MIT Professor says powerful elites set up monopolies so they can abuse consumers

It breaks the HN guidelines to rewrite titles like this, so please don&#x27;t.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html</a>

I imagine that it would be intolerable to have a huge amount of money and power, and also accept that you&#x27;re part of the root cause of the worst the world has to offer. When you can convince yourself that you&#x27;re a &quot;thought leader&quot; instead, and that you would be more responsible with those riches anyway... well... of coursed you believe that.<p>Most people with very little personal impact and responsibility struggle to accept their small role in things. I suppose it would be too much to expect more from people just because they managed to get money. It&#x27;s not too much to demand though.

I read the book &quot;Why Nations Fail.&quot; I found it to be poorly organized and repetitive. But the biggest problem I had with it was that it suffered from the fallacy of the single cause. The authors tried to attack every other theory about the prosperity of nations in favor of their one thesis. Their arguments against other theories seemed weak and poorly supported. While I think there is truth to their hypothesis that economic prosperity is related to inclusiveness of a society, and they presented some sound arguments for it, trying to say it is the only cause is a bridge too far in my opinion.

Amusing who argues against the idea that elites set up monopolies to accrue money and power.

I&#x27;m pretty sure you don&#x27;t need a PhD to figure that one out!

&gt;<i>MIT Professor says powerful elites set up monopolies so they can abuse consumers</i><p>It takes a MIT processor to know that?