4 ms·
Maintaining a monopoly artificially isn’t pro-business; it might be pro-one-business, but it’s clearly anti-business. (It’s possible that the US is rapidly tra
by rsynnott 2y ago
Maintaining a monopoly artificially isn’t pro-business; it might be pro-one-business, but it’s clearly anti-business.
(It’s possible that the US is rapidly transformed into the sort of failed state where only Dear Leader’s pals can really operate businesses, I suppose, but I think it’s actually a bit unlikely; the courts may be okay with human rights violations, but I suspect they may draw the line at destroying capitalism.
- spencerflem 2y agoThis is a common misunderstanding! Capitalism: ie. the idea that you can spend money to make money, (ie. shareholders) is extremely compatible with monopolies. If you wanted to make an investment and get maximum returns, a monopoly would do it best. The free market is what's being destroyed.
- rsynnott 2y agoIn practice, this sort of hyper-corrupt crony capitalism is _not great_ for the markets, at least not in the medium to long term (it might provide a temporary sugar rush, but it's going to destroy long-term growth and company formation). Most notably see Russia, of course, but you see it to varying extents in most extremely corrupt countries. Few of them exactly have booming economies. If you filter out oil states, there are virtually no strong economies in countries without at least _decent_ court and regulatory systems.
- spencerflem 2y agoMy point was that it's capitalists that want this, not that its a good choice for them long term.