> The best solution is to nationalize it.
No, break them up. Governments are terrible at running businesses. Fragment the market legally so competition can't be eliminated by a monopoly. A competitive market is better than a government run monopoly.
No, break them up. Governments are terrible at running businesses. Fragment the market legally so competition can't be eliminated by a monopoly. A competitive market is better than a government run monopoly.
https://www.thestreet.com/opinion/amazon-is-losing-money-fro...
$4.2B revenue with 40% market share has $0 market share tax and keeps $4.2B; $5B revenue with 50% market share has $800M market share tax and keeps $4.2B; $7B revenue with 80% market share has $2.8B market share tax and keeps $4.2B;
This would reduce the incentive to grow market share above the threshold. A 40% threshold allows for two companies to max out market share and a 30% threshold allows for three companies to max out market share.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System [2] https://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/smbs-small-and-midsize-b...
Have a theory on corporate organization for cases of industries where there is heavy capital investment to enter, but low marginal cost. A cooperative style organization where regional sellers can freely enter or join, but cannot do business with each other. The cooperative would own in the case of telecommunications the backbone, and the research labs (if research is needed that the regional companies cannot afford themselves). So that it won’t be a franchised monopoly, the cooperative doesn’t have patent or trade secret rights, it can’t sue competitors out of existence.
Influenced by mutualism.
Market share tax just results in companies redefining their industry.
Do you have a specific example?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
HN is a community. Users needn't use their real name, but should have some identity for others to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a very different kind of forum. There are legit uses for throwaways, just not routinely.
Lots more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Pure ideology, and trivially factually wrong.
- Nationalization means the government owns the business, not that it runs it. Only difference is who collects the profits, Bezos or everyday people.
- Norway and the other Scandy countries have high levels of public ownership and huge public sectors. Their economies run great.
"Some of these SOEs are businesses often run by states: a postal service, a public broadcasting channel, an Alcohol retail monopoly. But others are just normal businesses typically associated with the private sector.
In Finland, where I know the situation the best, there are 64 state-owned enterprises, including one called Solidium that operates as a holding company for the government’s minority stake in 13 of the companies.
The Finnish state-owned enterprises include an airliner called Finnair; a wine and spirits maker called Altia; a marketing communications company called Nordic Morning; a large construction and engineering company called VR; and an $8.8 billion oil company called Neste.
In Norway, the state manages direct ownership of 70 companies. The businesses include the real estate company Entra; the country’s largest financial services group DNB; the 30,000-employee mobile telecommunications company Telenor; and the famous state-owned oil company Statoil."
Read more here: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/14/the-state-ow...
Including the airport train which even Trygve Hegnar, editor of Kapital and as capitalist as they come, says is one of the best run companies in the country. The Conservatives (Høyre) keep on promising it to sell it even though it is profitable, and Hegnar says it is unlikely that anyone else could run it better.
A distinction without a difference, owners appoint who runs it, they effectively run it.
> Norway and the other Scandy countries have high levels of public ownership and huge public sectors. Their economies run great.
Tiny economies with largely mono culture populations who align on this political ideology; that won't work here, our diversity also includes ideological diversity that would never allow this kind of program to be implemented so it's a non-starter proposal.
When a government is as ideologically split as our is, they are ineffective and bad at doing things due to the constant infighting and battling of ideologies. So no, it's not factually wrong at all, it's reality.
It's like saying, "Hey Ethiopia, you should just be more like Canada and that would solve all your problems!"
The US isn't Ethiopia. It has ample resources to solve all its problems given the political will. It just needs to overcome its irrational fear of the welfare state.