3 ms·

Was Walmart not pursuing anti-competitive strategies though? And does it still not do so in certain local markets? The point the anti-trust people are repeatin

Was Walmart not pursuing anti-competitive strategies though? And does it still not do so in certain local markets? The point the anti-trust people are repeating over and over is that anti-trust has been broken since the early 1980’s. So, this means huge chunks of the economy and many enormous conglomerates competing in it are themselves fortresses because lax anti-trust enforcement. In that worldview it doesn’t matter whether it’s Amazon or Walmart… or RadioShack or whatever. We literally can’t imagine another world because these conditions go as far as most of us can remember.

WalterBright 4y ago
> The point the anti-trust people are repeating over and over is that anti-trust has been broken since the early 1980’s. And yet an endless stream of unstoppable monopolies have collapsed or been humbled of their own accord since 1980. IBM, Cisco Systems, Intel, Kodak, GE, GM, Microsoft, KMart, Lotus, etc.
- Jochim 4y ago
  That the de facto monopolies tend to collapse doesn't preclude the damage they incur on society/competitors whilst they're at their peak/stagnating.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system. Creative destruction is part of it. A steady state of communism is worse for people. History amply shows that. But yeah, I noticed you moving the goal posts :-)
    - Jochim 4y ago
      I don't see what the discussion has to do with communism unless you consider anything but the laissez-faire approach to be so. I felt that the main point of my comment was that we need to engage in "Creative destruction" earlier in the lifecycle of these de facto monopolies in order to encourage more innovation and healthier markets by cutting back on rent seeking and anti-competitive behaviour. Allowing Intel/IBM/Microsoft to coast by on rents for years while maintaining market dominance by strangling likely competitors via acquisitions seems like the worst possible approach. > The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system. That damage has real effects on society. Markets are a tool we shape in order to benefit society. Take restrictions on anti-competitive behaviours, the 40 hour work week, or outlawing child labour as examples of how we've moulded that tool to improve society while keeping it useful.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Child labor is not covered by free market ideas because children are not consenting adults. Consider this: free market capitalism enabled child labor laws. The reason is simple. Children had to work because non-free market societies did not produce enough surplus to make it possible for them to not work. Free market capitalism also enabled 40 hour week laws. Heck, it wasn't until around 1800 or so that free market agriculture produced enough food to eliminate the constant specter of famine that preceded it, and still haunts every non-free market agriculture system.
    - jquery 4y ago
      Was breaking up AT&T communism? The benefits for consumers in the following few years were massive. I don’t think we need to suffer obvious business monopolies for years until a new paradigm shows up. Who benefits from that except the monopolists?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        AT&T was a monopoly established by the government.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  > That the de facto monopolies tend to collapse doesn't preclude the damage they incur on society/competitors whilst they're at their peak/stagnating. That's what they earned by providing value. In a pure free market monopolies are hard to keep up for long. Unless you can bribe politicians to create regulations and slow competitors, it will be hard to stop younger, fresher and better rivals. The larger a company, the more inefficient it becomes and the more prone to be dethroned.

WalterBright 4y ago

> The point the anti-trust people are repeating over and over is that anti-trust has been broken since the early 1980’s. And yet an endless stream of unstoppable monopolies have collapsed or been humbled of their own accord since 1980. IBM, Cisco Systems, Intel, Kodak, GE, GM, Microsoft, KMart, Lotus, etc.

Jochim 4y ago
That the de facto monopolies tend to collapse doesn't preclude the damage they incur on society/competitors whilst they're at their peak/stagnating.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system. Creative destruction is part of it. A steady state of communism is worse for people. History amply shows that. But yeah, I noticed you moving the goal posts :-)
  - Jochim 4y ago
    I don't see what the discussion has to do with communism unless you consider anything but the laissez-faire approach to be so. I felt that the main point of my comment was that we need to engage in "Creative destruction" earlier in the lifecycle of these de facto monopolies in order to encourage more innovation and healthier markets by cutting back on rent seeking and anti-competitive behaviour. Allowing Intel/IBM/Microsoft to coast by on rents for years while maintaining market dominance by strangling likely competitors via acquisitions seems like the worst possible approach. > The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system. That damage has real effects on society. Markets are a tool we shape in order to benefit society. Take restrictions on anti-competitive behaviours, the 40 hour work week, or outlawing child labour as examples of how we've moulded that tool to improve society while keeping it useful.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Child labor is not covered by free market ideas because children are not consenting adults. Consider this: free market capitalism enabled child labor laws. The reason is simple. Children had to work because non-free market societies did not produce enough surplus to make it possible for them to not work. Free market capitalism also enabled 40 hour week laws. Heck, it wasn't until around 1800 or so that free market agriculture produced enough food to eliminate the constant specter of famine that preceded it, and still haunts every non-free market agriculture system.
  - jquery 4y ago
    Was breaking up AT&T communism? The benefits for consumers in the following few years were massive. I don’t think we need to suffer obvious business monopolies for years until a new paradigm shows up. Who benefits from that except the monopolists?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      AT&T was a monopoly established by the government.
jokethrowaway 4y ago
> That the de facto monopolies tend to collapse doesn't preclude the damage they incur on society/competitors whilst they're at their peak/stagnating. That's what they earned by providing value. In a pure free market monopolies are hard to keep up for long. Unless you can bribe politicians to create regulations and slow competitors, it will be hard to stop younger, fresher and better rivals. The larger a company, the more inefficient it becomes and the more prone to be dethroned.