There used to be much stronger protections on these monopolies, at least in newspapers and such. It's definitely been a step backwards as a country to remove those limits IMHO. I'm pro-capitalist in many areas I don't think a government monopoly on stores would be good at all.

However, government limits on concentrated ownership would ensure that free market place is functioning properly. What the neoliberal and Reganist's skip over is that free market competition seems to be an unstable state and will tend toward monopoly because the playing field isn't level. There will always be unscrupulous actors and things like the Fed messing with money supply. The role of the government should be to ensure a level playing field, one of which is preventing anti-market mergers.

As somebody with a more critical stance towards capitalism, monopolies strike me as the logical conclusion of a market system. Firms that reach this stage become (even more) parasitic and should be dealt with, but it seems counterproductive to dismantle that success. I'd like to see nationalization considered in more of these discussions.

What's so good about nationalizing things? Governments don't need to own things to regulate them. If you (the public) own something then it's your problem if it goes into debt.

Drastically reduced out of pocket costs from a lack of profit motive, and the ability to leverage this purchasing power to negotiate further savings with other participants in the supply chain.

It's a perfectly reasonable avenue to explore in core productive industries like energy and food.

The profit motive is what causes lower costs; where else would the margin come from? And it's also nice to not own PG&E considering how much debt they're in.

On the other hand, we don't let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the official policy is to just give them whatever they want. We rarely use our monopsony power as is. (This is finally changing as part of the IRA.)

The US military doesn’t have a profit motive, has massive leverage over most of its key suppliers, and yet I do not think anyone would list “cost control” among its virtues.

If it did, we'd save a lot of money purchasing tanks, guns, F-35s, drones, etc. from China.

The government regularly uses taxpayer funds to bail out or support failing private corporations anyway, so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?

> The government regularly uses taxpayer funds to bail out or support failing private corporations anyway,

IMHO this shouldn't happen. It's one of the most annoying ideological inconsistencies I find among the Republican party.

The political rhetoric centers on eliminating or reducing government regulations and privatization. Ok cool, it can be good in many sectors. There's a lot to be said about avoiding large bloated bureaucracies and undue government interference. However then as soon as the big banks or other big businesses get into trouble after engaging in risky behavior they're as eager as the Democrats to bail them out (well at least their favorites).

Personally I do believe in fiscal responsibility, and think it applies even more so at large corporate levels. You didn't plan and save enough in the boom times and spent record profits to do stock buybacks? Well perhaps your company should go into chapter 11 bankruptcy.

I think people don't realize that when a big business like say American Airlines goes into bankruptcy, it's rare that the airline and jobs will disappear. It often means the management of the company is booted with a chance for new ownership more competent management to take over. That's as it should be, IMHO. It's the weeding mechanism for free markets.

> so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?

That's generally not worked too well, unless it's fixed infrastructure like power, water, etc and those seem to work best at a state or county level. Then they're still structured as corporations, just ones that are publicly owned and locally managed.

No they don't. Those are usually loans, don't confuse a bailout with a loan. And don't assume equity holders do nothing but profit; if it fails they get nothing.

The airlines got one in 2020 because they have some of the largest union contracts in the country and we don't want to lose that, but that wasn't a pro-management thing.

On the other hand, a social wealth fund would be good, because it's less risky than owning individual companies.

> monopolies strike me as the logical conclusion of a market system

Doesn't seem to happen, though. HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model.

> I'd like to see nationalization considered

There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.

> HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model.

The contradiction is resolved once you recognize that advertising is not productive labor, unlike food distribution. Nobody can beat Google at what they do, but there's ultimately not a sustainable organic need for what they're selling.

I don't think many tech companies are attractive targets for nationalization for this reason.

> There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.

In immature, geopolitically vulnerable economies, often during times of general upheaval. A targeted, degenerative process that is properly incentivized would be different. A "finish line" where getting bought out would be a desirable outcome for most involved.

> advertising is not productive labor

Yes, it is. Otherwise people wouldn't pay for it.

The fact that people pay for something is not an indication that it is productive labor.

Do you buy things you don't want?

How do you ensure, or guarantee preferably, that the government will continue to provide a level playing field by preventing anti-market mergers, when capital provides political power?

Is it not simply inevitable that the entities that like having monopolies will continue to accrue capital (political power) to the point that they can influence the government away from preventing monopoly?

We have real world evidence: the usa, and its monopolies and functional monopolies. See: O&G, telecom, ISP, food monopolies for certain restaurants and grocery stores in food deserts.

I mean, Standard Oil did get broken up. Ma Bell did get broken up. Clearly at some point the US government was able to resist pressure from these wealthy and well-connected corporates, and break them up for the sake of the rest of us. What's changed since then?

> What's changed since then?

These entities have acquired more capital, and thus more political power. How do you prevent this?

I don't think it's that simple. Standard Oil was huge, the companies of that era owned whole towns.

Right-wingers took more control over the parts of the government responsible for fighting monopolies

A Supreme Court ruling that allowed essentially unlimited and unregulated anonymous spending on political campaigns as being protected by the first amendment.

Money and wealth have more influence and power than ever over our politics.

> What's changed since then?

Populism is a dirty word.

Progressivism used to mean seeking economic fairness Teddy Roosevelt-style and now it means woke identity politics.

Whistleblowers of any kind have no protections anymore.

Any talk of reforming the system is seen as anti-American by the free market crowd.

There's more to binge on Netflix.

Volkswagen owns Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley, Audi, Skoda, Seat, and a few others