[At the end of this post I have some house-keeping announcements.] Marxism predicts that left to its own devises capitalism tends toward monopoly. Let's call this the 'monopoly capitalism thesis.' I suspect the most famous articulation of this thesis was develop in the context of debates over the nature and fate of early twentieth century imperialism. For, both
Need to take policy into account. Up to 1970s, anti-trust policy was strong. So, observation of no change consistent with policy constraining a tendency to increased concentration. Experience since Chicago anti-trust revolution supports this.
In a totally free market capitalism, with unlimited competition, monopoly in any given industry is inevitable. Given the appropriate formalization, the conclusion follows analytically. IMHO. But what do I know?
Not formally an economist, isn't the concern with monopoly and its moral perils - and thus the importance of anti-monopoly regulation, national ownership of transportation and information infrastructures, etc? and thus my wondering about ideas of mixed economies being more associated with the 20th C than the start of economics itself.
Need to take policy into account. Up to 1970s, anti-trust policy was strong. So, observation of no change consistent with policy constraining a tendency to increased concentration. Experience since Chicago anti-trust revolution supports this.
In a totally free market capitalism, with unlimited competition, monopoly in any given industry is inevitable. Given the appropriate formalization, the conclusion follows analytically. IMHO. But what do I know?
Not formally an economist, isn't the concern with monopoly and its moral perils - and thus the importance of anti-monopoly regulation, national ownership of transportation and information infrastructures, etc? and thus my wondering about ideas of mixed economies being more associated with the 20th C than the start of economics itself.