> What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly.
No, they're saying a company can have too much economic power without being a full monopoly.
>No, they're saying a company can have too much economic power without being a full monopoly...
But that's not a problem.
Monopolies are problems, not strong economically powerful companies. I mean, up in my neck of the woods, ADM and Cargill are unimaginably powerful economically speaking. But it just makes no sense to say that they are as dangerous as having one company that IS the entire food market.
Yes, strong economically powerful companies are a problem.
Or rather, lets say it like this: This history of strong economically powerful companies points to them being problematic for democratic societies.
Why? Because the stickier the product, the more "powerful" the company, and the more likely they are to do things like regulatory capture and exert significant control of democratic levers.
Make no mistake that corporations are political entities and are not-neutral in that respect. So the bigger the company, the more they can exert influence well beyond their ability to provide goods/services.
No, they're saying a company can have too much economic power without being a full monopoly.