3 ms·
How do you ensure, or guarantee preferably, that the government will continue to provide a level playing field by preventing anti-market mergers, when capital p
by komali2 4y ago
How do you ensure, or guarantee preferably, that the government will continue to provide a level playing field by preventing anti-market mergers, when capital provides political power?
Is it not simply inevitable that the entities that like having monopolies will continue to accrue capital (political power) to the point that they can influence the government away from preventing monopoly?
We have real world evidence: the usa, and its monopolies and functional monopolies. See: O&G, telecom, ISP, food monopolies for certain restaurants and grocery stores in food deserts.
- lmm 4y agoI mean, Standard Oil did get broken up. Ma Bell did get broken up. Clearly at some point the US government was able to resist pressure from these wealthy and well-connected corporates, and break them up for the sake of the rest of us. What's changed since then?
- komali2 4y ago> What's changed since then? These entities have acquired more capital, and thus more political power. How do you prevent this?
- lmm 4y agoI don't think it's that simple. Standard Oil was huge, the companies of that era owned whole towns.
- kevingadd 4y agoRight-wingers took more control over the parts of the government responsible for fighting monopolies
- ncallaway 4y agoA Supreme Court ruling that allowed essentially unlimited and unregulated anonymous spending on political campaigns as being protected by the first amendment. Money and wealth have more influence and power than ever over our politics.
- drewcoo 4y ago> What's changed since then? Populism is a dirty word. Progressivism used to mean seeking economic fairness Teddy Roosevelt-style and now it means woke identity politics. Whistleblowers of any kind have no protections anymore. Any talk of reforming the system is seen as anti-American by the free market crowd. There's more to binge on Netflix.