Should there have been a limit on how much of the market a corporation can own

Asked by: ramramgeorge
  • The economy would have greatly benefited from it.

    Without a regulated market, the companies are free to occupy as much of the market as possible. This opens up the possibility for monopolies and that can be devastating for the economy.

    First of all, when a sole company owns 100% of a market, it is free to charge it's clients as much as they want without any big repercussions. The balance point between offer and demand plays a huge role in inflation and deflation. One of the factors controlling this balance point is the company's competition. If the company has more competition, it will strive for better service and will have controlled prices (i.E. They would not be allowed to charge you 10$ for a loaf of bread since their competition offers it for 3$). Take away the competition and that said company can charge you any price they please because they offer the only product on the market and have all the demands.

    Secondly, we have seen through America's version of capitalism that not regulating companies does not work. When the market isn't regulated, anybody can occupy any percentage of the market they want. In the beginning this system worked because nobody really occupied a big percentage of the market but now there are few big companies occupying the near totally of their market. This has caused a very clear gap between the working class and the rich class. There so called "American Dream" where a normal citizen could become successful by building a company of their own is now close to impossible to achieve.

    As we've seen from socialist countries' economies such as Sweden, regulating the market would have greatly benefited the economy.

  • This actually would have created a "freer" market.

    The idea of a "free market" is a market where competition is abundant and government regulation is limited. However, its no longer just government interference to worry about, it monopolies, corporatism and the effective elimination of the "abundant competition" part because monopolies would become common. Corporations would become so powerful that they begin to influence politics (as seen today). Even though it MAY mean more innovation what we have is essentially the domination of markets, powerful corporations and the squashing of small businesses. Monsanto is a perfect example.

    If every business is limited to how much of the national market they can own (I would say 8-15%) then this would help cripple this whole "1% problem" we face today. Businesses would actively compete, invest more in R&D and lower prices because TRUE competition that drives so many economies would be abundant and it would actually create more equality because there would be more distribution of wealth while not having to raise welfare payments or spend on expensive socialist programs (as awesome they can be they are VERY expensive).

    This would have eliminated so many problems we face today. Now some may argue that this eliminates the "free" in the "free market" but I don't think allowing monopolies to rise and influence politics (again, like we see today) would be a better choice. It would also allow for more equality at the same time.

  • Reject economic ignorance..

    The idea of a free market is the freedom to buy, sell and trade (or not) as each individual or family sees fit. It is total freedom of choice. I almost fell out of my chair by the suggestion that government interference isn't a concern...I'd retort the overwhelming and ever growing regulations at a cost of $2 trillion is a huge concern as well as the vast and indecipherable federal tax code. We have a myriad of alphabet federal and state agencies that would suggest otherwise. As for monopolies, this is total bunk and the economic evidence has disproven it. Even the theoretical concepts like predatory pricing are preposterous. And the whole line about "influence" in politics is backwards...The government is so massive and interventionist that you must pay your dues and lobby a powerful government and has favors and money to bestow. The only true monopolies can only exist with the force of law..Government monopolies like the beloved TSA.

    Monsanto, like the picture above, is just a boogeyman for the left and a perfect example of ignorance and irrational fear driving left wing causes. The above picture with dioxin listed below..Well, Monsanto was originally a chemical company and they divested from that some time ago. They exclusively focus on biotechnology and agriculture. The only area anyone claimed they were a threat of being a monopoly was in soybeans..And that's because growers prefer them..Consumers decided and the Justice Department couldn't even charge anything under the irrational and archaic antitrust laws. And as for modifying crops..Man has done it for hundreds of years but in this case leftists are afraid of improving technology.

    As for limiting market share, Little Stalin's "8-15%" is totally arbitrary. There was no more calculation than that...A whimsy. Then he lists positive outcomes that have no relation to his sweeping suggestion. How much is Monsanto investing in R&D or do you bother yourself with facts? Try thinking critically..How are you going to force consumers to purchase 8-15% or less...You would destroy innovation..Why would you research more when you are guaranteed punitive action and capped on the amount of return? To avoid getting too much share you would raise prices, not lower them. You'd guarantee a cartel that would give consumers bad products, few choices, and high prices at best. Worse would be the destruction and ruin of the economy, shortages and a lot of misery for the lives of over 300 million people and the inadvertent effect on millions worldwide. You'd give us equal poverty.

    I think the question and the argument for it are complete and utter nonsense. Easy NO vote..

  • You Can't "Own" the Market

    The market can't be "owned," merely supplied to. The market is the combination of all the suppliers and consumers of a certain good or service. In other words, the market is people and in laissez-faire, which adherence to the NAP, NSP, and private property, you cannot own people other than yourself.
    This would not create a "freer" market. A free market is not more competition, it is the freedom to choose what is to be done with your private property. The freedom to exchange what you own for what others own voluntarily in the quest for individual profit. Such a plan as stated in the headline, if it were to actually mean what it intends, would not create a free market, but would actually make a more restricted market by prohibiting with whom you can trade and in what amount.
    I also find the monopolies and corporatism arguments trite. A natural monopoly (one that occurs in the absence of government intervention) is not a problem. In order to maintain the monopoly, it must remain productive and honest. If it fails in this task, another provider will inevitably arise. Furthermore, natural monopolies would be very improbable due to the rapidly changing nature of the free market. Corporatism, as it is known today, is a product of government. It is the people in government who legally defines a group of investors as a legal person and it is politicians who use their positions of authority to grant special favors to special interests, corporate and otherwise. Such favors include the ACA (to make health plans more expensive for smaller competition), higher minimum wage (to make it more expensive for smaller competition to employ people), and prohibitive taxes on big business which discourage entry in to that realm by smaller businesses while the preexisting big businesses have economies of scale to deal easily with all of these. The only similarity between the modern corporation and the original corporation is that it is a group of investors with limited personal liability due to diffuse risks.
    The inequality griping is also quite trite so to answer I shall simply say it is a red herring as it doesn't matter so long as there is growth and freedom. I shall also paraphrase Alexis de Toqueville. "A depraved taste for equality leads men to prefer equality and slavery to inequality and freedom."
    Such a plan, assuming it was even syntactically correct, wouldn't solve problems, it would only create more because it is applying more of the same "solution" of socialism to the perceived "problems" in truly free markets.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.