If there's any single place where the gov absolutely needs to be on monopolies, it's grocery stores.
However, government limits on concentrated ownership would ensure that free market place is functioning properly. What the neoliberal and Reganist's skip over is that free market competition seems to be an unstable state and will tend toward monopoly because the playing field isn't level. There will always be unscrupulous actors and things like the Fed messing with money supply. The role of the government should be to ensure a level playing field, one of which is preventing anti-market mergers.
It's a perfectly reasonable avenue to explore in core productive industries like energy and food.
On the other hand, we don't let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the official policy is to just give them whatever they want. We rarely use our monopsony power as is. (This is finally changing as part of the IRA.)
The airlines got one in 2020 because they have some of the largest union contracts in the country and we don't want to lose that, but that wasn't a pro-management thing.
On the other hand, a social wealth fund would be good, because it's less risky than owning individual companies.
IMHO this shouldn't happen. It's one of the most annoying ideological inconsistencies I find among the Republican party.
The political rhetoric centers on eliminating or reducing government regulations and privatization. Ok cool, it can be good in many sectors. There's a lot to be said about avoiding large bloated bureaucracies and undue government interference. However then as soon as the big banks or other big businesses get into trouble after engaging in risky behavior they're as eager as the Democrats to bail them out (well at least their favorites).
Personally I do believe in fiscal responsibility, and think it applies even more so at large corporate levels. You didn't plan and save enough in the boom times and spent record profits to do stock buybacks? Well perhaps your company should go into chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I think people don't realize that when a big business like say American Airlines goes into bankruptcy, it's rare that the airline and jobs will disappear. It often means the management of the company is booted with a chance for new ownership more competent management to take over. That's as it should be, IMHO. It's the weeding mechanism for free markets.
> so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
That's generally not worked too well, unless it's fixed infrastructure like power, water, etc and those seem to work best at a state or county level. Then they're still structured as corporations, just ones that are publicly owned and locally managed.
Doesn't seem to happen, though. HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model.
> I'd like to see nationalization considered
There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
The contradiction is resolved once you recognize that advertising is not productive labor, unlike food distribution. Nobody can beat Google at what they do, but there's ultimately not a sustainable organic need for what they're selling.
I don't think many tech companies are attractive targets for nationalization for this reason.
> There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
In immature, geopolitically vulnerable economies, often during times of general upheaval. A targeted, degenerative process that is properly incentivized would be different. A "finish line" where getting bought out would be a desirable outcome for most involved.
Yes, it is. Otherwise people wouldn't pay for it.
Is it not simply inevitable that the entities that like having monopolies will continue to accrue capital (political power) to the point that they can influence the government away from preventing monopoly?
We have real world evidence: the usa, and its monopolies and functional monopolies. See: O&G, telecom, ISP, food monopolies for certain restaurants and grocery stores in food deserts.
These entities have acquired more capital, and thus more political power. How do you prevent this?
Money and wealth have more influence and power than ever over our politics.
Populism is a dirty word.
Progressivism used to mean seeking economic fairness Teddy Roosevelt-style and now it means woke identity politics.
Whistleblowers of any kind have no protections anymore.
Any talk of reforming the system is seen as anti-American by the free market crowd.
There's more to binge on Netflix.
What basis are you extending to the government an abuse of it's power? Are there not still already numerous other options existing in the same location, sometimes even being directly across the street from each other?
I don't understand why so many want to be under the boot of city/state/federal, and everything in between. It's mind boggling.
I think people need to be more honest, is the success of the US in spite of the government, or is it because of the government that we are who we are today, and further the future. I will concede all my politics from that point if we can give a direct answer. And not the bullshit weasel answer where it is 'both', it can't be, one operates and limits the other overwhelmingly by force, that is not cooperation, that is coercion.