5 ms·
He means a very particular type of monopolist To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from th
by spindritf 12y ago
He means a very particular type of monopolist
To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from the state or innovates its way to the top. I'm not interested in illegal bullies or government favorites: By "monopoly," I mean the kind of company that is so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute.
which is simillar to Robin Hanson's "manic" monopolist
One simple robust solution to the innovation problem would seem to be manic monopolists: one aggressively-profit-maximizing firm per industry. Such a firm would internalize the entire innovation problem within that industry, all the way from designers to suppliers to producers to customers – it would have full incentives to encourage all of those parties to put nearly the right amount and type of efforts into innovation.
It's not about rent seeking, or some silly brand recognition narcissism, but about being able to coordinate and do stuff that would be widely beneficial but unprofitable for any of the participants on their own.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/04/rah-manic-monopolists.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/04/rah-manic-monopolists....
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 12y agoMaybe that's what he means, but there are numerous examples of very innovative monopolies that are "illegal bullies" (e.g. Microsoft) or "government favorites" (e.g. AT&T, Xerox). IBM is probably all three.
- freedom123 12y agoThats the exact point. There has never once, in human history, been a monopoly in a free market. They only exist via government controls. Just study American history between 1900-2000
- roel_v 12y ago"He means a very particular type of monopolist" That's a very kind way of interpreting what he's saying. I'd go as far as saying 'he's redefine common terms to fit a peculiar theory that is nice, simple and wrong". It's mostly populist (to a certain crowd) pandering: a bit of controversy (monopoly is good!), a bit of pseudo-intellectualism (look at me being all academic and worldly!), and some 'please validate my prejudices' (patents bad, government stupid, big business bad except for those I'd want to work for).
- huherto 12y agoIt like saying that a political system based on autocratic capable and benevolent dictator is better than a democratic system. The problem is how to ensure that the dictator remains benevolent.
- latj 12y agoThe world needs fewer Peter Thiels and more Elon Musks; Fewer Steve Jobs and more Woz's; Fewer Rupert Murdochs and more Pierre Omidyars. Fewer Bill Gates and more __someone_who_just_gives_their_wealth_in_cash_to_the_poor_and_in_the_end_probably_does_more_for_them_then_pushing_their_own_beliefs_regarding_educational_philosophy__. More one term presidents, fewer wall street guys, oh and at least one less Kanye West. Please.