4 ms·

The answer is simple : economic freedom. If companies have the right to merge, it's not because "right-wing free-market ideologues" think it is best for the ec

The answer is simple : economic freedom. If companies have the right to merge, it's not because "right-wing free-market ideologues" think it is best for the economy, it's because it is their business and they are free to organize it as they will. Saying that only "many players can ensure progress continues" and thus prohibiting companies to merge is interfering with economic freedom in the name of "I know better", and that is planned economy. And that, is "just like communism", as you put it.

ivan_ah 12y ago
> The answer is simple : economic freedom. I'm all for freedom, and that is precisely why I'm opposed to consolidation. There are a couple of components required to make the free market work: (1) freedom for companies to grow [--> efficiency], (2) freedom for new companies to enter the market [--> competition], and (3) freedom for customers to choose from different offerings [--> competition]. Consolidation is all about (1) at the expense of (2) and (3). To clarify, when I said "communism" I meant "central planning" (not totalitarianism), which is what happens when a single corporation controls most of a market. Apologies for using this emotionally-charged term loosely. > prohibiting companies to merge I'm not sure what wing that puts me in, but I think we should prohibit large companies from merging and also dismantle existing large companies as well. The way I see it, a world with many small and medium-sized companies will run much smoother than one with a single large company. Specifically, keeping the chain of command short (height of the corporate pyramid < 7) will ensure informed decisions are made (instead of decisions based on office politics, and personal vision---the corporate version of "I know better"). Except for some exceptions (e.g. you need a pretty big company to manufacture planes) this would be possible.
brazzy 12y ago
You could not possibly be more wrong. Monpolies are the exact opposite of economic freedom and amount to a planned economy, except the plan is not even nominally for the good of everyone.
- watwut 12y ago
  While I agree with you, I would point out that planned economy plans are rarely "for the good of everyone". Planmakers tend to enrich themselves and their buddies. I'm tempted to write never, but there might have been that one historical event when it went right.
  - brazzy 12y ago
    That's why I wrote "not even nominally for the good of everyone" - explicit economic plans, at least the socialist variety are usually for the good of all in theory but not in practice. A monopoly-based plan would not even claim to be. Also, I don't think the biggest problem with plans is self-enrichment by the plan makers, but inflexibility, the lack of good information, misaligned incentives and unintended consequences. And the biggest strength of a market economy is not the absence of any of these problems, but that they don't effect everything euqally and the companies that are affected the most just fail without dragging down everything.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >While I agree with you, I would point out that planned economy plans are rarely "for the good of everyone". This is exactly how it works under our system too. Instead of economic planning being set in motion by the nomenklatura, it's done by the heads of major banks.
- grondilu 12y ago
  I have not used the word monopoly and was merely talking about the right for people to work together. Do you have anything against that?
  - brazzy 12y ago
    You said > Saying that only "many players can ensure progress continues" and thus prohibiting companies to merge is interfering with economic freedom in the name of "I know better" Sounds like you're advocating that all mergers should be allowed, even if they produce monopolies, and that not having many players would be OK. The notion that regulation which disallows two billion-dollar companies with thousands of employees to merge because they'd afterwards dominate an important market has anything to do with "the right for people to work together" is somewhere between fundamentalist and disingenuous.
dougabug 12y ago
Corporations are legal fictions. They exist through the power and authority of the State, their contracts are enacted and enforced through agents of the Courts. Corporations are manifestly not free to organize as they will. Is it economic freedom to have one choice for Internet broadband? For healthcare? Unregulated monopolies should supply us with food, water, power, and all other essential utilities/needs? Welcome to the age of thousand dollar a pill medicine. Every communication, location, every purchase, every mouse click or swipe duly tracked, recorded, and data mined. To imagine that as freedom merges the Dickensian with the Orwellian.
- NoPiece 12y ago
  Welcome to the age of thousand dollar a pill medicine. Every communication, location, every purchase, every mouse click or swipe duly tracked, recorded, and data mined. You are exactly describing the world today, as provided by our big government.
  - willvarfar 12y ago
    How would "small" government change it? Being a European living in a country with a "bigger" relative government (as I understand the way Americans use the term) but with free healthcare and a big data mining debate ongoing, I'm a bit at a loss...
    - NoPiece 12y ago
      A smaller government wouldn't have a $52.6 billion budget for the NSA & CIA to data mine. A drug company can only charge a $1000 for a pill because the government is blocking competition by granting patents. Effectively creating a micro monopoly. Small government with extremely limited or no patents would allow competition to fix the $1000 pill. It is industries like healthcare and telecom, where the US has both very large companies and very big government that we have the worst outcomes.
  - sergiosgc 12y ago
    Small countries, like mine (.pt), kind of disprove this idyllic vision of small government. Small governments easily fall prey to large multinationals. USA's woes with oligopolies may have many causes. A government concentrated at the federal level isn't probably one of them.

