From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 10:33:42 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> I actually see more potential problem with oligopolies; a true
> monopoly can never exist for long without forcible exclusion of
> competitors, but a small oligopoly (for example, the tobacco
> companies or large media companies) can offer the public much of the
> price and quality benefits of true competition while still excluding
> newcomers, stifling innovation, and controlling information flow.
### Exactly! I always said that size matters.
-------
>
> As die-hard a capitalist as I am, I am not one of those who turns a
> blind eye to the idea that concentrations of wealth and power--even
> when acquired though entirely legitimate, even honorable, means--can
> tend to corrupt those who hold it. I think it's important, though,
> to be restrained in exercising force against such corruption, and it
> should be targeted in the right place.
### What are your ideas about the best way to achieve control over such
power concentrations, while avoiding excessive and arbitrary use of force?
What would you say if the local violence monopoly could charge higher rates
for the protection of large entities (as measured by capitalization),
compared to smaller entities? So, a very wealthy individual (like Gates) or
a medium-sized corporation, would pay the same rate, but a very large
corporation would pay even more. The exact balance of rates would be
empirically chosen to maximize GNP. This approach would not be sufficient -
there would need to be some change of IP laws (abolition?), and others, but
it would be a good start to make large accumulations of power less likely -
but without introducing arbitrary or jealousy-based criteria.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:39 MST