3 ms·
So your argument is what, that we don't have extreme enough monopolies in every sector? At what point do corporate consolidation and vertical integration becom
by thomastjeffery 4y ago
So your argument is what, that we don't have extreme enough monopolies in every sector?
At what point do corporate consolidation and vertical integration become enough of a problem that we need to do something?
I think you have a misplaced focus on the (unfortunately popular) word, "monopoly". A true monopoly is the problem we are facing brought to its absolute extreme. We may not be seeing many instances of literal monopoly, but we are still experiencing anti-competitive behavior that has the same structure and effect that monopoly has. We shouldn't wait until literal "monopoly" happens to stop anti-competitive practices.
- deadpannini 4y agoMy argument is that: 1) Consolidation as such is not intrinsically dangerous, especially when "consolidation" refers to "five large firms." 2) The Open Markets Institute website doesn't provide actual evidence of anti-competitive behavior. Instead, they use "monopoly" as an inaccurate scare word to muster a factually defective narrative about the source of social ills. Their website enumerates actual anti-competitive practices for 2/36 industry headings (pharmaceuticals and automobile components). The rest just promote a simple idea, "big is bad," using an extremely flexible definition of what constitutes a market (where cowboy boots is only the most comical example). Monopolies are qualitatively different than duopolies, to say nothing of quintopolies. It's not a smooth gradient of danger. Highly consolidated industries deserve more scrutiny, but they are not obviously and inevitably dangerous, especially in a globally competitive market. I am against anti-competitive practices, and absolutely happy to discuss specific instances of those. But the lack of rigor here means I can't take Doctorow or the OMI seriously.