3 ms·
I think anti-trust laws are generally more effective at dealing with that than wealth limits. When capitalism is functioning well, what cones up must go down, a
by bawolff 2y ago
I think anti-trust laws are generally more effective at dealing with that than wealth limits. When capitalism is functioning well, what cones up must go down, and the main trick is to make sure the ultra-wealthy can't leverage their wealth to prevent anyone competiting with them.
- xpe 2y ago> When capitalism is functioning well, ... I recommend this question as an interesting conversation starter at parties: Is it in the self-interest of the most successful capitalists to have a well-functioning capitalism?
- bawolff 2y agoObviously not. Which is why we have antitrust laws. If it was in the self-interest of the most succesful capitalists, we wouldn't have to have laws about it.
- xpe 2y agoRight. Phrasing it as a question and waiting for the gears to turn can be a good strategy.
- bawolff 2y agoI still don't really understand your point. I don't think anyone disagrees that monopolies and other anticompetitive behaviour is a thing that exists.
- xpe 2y ago> I don't think anyone disagrees that monopolies and other anticompetitive behaviour is a thing that exists. There are people who never learned this or have essentially forgotten it. Some ideologies bury such truths. Among business/tech circles, there is a fairly common disdain of regulation. People can conveniently forget that self-interest taken too far can destroy the conditions that make competition work. It is one thing to criticize a powerful monopoly that isn’t you. It is another thing to say “Oh. Maybe what I’m doing is part of the problem.”
- chgs 2y agoWhat goes up accumulates and is effectively removed from circulation, allowing money to be printed at a minion level while still struggling to avoid deflation.