3 ms·

The problem with the standard approach to monopolies is that in the long term the corporation ends up having power over government, while popular power is disor

The problem with the standard approach to monopolies is that in the long term the corporation ends up having power over government, while popular power is disorganized and diffuse. See Government's End by Jonathan Rauch or read about the Problem of Collection Action by Mancur Olson. My current thinking is that the best route would be to alter corporate charters to give consumers voting power as the company increased in market share. So if a company had 70% market share, there might be a consumer elected board that had the power to veto anti-competitive acquisitions, changes to the terms of service, changes to privacy policies, revocation of open access, etc. If you have Congress trying to regulate the company, the company will end up controlling Congress. But an elected consumers board should have a better shot at representing the interests of the customers of that company.

johncarpinelli 14y ago
I like this idea. If any rent-seeking group achieves market dominance, the government should regulate their prices. For example, the price of prescription drugs and higher education should be set by the government. Laissez-faire capitalism only works in markets with price competition. Ultimately, I think most industries will evolve into government regulated monopolies. Consolidation is a standard part of the life-cycle for most markets. We should embrace the efficiency that dominant players can achieve. With regard to individuals, I think a universal basic income is the long-term solution. Let a few people become billionaires, while the masses are paid to relax at home. There is a large amount of wasted resource in industries like retail, marketing and sales. Society would probably be better off if those industries shrank.
zanny 14y ago
I have another viewpoint and solution proposition - I think the vast majority of the reason politicians can sanely get away with completely fucking over the many for the interests of the powerful few is because the power and influence is so far disconnected from the people themselves. I wrote a stupidly long copy paste here: http://zannyland.blogspot.com/2012/10/political-ranting-part-3-how-i-think.html http://zannyland.blogspot.com/2012/10/political-ranting-part... On this topic though, people should have very specific direct election of one representative, per 500 - 1500 people, who would represent them in local voting and selecting higher representatives from their elected peers (ie, a local council of 10 would select one to go to the state, the state would select maybe 3 to go federal), and higher tiers of government can't impose laws not adopted by the lower branches (1/4 of local governments can't actively oppose in legislation something proposed in the state, 1/4 of states can't oppose something federal, etc). That way, to corrupt the whole, you need to corrupt a majority of the people to elect from themselves (because in a pool of 1500, preferably with 1 2 - 4 year office term per official, so career politicians are harder to come by) corrupt politicians to work against the publics interest. Sadly, I think the modern American public would probably do just that and fuck themselves over. It would require an independently minded, free thinking populace that can understand the world to understand forces are working against them. They aren't there now, though.

johncarpinelli 14y ago

I like this idea. If any rent-seeking group achieves market dominance, the government should regulate their prices. For example, the price of prescription drugs and higher education should be set by the government. Laissez-faire capitalism only works in markets with price competition. Ultimately, I think most industries will evolve into government regulated monopolies. Consolidation is a standard part of the life-cycle for most markets. We should embrace the efficiency that dominant players can achieve. With regard to individuals, I think a universal basic income is the long-term solution. Let a few people become billionaires, while the masses are paid to relax at home. There is a large amount of wasted resource in industries like retail, marketing and sales. Society would probably be better off if those industries shrank.

zanny 14y ago

I have another viewpoint and solution proposition - I think the vast majority of the reason politicians can sanely get away with completely fucking over the many for the interests of the powerful few is because the power and influence is so far disconnected from the people themselves. I wrote a stupidly long copy paste here: http://zannyland.blogspot.com/2012/10/political-ranting-part-3-how-i-think.html http://zannyland.blogspot.com/2012/10/political-ranting-part... On this topic though, people should have very specific direct election of one representative, per 500 - 1500 people, who would represent them in local voting and selecting higher representatives from their elected peers (ie, a local council of 10 would select one to go to the state, the state would select maybe 3 to go federal), and higher tiers of government can't impose laws not adopted by the lower branches (1/4 of local governments can't actively oppose in legislation something proposed in the state, 1/4 of states can't oppose something federal, etc). That way, to corrupt the whole, you need to corrupt a majority of the people to elect from themselves (because in a pool of 1500, preferably with 1 2 - 4 year office term per official, so career politicians are harder to come by) corrupt politicians to work against the publics interest. Sadly, I think the modern American public would probably do just that and fuck themselves over. It would require an independently minded, free thinking populace that can understand the world to understand forces are working against them. They aren't there now, though.