-market capitalism and Marxist socialism both are simplistic if you try to just force the real world into these models. I'm more sympathetic to Georgism FWIW, but I'm much more agnostic than certain about any of this. I didn't say Matt Stoller was an economist. He's a journalist. And I mention him because he's done a great job of investigating and writing about the specific topic of monopoly in today's society. I don't just mean rhetorically but in terms of discussing specific examples and evidence. More importantly, I wasn't using the mention of Stoller to ask for deference to him as authority, I was suggesting his work as worth reading. Appeal to authority isn't the point at all. What critiques do you have of his work?