If markets were actually competitive, corporations would keep their prices as low as possible as they competed for customers. Instead, the concentration of the American economy into the hands of a few corporate giants gives them the power to raise prices with impunity — costing the typical American household an estimated extra $5,000 per year.
Antitrust law enforcement used to be a thing of the past. It's a big deal that the Biden administration is reviving it.
@rbreich It's also a question of the incentives having shifted. Most of the global economy is now in an acquisition and hoarding mode of operation. The goal is not sustainable income or sustainable growth but simply destroying competitors and charging rents on existing investments.
The only point of new innovation is to stake out a new space to charge rent on.
@rbreich Every few decades, the harm from business consolidation becomes obvious enough that someone can make political hay from it.
Mergers where any participant has a dominant position should be no by default. The company that wants to do one, should have the burden of proof to show benefit, and if the benefit does not materialize, the combination should be broken up again.
@rbreich I used to work with a guy who was as far to the right politically as I am to the left. We both travelled a lot, and when the Northwest/Delta merger happened, we couldn't help but agree that a deal like that is terrible for air travelers.
We happened to be together when Citizens United was announced: same deal, we both thought it was bad news.
But I still think the best anti-monopoly approach would be a progressive profit tax linked to market share. The path to higher retained earnings would be to divide the monopoly into competing companies.
What is wrong with that idea? I'm too stupid to spot the problem.
By the way, detection of monopolies would mostly involve asking customers how many real choices they have. But wannabe competitors' complaints should also be considered.
Add comment