Letting markets 'actually be free' can naturally lead to monopolies without anyone around to stop the bigger companies crushing competitors
This enabled the Robber Barons of the 19th century and lead to the current anti trust laws.
> Letting markets 'actually be free' can naturally lead to monopolies without anyone around to stop the bigger companies crushing competitors
This enabled the Robber Barons of the 19th century and lead to the current anti trust laws.
The Robber Barons also contributed immensely to society. Their money helped create arts endowments, public libraries, conservation lands, colleges and universities, etc.
The Robber Barons also contributed immensely to society. Their money helped create arts endowments, public libraries, conservation lands, colleges and universities, etc.
Some did yes. Others contributed to local infrastructure for personal reasons.
But much like Bill Gates and his generosity, it's an exception and not the norm.
Plus Rockefeller (the first to come to my mind) is a poor example due to being basically the richest man in all of history.
Some did yes. Others contributed to local infrastructure for personal reasons.
But much like Bill Gates and his generosity, it's an exception and not the norm.
Plus Rockefeller (the first to come to my mind) is a poor example due to being basically the richest man in all of history.
Regulations can work to enable market access for smaller players, not just to strengthen the positions of bigger companies. Letting markets 'actually be free' can naturally lead to monopolies without anyone around to stop the bigger companies crushing competitors. A competitive, efficient market needs (good) regulations. I do agree that Congress isn't the place to go for good regulations, but unfortunately there's nothing else available. It's a broken system.