3 ms·
>I'm generally apprehensive any time someone says "there ought to be a law", but the article lays out a well-sourced case. The economy and big business are dire
by vram22 6y ago
>I'm generally apprehensive any time someone says "there ought to be a law", but the article lays out a well-sourced case. The economy and big business are directly opposed, and having a distributed economy is much more important for us human beings. Perhaps price controls aren't the answer (and would actually further benefit the large farms that are killing the economy)
Your statements that I quoted above are almost a perfect counter-argument to show why the suggestion in the last sentence of your comment will not work in practice. It will be shot down by vested interests finding loopholes after a few years, if not sooner. IMO a deeper solution is needed. And no, I cannot give one off the top of my head. Nor am I qualified to do so. But even laymen to an area can see potential flaws if they are obvious.
- mindslight 6y agoPossible deeper solutions are to end the centralizing trickle up economics of ZIRP, or to stop time. But either one of these is less likely to happen than targeted anti-trust. I get the idea that the market simply sees regulation as damage and routes around it, but that defeatism is also a large part of our national psyche that lets ourselves be divided over surface issues while capital buys loopholes. We've been sold this unsustainable ratchet strangling humanity as some kind of inevitable progression, and at a certain point we've got to say enough is enough and push back within the paradigm rather than thinking we can escape it.