I was thinking about reguIation and anti-trust and was wondering. We know the government isn't to be trusted, that their interests aren't with the people, so what if the idea of reguIation and anti-trust circumvented governmental involvement almost entirely? I'm thinking that the latter could merely act as a mediator, not so much at a legislative capacity.
How would it work?
If some pre-established company, whether it be Walmart or otherwise, starts their own thing next to you, they may not seII the exact same item less than x% you currently are. If there are multiple businesses within the area (how area is defined is important) and x% = 50%, that would be .5^n times. So if there are two, they wouldn't be able to seII it less than 25% than the average of the two. These numbers are arbitrary.
This only applies if you are considered a s maII business (how that's defined could be something like having <y total Ioc ations under your company name) and are self sustained (proven by audit, which might help keep businesses clean) and have been established there for x yrs.
The smaller business would have to notify the company, aforementioned, who would then have <insert amount of time> to comply. If they do not, only then would the government get invoIved.
Note: Just so you all know, I'm a capitalist. That doesn't mean I don't think it can't be updated. I would love to improve my understanding of the economy but haven't yet done so, so forgive my naivete. These are just ideas. I know these things can be misused either way and would like to hear what you guys think, whether it can be improved or whether it's just crap.
Monopolies only come into being when the government is in play, as the government is the monopoly. Hence, the Federation of Sovereign States prohibited from combining together ....
A company is a state too. And the only way they can do what they do, if there is excess cash to be had. This currency is often borrowed in league with banks.
Which means, it makes no sense to discuss the issue if the premise on which the discussion rests is flawed.
So, if Bank A provides Walmart with a loan of say 1 billion, to make sure you get shafted in competition, you should be able to throw a billion at them.
Then we have the following problem: personhood of business. Because of the separation of equity between the owner and the executive, businesses are treated differently when they have personhood. Faceless, lifeless. This breeds a type of executive who does not care one single penny because
They can do what they do because ppI are lazy only see $ and don't have the discipIine (cultural laziness) to go elsewhere. That being said, if what you inevitably saave is 1c, then that same laziness may yet prevaiI. Either way, the reason why I wrote it all is so they have no other choice than to pIayfair.
Indeed! We still have a lot of work to do! One man at a time!
In the UK we created a Monopolies Commission - only one, obviously!
So the conglomerate would still sell products for less than the mom and pop store?
Depends how much. The values are arbitrary, once again. The idea is, if they can't even do so for less than 1% beIow, say, the smaIIer businesses, would they even bother?
Comprehension grown by adaptation to perceivable MONO- (singular) POLY- (plural); while resisting the temptation to ignore it for suggested "monopoly" and that ain't combat either; it's balance.