Every market exists within a regulatory system, which exerts power over the participants in the market. Using wealth, you can acquire influence, and thereby direct the power of the regulatory system to inhibit your competition, or create a legal monopoly for yourself. A free market is not magic; people have to make it happen, and people have many motivations beyond the freedom of markets.
> In a free market, you get wealthy by creating wealth, not concentrating it.
This sounds incredibly naive. Competition does not magically prevent monopolies -- once you have a dominant player they just buy or undercut the occasional competing startup.
Unregulated capitalism inevitably trends towards a mafia state with an oligarchic structure and concentrated monopolistic power. It’s just an empirical fact at this point.
The engine that really drives innovation and wealth creation is regulated capitalism that preserves competitive markets by restraining anticompetitive behavior.
If you’re ideologically attached to capitalism I have good news for you. That’s the approach that leads to its most effective implementation.
If you’re ideologically attached to “market fundamentalism” as I suspect, which is a reflexive opposition to regulation, then this concentrated market structure is what you’re advocating for.
> Unregulated capitalism inevitably trends towards a mafia state with an oligarchic structure and concentrated monopolistic power. It’s just an empirical fact at this point.
Has there ever been a jurisdiction with unregulated capitalism? I'm unaware of any.
Even the most laissez-faire economies have had bedrock legal infrastructure: property rights enforcement, contract law, courts, which is regulation.
Maybe you’re thinking of anarcho-capitalism? But that has never worked at scale.
> It does both!
No, it does not concentrate wealth. Wealth is not a fixed pie. In a free market, you get wealthy by creating wealth, not concentrating it.
As for monopolies, competition is what prevents them.
Every market exists within a regulatory system, which exerts power over the participants in the market. Using wealth, you can acquire influence, and thereby direct the power of the regulatory system to inhibit your competition, or create a legal monopoly for yourself. A free market is not magic; people have to make it happen, and people have many motivations beyond the freedom of markets.
> In a free market, you get wealthy by creating wealth, not concentrating it.
You can do either, or both.
This sounds incredibly naive. Competition does not magically prevent monopolies -- once you have a dominant player they just buy or undercut the occasional competing startup.
> once you have a dominant player they just buy or undercut the occasional competing startup
If they buy startups, a thousand more will spring up hoping to be bought. Investors love this game.
And if you think undercutting works, read up on the story of Dow and how they broke the German bromine monopoly [1].
There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. Only governments can create monopolies, usually through regulation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Henry_Dow#Breaking_a_m...
2 replies →
Unregulated capitalism inevitably trends towards a mafia state with an oligarchic structure and concentrated monopolistic power. It’s just an empirical fact at this point.
The engine that really drives innovation and wealth creation is regulated capitalism that preserves competitive markets by restraining anticompetitive behavior.
If you’re ideologically attached to capitalism I have good news for you. That’s the approach that leads to its most effective implementation.
If you’re ideologically attached to “market fundamentalism” as I suspect, which is a reflexive opposition to regulation, then this concentrated market structure is what you’re advocating for.
A free market relies on prohibition of using force or fraud in one's dealings.
If what you mean by "mafia" is "your signature on the contract or or brains" that is not free market.
> Unregulated capitalism inevitably trends towards a mafia state with an oligarchic structure and concentrated monopolistic power. It’s just an empirical fact at this point.
Has there ever been a jurisdiction with unregulated capitalism? I'm unaware of any.
Even the most laissez-faire economies have had bedrock legal infrastructure: property rights enforcement, contract law, courts, which is regulation.
Maybe you’re thinking of anarcho-capitalism? But that has never worked at scale.