An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
mattstoller.substack.com
An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
1–10 of 160 posts
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#2Sometimes I wonder if 'monopoly' in the US has become a no true Scotsman fallacy. The threshold of direct consumer harm is either so high or evidence requirements so onerous it's as if there is no more Sherman Antitrust Act. The monopolizing doesn't even have to be in a computer or layers of shell companies anymore.
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#3Sometimes I wonder if 'monopoly' in the US has become a no true Scotsman fallacy. The threshold of direct consumer harm is either so high or evidence requirements so onerous it's as if there is no more Sherman Antitrust Act. The monopolizing doesn't even have to be in a computer or layers of shell companies anymore.
I think that's why it's good that antitrust is more than just monopoly but also and other anticompetitive practices.
I would like to see law begin to start with an implicit bias for the underdog, but unfortunately Citizens united and the general principle of money in politics means that larger entities will have disproportionate sway (due to Pareto principle of accrual).
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#4One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem??
Do we want to break monopoly up in favor of a bunch of possibly shittier products?
The real problem It's not the monopoly it's the Monopoly tax.
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#5One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem?? Do we want to break monopoly up in favor of a bunch of possibly shittier products? The real problem It's not the monopoly it's the Monopoly tax.
If a monopolist is efficient, then nationalization is efficient. Break them up or seize them.
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#6One thing we have to ask is the monopolization the problem?? Do we want to break monopoly up in favor of a bunch of possibly shittier products? The real problem It's not the monopoly it's the Monopoly tax.
If a monopolist is efficient, then nationalization is efficient. Break them up or seize them.
That does not follow. "The monopolist can do this efficiently" != "the government can do this efficiently". In particular, the monopolist has given evidence of knowing how to run that operation well. The government has given no such evidence.
I'm not a fan of monopolies, but your position is flawed.
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#7Everyone from Sam Altman to Peter Thiel has been talking about this for years. Capitalists are very straightforward about this - if you want to capture value, find a way to plant your flag in some emerging market and get a monopoly on one or more parts of the value chain. Marketplace operators are especially attractive to investors, because the financials are really pretty - the marketplace provider doesn't own significant assets, only pays for marketplace development costs and sales/marketing, and yet it can levy a tax on a potentially very large market.
Uber, Lyft, Etsy, Doordash, Postmates, Shopify, Spotify, Yelp, Datarade, G2, Capterra, Turo - all are marketplace providers. They don't make a thing. they make the thing that lets a much larger class of thing-makers get in touch with the thing-buyers.
The fervor for marketplace providers has gotten so intense that we're seeing more and more niche businesses get funded, e.g. https://swimply.com/
Edit: ... and don't get me started on how companies (ab)use the 1099 designation to turn traditionally asset-heavy businesses into marketplace providers, generating a lot of paper value while not really innovating in terms of how the service is actually rendered. Looking at you, Arise!
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#8The problem is users don’t necessarily want a fractured market. It’s convenient to have one vendor. In the short term, customers value the simplicity of having just one search engine or e-commerce experience. They don’t think about the long term harms to them / the economy.
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#9Sometimes I wonder if 'monopoly' in the US has become a no true Scotsman fallacy. The threshold of direct consumer harm is either so high or evidence requirements so onerous it's as if there is no more Sherman Antitrust Act. The monopolizing doesn't even have to be in a computer or layers of shell companies anymore.
The passivity against monopolies has more to do with international competition and the fear of losing world domination.
Re: An Economy of Overfed Middlemen
#10Sometimes I wonder if 'monopoly' in the US has become a no true Scotsman fallacy. The threshold of direct consumer harm is either so high or evidence requirements so onerous it's as if there is no more Sherman Antitrust Act. The monopolizing doesn't even have to be in a computer or layers of shell companies anymore.
I think that's why it's good that antitrust is more than just monopoly but also and other anticompetitive practices. I would like to see law begin to start with an implicit bias for the underdog, but unfortunately Citizens united and the general principle of money in politics means that larger entities will have disproportionate sway (due to Pareto principle of accrual).
The volume of law and regulation is a huge implicit subsidy to large corporations. The cost of compliance is challenging, and can be devastating to small-medium companies (which actually try to comply with the law). I think that getting rid of rules like the reporting on conflict minerals, (which don't seem to affect the ferocity or devastation in conflict regions,) which are numerous and surprisingly burdensome, would be very helpful.