Capitalism and monopolism

[Andy Lopata]

On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 12:53  PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
>> Capitalism is a good idea, as long as it has the form of a lot of
>> small,
>> widely varying subjects. The current trend of consolidation brings away
>> both the competition and the choice, and with high-enough barriers to
>> entry there will be no new small subjects to disrupt the balance.

On Friday, May 02, 2003 2:32 PM, Tim May wrote:
>Yes, you are right, the great electronics companies of the 1960s sit
>astride our economic life, crushing the life out of real competition!
>With Fairchild and Rheem Semiconductor and Mohawk Data Sciences
>controlling everything, new ideas and innovations cannot be developed!

>And the 1970s were much, much worse, with the computer companies
>consolidating their power and dominating all computer work! Who can
>innovate when Burroughs, Honeywell, Data General, Univac, NCR, DEC, and
>CDC utterly dominate?

What about Intel and Microsoft?  When the few microchip companies make a
deal with the copyright content cartels (RIAA and MPAA) and the desktop
operating system monopoly (MS), then gov't action isn't needed to restrict
the way we use our computers - and the flow of information.

Simply put, markets lead to consolidation.  Consolidation leads to monopoly.
Monopoly leads to control from above, with no accountability.  Is this
better than gov't?  I certainly see the dangers of gov't: state terrorism,
state ineptitude, state racism and xenophobia, but I see market control as
at least as dangerous since corporations are not accountable to any sort of
democratic control - and I don't think the people with the most capital
necessarily make the best decisions.