5 ms·
Perhaps it should be something else - there should be an upper limit to the size of companies. The problem is that successful companies converge towards regula
by testfoobar 3y ago
Perhaps it should be something else - there should be an upper limit to the size of companies.
The problem is that successful companies converge towards regulatory capture to maintain their advantage - this includes buying up all competitors in order to maintain cartel/monopolistic market positioning. Look at Ma Bell. It was broken up. It slowly reconstituted its old self - albeit in a more competitive, less monopolistic landscape.
Boeing, like the too big too fail banks, like the airlines during Covid is already quasi-nationalized. Perhaps we should make that relationship explicit and demand divesture of business units in order to increase competition and transparency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T
- crop_rotation 3y agoIn a single nation world yes, but in a multi country world, if the US limits size of it's companies the world will be simply dominated by Chinese/European companies and the QoL of life for ordinary citizens would nosedive.
- jampekka 3y agoThis is the reason why there used to be barriers of trade and capital controls.
- xxpor 3y ago> if the US limits size of it's companies the world will be simply dominated by Chinese/European companies and the QoL of life for ordinary citizens would nosedive The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Has the QoL nosedived in NJ because the tech industry is dominated by California?
- crop_rotation 3y agoThis doesn't make any sense. NJ and California exist under a single nation with a common treasury. You are basically agreeing with my point. If the world was a single nation then sure.
- pixl97 3y ago>QoL nosedived in NJ A better question may be, has QoL nosedived in the rust belt because the tech industry is dominated by CA?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoThe answer is no.
- arrosenberg 3y agoThis is projection that gets repeated by corporatists. We've let the large corporations have their laissez-faire way since the early 80's - foreign ownership is way up, middle class ownership is way down, and the QoL for ordinary citizens has nosedived. We need to go in the opposite direction - robust, competitive and small companies that innovate and outcompete foreign behemoths.
- crop_rotation 3y agoYou are just stating what you think is ideal and not disputing my point. How will these small companies compete in foreign markets against larger foreign rivals.
- arrosenberg 3y agoKind of the pot calling the kettle black there don't you think? I'm certainly disputing the idea that QoL of life will go down, and I stated exactly why - we have done what you are suggesting for the last 50 years and the results have been QoL has gone down. Seems kind of insane to keep doing something that is hurting the average American, no? > if the US limits size of it's companies the world will be simply dominated by Chinese/European companies and the QoL of life for ordinary citizens would nosedive. Spell out why you think this. The US has done antitrust and regulation before and it was great for the middle class. Life seemed fine for Europeans last time I was there, despite existing in a world with US megacorps dominating their markets.