> The argument was rather that the barriers to entry are too high (very high capital costs etc.) Really? You are saying this on Hacker News? Where we gather

> The argument was rather that the barriers to entry are too high (very high capital costs etc.) Really? You are saying this on Hacker News? Where we gather to assemble and identify our comparative advantages and engage in entrepreneurship with capital on the order of thousands of dollars? You can also be a agricultural entrepreneur or a mining entrepreneur or steel entrepreneur. Admittedly, the competition in these arenas is indeed very stiff, and they have invested a lot of money in efficient production. As an individual, you have little comparative advantage in such industries. But if you have some insight into how to make these industries even more efficient, then you will have no problems securing income or even starting a consulting business. > This creates self-perpetuating oligopolies. I disagree. The bigger they are, and especially once the economies of scale diminish as the market is saturated, the harder they fall. Waste and communication issues provide a natural limit. We run into problems when the state intervenes to keep dinosaurs alive. What's good for GM is good for the country, and all that. > By the way, the whole point of the economy is to enable consumption. Yep, consumption is enabled by production. Human needs and wants are limitless. If we actually lived in a world of abundance and not scarcity, people would not need jobs and there would be no need for production. We would lounge around all day in the land of milk and honey. > If there was no consumption, there would be no point to economic activity. Consumption will never go away. We consume food, water, shelter, etc. The only way consumption goes away is if humans go away. And when humans (or preference-satisfying agents, to be clear) go away, then economic activity ceases.