3 ms·
Well except when they have gained such wealth by providing goods or services in an open competitive market which customers have decided to spend their own wealt
by engineer_22 3y ago
Well except when they have gained such wealth by providing goods or services in an open competitive market which customers have decided to spend their own wealth on. We must assume people spend their wealth on things that make their lives better.
Fortunately the people living in the United States of America have a society of laws and have been to bat against the monopolistic tendencies of unfettered capitalism at least once before.
- madsbuch 3y agoWell, surely you also calculate that companies pay the true cost of offering those services? As long as Facebook has not paid for their true use of the internet infrastructure, they have been subsidised by the (public) entities who did pay form them. Maybe a lot of companies (erhm, platform-companies) use unfair market dynamics that should be regulated to yield a fair market place (Eg. European platform directives)? For an ideal marketplace it should never be possible to accrue extreme wealth as other providers should swoop in when they discover that there are profit opportunities. If the marketplace does not work like that, then regulation should ensure that we go towards an ideal marketplace. This is, btw, why all industrialised countries have rules against monopolies. Ie. extreme wealth inequality is a sign of a dysfunctional capitalistic system.