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.
Marxist theorists downplay this, since it is (for most) a maintained hypothesis that state action can't really change capitalism. But we have lots of evidence that it can change, for better or worse.
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.
Hu Alan, there are lots of reasons to be concerned about and interested in monopoly, moral, political, and economic. Those don't go away even if monopoly capitalism thesis is discarded.
My bad, I'm sorry, I left out a few words... "starts with Adam Smith" should have come after the ? in etc?... I was, quite poorly, looking at the way the concern goes way back before the 20th C in economics. I promise to do better editing in future comments.
Well, there is a big difference between monopolies being inevitable (which is the Monopoly Capitalism thesis) and them being recurring but potentially transitory events. The Chicago school seems committed to the idea that most (non-Natural) monopolies are transitory. But even if that is too optimistic (as I happen to think), designing policy (anti-trust, framework/institutions, competition, protecting the political system from corruption, etc.) is a distinct task.
I can see why my 'tend' confuses. Originally Marxists were hard determinists/necessetarians. I suspect these days it's a lot more hedged, hence my weaselly way of putting it..
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.
Marxist theorists downplay this, since it is (for most) a maintained hypothesis that state action can't really change capitalism. But we have lots of evidence that it can change, for better or worse.
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?
Can you remind me of that formalization, George?
They're working on it at Stanford, the bots are, even as we speak.
In his lifetime, my father worked at McDonnell, Douglas, *and* Boeing. It'd be much simpler for him today.
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.
Hu Alan, there are lots of reasons to be concerned about and interested in monopoly, moral, political, and economic. Those don't go away even if monopoly capitalism thesis is discarded.
My bad, I'm sorry, I left out a few words... "starts with Adam Smith" should have come after the ? in etc?... I was, quite poorly, looking at the way the concern goes way back before the 20th C in economics. I promise to do better editing in future comments.
Well, there is a big difference between monopolies being inevitable (which is the Monopoly Capitalism thesis) and them being recurring but potentially transitory events. The Chicago school seems committed to the idea that most (non-Natural) monopolies are transitory. But even if that is too optimistic (as I happen to think), designing policy (anti-trust, framework/institutions, competition, protecting the political system from corruption, etc.) is a distinct task.
I can see why my 'tend' confuses. Originally Marxists were hard determinists/necessetarians. I suspect these days it's a lot more hedged, hence my weaselly way of putting it..