Coincidentally, your newsletter release coincides with just-announced acquisition plans in Canada, for digital giant Rogers to buy Shaw (smaller but significant Canadian digital entity), despite how this will ramp up monopolistic control over this sector in Canada. The bid to allay anti-trust concerns is to dangle the carrot of providing connectivity to rural and First Nations communities (federal government political promise nowhere near fruition). Suffice it to say your newsletter is timely.
Interesting project and in my opinion there is indeed a need to focus on market power and not just cost efficiency and pricing/consumer welfare.
What I've been wondering myself (and I guess it follows a bit on what Roger says below), is whether it really matters if there are more competitors, when they're all solely profit driven enterprises (owned by monetary focussed shareholders). In the end they'll still try to squeeze out as much as possible, or drive down costs in other ways. If there are a 1000 small companies polluting instead of one giant one, which one is easier for a government to tackle?
I could also imagine that for some platforms/organizations (Uber, FB, the postal office) it could be convenient if there's only one. But what if this one platform is a cooperative, or a non-profit, aimed at a plural of goals instead of only monetary gains (e.g. for a taxi platform: driver welfare, customer welfare, traffic safety, and more.)?
Hypothetically, if the institutional context can be organized in such a way that, within this monopoly, potentially conflicting interests (/groups such as drivers, customers, government) have a certain amount of power, then the monopoly of this organization on a specific market could be justified. What do you think about this idea, wouldn't this also lead to a more balanced economy?
Congratulations on organizing your effort. Giant, monopolistic corporations and hedge-fund rollups are rapidly extinguishing the last remnants of humanity in our societies.
Great we need to stop this Greed/Govt-Donor-Chumocracy/Monopoly power in all countries - with Employees taking greater share in Boardrooms, with changeovers every year to prevent sycophantic sympathisers becoming embedded. GB is a good example of the corrupt disgrace of power over and to the detriment of the ordinary taxpayers - unrealised by the masses!! Ignorant as to how they are being conned and used. Good luck - let's look after ALL of the people of our world and stop this Climate Change damage, from the greed too - for the many, not just the few!! Thank you.
Wow this sounds amazing. Great work guys! I will be spreading the word for sure 👏👏👏
Good luck. Valuable and important work. Does your interest extend to land monopoly? Love to talk if it does!
Good luck. I hope your vision helps determine the manifesto of all of the UK's political parties.
Definitely a very important but enormous task ahead deserving widespread support.
Excellent news ... these are issues where too little research and advocacy is being done. I look forward to seeing this develop.
Coincidentally, your newsletter release coincides with just-announced acquisition plans in Canada, for digital giant Rogers to buy Shaw (smaller but significant Canadian digital entity), despite how this will ramp up monopolistic control over this sector in Canada. The bid to allay anti-trust concerns is to dangle the carrot of providing connectivity to rural and First Nations communities (federal government political promise nowhere near fruition). Suffice it to say your newsletter is timely.
Yes, yes, yes and yes to your aims, your angle, your hard work and your heart! Thank you for bringing this all together in one place.
Interesting project and in my opinion there is indeed a need to focus on market power and not just cost efficiency and pricing/consumer welfare.
What I've been wondering myself (and I guess it follows a bit on what Roger says below), is whether it really matters if there are more competitors, when they're all solely profit driven enterprises (owned by monetary focussed shareholders). In the end they'll still try to squeeze out as much as possible, or drive down costs in other ways. If there are a 1000 small companies polluting instead of one giant one, which one is easier for a government to tackle?
I could also imagine that for some platforms/organizations (Uber, FB, the postal office) it could be convenient if there's only one. But what if this one platform is a cooperative, or a non-profit, aimed at a plural of goals instead of only monetary gains (e.g. for a taxi platform: driver welfare, customer welfare, traffic safety, and more.)?
Hypothetically, if the institutional context can be organized in such a way that, within this monopoly, potentially conflicting interests (/groups such as drivers, customers, government) have a certain amount of power, then the monopoly of this organization on a specific market could be justified. What do you think about this idea, wouldn't this also lead to a more balanced economy?
Congratulations on organizing your effort. Giant, monopolistic corporations and hedge-fund rollups are rapidly extinguishing the last remnants of humanity in our societies.
Great we need to stop this Greed/Govt-Donor-Chumocracy/Monopoly power in all countries - with Employees taking greater share in Boardrooms, with changeovers every year to prevent sycophantic sympathisers becoming embedded. GB is a good example of the corrupt disgrace of power over and to the detriment of the ordinary taxpayers - unrealised by the masses!! Ignorant as to how they are being conned and used. Good luck - let's look after ALL of the people of our world and stop this Climate Change damage, from the greed too - for the many, not just the few!! Thank you.
Great stuff but your focus is on regulation.
In the end you have to address the issues of ownership , public ownership and trusteeship.
see Ownership, agency, and trusteeship_ an assessment, Oxford Review of Economic Policy _
You cannot have a Balanced economy without the scope for public ownership.
I'm sure you know that but it needs to be said.