(Edit so to speak :-) This guy is so wrong that it is hard to know where to begin. He is arguing from a false premise to a false conclusion. It's like a cre

(Edit so to speak :-) This guy is so wrong that it is hard to know where to begin. He is arguing from a false premise to a false conclusion. It's like a creationist argument. He says that things were great in the late middle ages. Wages were the highest ever. Well that is true for a few hundred years either side of the fourteenth century. But the real reason is not the superiority of economic system, but because everyone else was dead. Sure wages were high. but that was because the hundred years war, the black plagues, and the little ice age had killed off 2-thirds of the population. As soon as the good times were over, it was misery all over again. Contrast that with now. Half the world's population is middle class. Three billion vs a few 10's of thousands in the late 14th century. And middle class today is a lot better than well-to-do of 600 years ago. Then he conflates a whole bunch of things, government monopoly with corporations, the British East India with American trade. Government monopolies have a history as long as history. The medieval guilds are an example. The American patent system is another. Before the invention of corporations, investors were partners in an enterprise and all were liable far beyond their investments in the event of the enterprise's default. Over the long run the two are independent concepts. If he made the argument that large corporations tend towards monopoly, he made it in an exceedingly roundabout way. As far as I know the British East India Company had nothing to do with the Americas. There was a lot of tension because of a British law that all trade to and from British ports had to be on British ships. The Americans sent their cotton to England because we did not have the manufacturing capacity to produce fine woven cloth. (IP restrictions also.) He also argues against government monopoly of currency. You get things like grain based currency when there is no stable currency. Early in US history currency was privately issued by banks. That proved to be a pretty lousy system. If the bank went under, not only did you loose any deposits, the value of the currency went to zero. Yeah, I would really like to be holding AIG currency right now. It's bad enough they have my life insurance. I live in California and we damned near had California currency, because Republicans refused to allow a budget. Nobody here was looking forward to it. I personally think we have a huge problems with monopolies: the banks, the energy companies, the information infrastructure, the drug companies. And the recovery financing is making it worse. Good stuff for HN discussion. It's just that this guy is so wrong in so many places that he pollutes the discussion.