Technically, if you take all the rules out of a football game then nobody can cheat.
The idea of regulation is not to stifle younger, newer innovators. It's to prevent the larger players from taking over and locking out competition. At one point, it was illegal to own more than 40 TV stations.
I've no doubt that fans of regulation want good things. However, the result of said regulation rarely matches those intentions.
Not to go all Dr. Phil, but insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result.
Media control regulations lock in big media. Note that we didn't even get a fourth network until TV started to lose marketshare. (Yes, no one owned more than 40 stations, but that restriction didn't affect media control.)
>What we've seen happen in history is the massive consolidation of companies. Look at the media industry, for example.
The media market is fluid and competitive. The top players today are not the same top players of 10 or 20 years ago. The industry has also not become much more consolidated over the past few decades.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29001.html
>we all know that once a monopoly is established, a company has no incentive to innovate.
A sluggish monopoly is a ripe target for new competitors, as long as the government or other barriers to entry don't get in the way.
See Firefox/Internet Explorer.
> If America is going to be more capitalistic, the people with the money should be driving innovation, not stifling it. They need to act responsibly with their money, and that includes being philanthropic and charitable.
I have rarely seen innovation come from philanthropic or charitable acts. The vast increase in technology, efficiency, and productivity of the last 50 years can largely be attributed to selfish, for-profit actions.
>When they just hoard it all and it becomes a competition to see who can hold the biggest pot, I don't think you deserve to have it in the first place
In the process of "hoarding" wealth, they create value. See my previous point.
> It's actually driving the middle class out of existence.
Bullshit:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/26/new-income-and-pov...
I think you are using the term "middle class" in an atypical way.
Consider a person who has "a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded...his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs"
Would you categorize this person as middle class? I think most people would (I certainly do). (If not, please explain.)
It turns out the person I just described is the median poor American. Everyone is now middle class, even the poor.
Justin.TV to the rescue! ;-)
What we've seen happen in history is the massive consolidation of companies. Look at the media industry, for example. It is now impossible to create your own TV network, and it will probably soon be impossible to compete freely on the Internet because the same conglomerates that dominate the cable and phone industry are trying to do the same thing with the Internet. I have two words that can summarize the entire thing: network neutrality. Complete deregulation is a bad idea; what happens if you take all the rules out of a football game? Everyone will cheat.
How does this relate to the topic? We don't like people who get their money for two reasons, in my opinion. We don't like people who are anti-competitive, and who try to dominate markets (such as the Internet, cable, and television industries) and intentionally want to stifle innovation. That's not contributing to society, and we all know that once a monopoly is established, a company has no incentive to innovate.
The other reason I personally dislike people with great wealth is because they're not being fiducially responsible. If America is going to be more capitalistic, the people with the money should be driving innovation, not stifling it. They need to act responsibly with their money, and that includes being philanthropic and charitable. When they just hoard it all and it becomes a competition to see who can hold the biggest pot, I don't think you deserve to have it in the first place (think Elon Musk, and how much money he has invested into SpaceX and Tesla Motors). What we have now is a massive gap in income disparity, and that's pissing off the lower and middle class. It's actually driving the middle class out of existence, and I would say at that point the wealth isn't being distributed evenly enough.
That's my take on why we dislike wealthy people. At least some of them. As the article pointed out, I really do think some self-made rich individuals rightfully deserve it and are acting responsibly.