Look, there is no such thing as a "natural market" that can keep the power of the actors in it in check. The internet was the closest thing to a perfect market that has ever existed and all it has produced is overpowered monopoly after overpowered monopoly.
If we want a free society, we don't get that by handing power over to the markets. We get that by building the most responsive democracy we can, and then using that to keep power (in all its forms, including business) in check.
So who decides which businesses are too powerful? People, elected and held accountable by citizenry at large.
There are lots of good examples of better functioning democracies and a fair amount of theory on reforms that could improve even those (things like ranked choice voting).
That's why I said "Build the most responsive democracy we can".
So your example is valid but maybe not for the point you're trying to make?
I'm all for good regulation and strong government. However, making good laws and regulations is not easy! The details of these things is incredibly important and can't be solved by some sort of generic market vs government debate.
And while I do think government has a role to play, most of our regulations are poorly designed and have been captured by corporate interests.
I don't see how the proposed rule could be implemented in a way that would have the desired outcome.
We don't avoid writing code just because it's inevitably buggy and has unintended side effects. Indeed, there's a whole mentality of "move fast and break things" - essentially damn the side effects and full speed ahead - because we, as a sector, recognize that you have to take risks to make the world a better place. Yet, we forget that when it comes to using government power (our collective power) to make laws that shape our world.
Now, I'm not a proponent of "move fast and break things" - more, move steadily and make the best decision you can in a reasonable time frame. But "move steadily" is still moving. We can take our time writing legislation and regulations and do our best to get it right, and still also work to build responsive systems so that when it's inevitably buggy we can fix the bugs.
As I said in the second sentence, the problem with the US right now is that it was intentionally constructed to be the opposite of a responsive democracy.
So, per all of my questions, how does this idea work? How is market share defined and measured?
> most of our regulations are poorly designed and have been captured by corporate interests
Isn't the second comment a generic statement? Do you have specific data? I agree that the details are incredibly important.
But about the issue at hand, I've been specific in my critique: market share is an amorphous concept and thus ill-suited to legislation and a prime opportunity for regulatory capture.
Nah, I’ll pass. Markets are made up of people, they’re not just some abstraction. Governments have good uses, but determining who is participating in what market and how much market share they have or are allowed to have isn’t one of them.
Some of these are just, useful, bad, abhorrent, unnecessary, necessary, or outmoded.
None of that falls into commanding the economy. We’re not even strangers to command economies: the wartime powers of the Federal government are vast, and were most powerfully executed in World War II.
I would argue that exactly what the parent suggested, in respond to the GP falls exactly into that bucket of ideas for commanding the economy. It’s not a just nor good use of Government, no matter how Democratic.
1. The parent is advocating for a powerful form of command over the economy.
2. I am not advocating for lawless markets.
Proving a monopoly exists or are forming could be another way to do so, but so far they have recently made lackluster arguments in Courts of Law on that front.
If you then prove a monopoly, can you also then prove that it’s activities are harmful to the people in the marketplace by denying them choices they would otherwise have? Maybe, but probably not very often and certainly not easily.
