There's a lot of pre-19th century historical background here. To cut straight to the contemporary stuff, start at the question "Okay. How does that industry look now?"<p>> "we are having all of these discussions in America about inequality. Inequality in wealth. Inequality in voice. And yet no one’s looking at one of the main sources of that inequality, which was the overthrow of antitrust in 1981 by the Reagan Administration."
I find the commentary here rather odd. Most of you have colored this as some kind of left wing ranting but this stuff is the core of Adam Smith's philosophy. When he talked about a "Free Market" the freedom he was talking about was the freedom to enter or exit the market. These issues about people not being able to farm without the say-so of a large purchasing corporation goes right to the core of that freedom. That's as anti-free-market as it gets.<p>How you can call people asking for an actually free market "leftist" is kinda weird to me.
Sigh. Ideologues drinking and re-drinking their own bathwater. The thesis of this article is nearly opposite of the truth. Capitalism -- the kind we have evolved (call it socio-crony-capitalism) -- has badly wounded free markets.<p>Here's at least a bit of an antidote: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw</a>
The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion against the way in which tea was to be distributed. The Tea Act (whatever it was called) set up a new system for distribution in which the East India company designated specific people at each port to receive their tea and sell it. This replaced an auction system. In Boston, they chose Thomas Hutchinson's sons, the governor who was already reviled by the public. So it was less about East India's monopoly and more about the favors it received from the British government which allowed it to maintain monopoly status. His point really holds no water.<p>Worse, he brushes aside the completely valid point about how the East India Company's monopoly was granted by the government.<p>> And they actually understand that you have to regulate the system to get competition.<p>What about all of the monopolies that have been created by regulation? The competition that has been destroyed? That <i>must</i> be factored in before making the decision that we need more regulation to get competition. We must try to see the unseen consequences. For each example he provides of a lack-of-regulation-created monopoly (And seriously, toothpaste? There are plenty of brands besides those two.), you can find a government created monopoly.
<i>And they actually understand that you have to regulate the system to get competition.</i><p>Talk about your gob-smacking statements! That's right up there with "<i>War is peace</i>", "<i>Freedom is slavery</i>" and "<i>Ignorance is strength</i>".<p>Oh well, Oceania is our ally, Oceania has always been our ally...