> Dominating a market so thoroughly that your competitors go out of business and must find another line of work creates a cost for society that is not borne by

> Dominating a market so thoroughly that your competitors go out of business and must find another line of work creates a cost for society that is not borne by the winner unless they pay for it through taxation. Namely those costs include retraining, possibly monetary assistance, etc, etc. I’m not an economist and I can’t give a formal account of externalities. But, your reasoning, I think, leads to absurdity. For example, if I start a company to sell generic, mass produced pencils for $1000 a piece then no one will buy from my company and it will be forced out of the market and my principal will be lost. Then in your words, my company failed because of “externalities” from my competitors who are selling pencils at the market rate and who then owe me money. > Beyond that, companies like Amazon[1] and Walmart[2] have well-established histories of paying their workers so little that they have to use SNAP to make ends meet. So eliminate SNAP?