4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoChild 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 agoWas 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 agoAT&T was a monopoly established by the government.