ivan_ah 12y ago

> The answer is simple : economic freedom. I'm all for freedom, and that is precisely why I'm opposed to consolidation. There are a couple of components required to make the free market work: (1) freedom for companies to grow [--> efficiency], (2) freedom for new companies to enter the market [--> competition], and (3) freedom for customers to choose from different offerings [--> competition]. Consolidation is all about (1) at the expense of (2) and (3). To clarify, when I said "communism" I meant "central planning" (not totalitarianism), which is what happens when a single corporation controls most of a market. Apologies for using this emotionally-charged term loosely. > prohibiting companies to merge I'm not sure what wing that puts me in, but I think we should prohibit large companies from merging and also dismantle existing large companies as well. The way I see it, a world with many small and medium-sized companies will run much smoother than one with a single large company. Specifically, keeping the chain of command short (height of the corporate pyramid < 7) will ensure informed decisions are made (instead of decisions based on office politics, and personal vision---the corporate version of "I know better"). Except for some exceptions (e.g. you need a pretty big company to manufacture planes) this would be possible.

brazzy 12y ago

You could not possibly be more wrong. Monpolies are the exact opposite of economic freedom and amount to a planned economy, except the plan is not even nominally for the good of everyone.

watwut 12y ago
While I agree with you, I would point out that planned economy plans are rarely "for the good of everyone". Planmakers tend to enrich themselves and their buddies. I'm tempted to write never, but there might have been that one historical event when it went right.
- brazzy 12y ago
  That's why I wrote "not even nominally for the good of everyone" - explicit economic plans, at least the socialist variety are usually for the good of all in theory but not in practice. A monopoly-based plan would not even claim to be. Also, I don't think the biggest problem with plans is self-enrichment by the plan makers, but inflexibility, the lack of good information, misaligned incentives and unintended consequences. And the biggest strength of a market economy is not the absence of any of these problems, but that they don't effect everything euqally and the companies that are affected the most just fail without dragging down everything.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >While I agree with you, I would point out that planned economy plans are rarely "for the good of everyone". This is exactly how it works under our system too. Instead of economic planning being set in motion by the nomenklatura, it's done by the heads of major banks.
grondilu 12y ago
I have not used the word monopoly and was merely talking about the right for people to work together. Do you have anything against that?
- brazzy 12y ago
  You said > Saying that only "many players can ensure progress continues" and thus prohibiting companies to merge is interfering with economic freedom in the name of "I know better" Sounds like you're advocating that all mergers should be allowed, even if they produce monopolies, and that not having many players would be OK. The notion that regulation which disallows two billion-dollar companies with thousands of employees to merge because they'd afterwards dominate an important market has anything to do with "the right for people to work together" is somewhere between fundamentalist and disingenuous.

dougabug 12y ago

Corporations are legal fictions. They exist through the power and authority of the State, their contracts are enacted and enforced through agents of the Courts. Corporations are manifestly not free to organize as they will. Is it economic freedom to have one choice for Internet broadband? For healthcare? Unregulated monopolies should supply us with food, water, power, and all other essential utilities/needs? Welcome to the age of thousand dollar a pill medicine. Every communication, location, every purchase, every mouse click or swipe duly tracked, recorded, and data mined. To imagine that as freedom merges the Dickensian with the Orwellian.

NoPiece 12y ago
Welcome to the age of thousand dollar a pill medicine. Every communication, location, every purchase, every mouse click or swipe duly tracked, recorded, and data mined. You are exactly describing the world today, as provided by our big government.
- willvarfar 12y ago
  How would "small" government change it? Being a European living in a country with a "bigger" relative government (as I understand the way Americans use the term) but with free healthcare and a big data mining debate ongoing, I'm a bit at a loss...
  - NoPiece 12y ago
    A smaller government wouldn't have a $52.6 billion budget for the NSA & CIA to data mine. A drug company can only charge a $1000 for a pill because the government is blocking competition by granting patents. Effectively creating a micro monopoly. Small government with extremely limited or no patents would allow competition to fix the $1000 pill. It is industries like healthcare and telecom, where the US has both very large companies and very big government that we have the worst outcomes.
- sergiosgc 12y ago
  Small countries, like mine (.pt), kind of disprove this idyllic vision of small government. Small governments easily fall prey to large multinationals. USA's woes with oligopolies may have many causes. A government concentrated at the federal level isn't probably one of them.