One argument that I hear constantly from leftists & socialists is that in a free market some people with plenty of wealth will be capable of buying up and containing most of the industries and companies.
As a result, they state that governments are needed to prevent certain companies from merging including that of NBC & Comcast.
Can wealth consolidation by a few occur in a free market and if possible should government intervene to prevent it?
Can wealth consolidation by a few occur in a free market? It is highly unlikely since there are no monopolies in a free market.
And if possible should government intervene to prevent it? No. The government has no way of knowing if someone has "too much wealth".
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
1147196: One argument that I hear constantly from leftists & socialists is that in a free market some people with plenty of wealth will be capable of buying up and containing most of the industries and companies. As a result, they state that governments are needed to prevent certain companies from merging including that of NBC & Comcast. Can wealth consolidation by a few occur in a free market and if possible should government intervene to prevent it?
That is a classic anti-capitalist appeal to envy.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Just look at the history... real wages increased 5 fold in the first days of capitalism...
A bit of history of gov intervening and its effects:
http://mises.org/daily/436
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
1147196: One argument that I hear constantly from leftists & socialists is that in a free market some people with plenty of wealth will be capable of buying up and containing most of the industries and companies. As a result, they state that governments are needed to prevent certain companies from merging including that of NBC & Comcast.
Is not the government, then, the expression of this very phenomenon? Do such leftists/socialists live in denial of the existence of informal power in government and the power of money lobbies and legal cartels? Surely, these are premier examples of "wealth consolidation". Do the much maligned Russian oligarchs post-perestroika control as much wealth or have as much real power over persons and property as members of the former Politburo had? There's no comparison, in my opinion. This Stalin-era piece of shit would have his thugs kidnap random young women to be brought to his apartment where he would play what he called the "flower game", arranging the women naked in a circle heads together while he circled around, eventually choosing one to drag off and rape. How many of the Russian oligarchs have enough power to do this, if they wanted? Putin's probably the only one, but he's an organ of the State. Go figure.
Well, the term "wealth consolidation" is inherently obfuscatory. It is better to reason about the problem in terms of property in the absence of a monopoly on law and security (State). The implied worry is that without the existence of a law/security monopolist, systemic plunder of individuals (all by all) will occur and those who are best at plundering their fellow citizens will amass most of the wealth. As I pointed out above, I think this is a fairly accurate description of the State itself.
Under the monopoly of law and security, so long as an individual or group of individuals can form a cartel agreement with the blessing of the law/security monopolist (the State), they can aggress against individuals almost completely without fear of retribution. The aggression is of a largely invisible form because it is the prohibition of actions. For example, the Federal Reserve's monopoly is aggressive because it prohibits individuals from producing alternative currencies or banking establishments to compete with the Federal Reserve and its bank notes. The Federal Reserve cartel prevents free entry to the market for producing banking and currency goods and services. This prevention is inherently aggressive because the State will deprive life, liberty and property in retaliation for violation of the Federal Reserve cartel's monopoly on banking and currency issue even though banking and currency issue by individuals not part of the Federal Reserve cartel does not constitute aggression. In other words, a State-enforced cartel violates the non-aggression principle.
The department of transportation can create de facto cartels by preferential awards of state roads contracts. The state's monopoly on production of roads ensures that only those contractors who benefit the potentates at DoT win the contracts, perhaps through indirect - even legal - bribery or other difficult to prove quid pro quo arrangements.
What is primarily of interest is a free market in law and security. Without the monopoly on law, the State's blessed cartels and monopolies could not legally justify their thuggery in using State violence to prevent competition. They would have to accept rational adjudication (which would result in the entrance of competitors into the protected markets) or literally go to war. This lays bare the essence of the State... it blesses its loyal, internal organs with favors obtained by plundering its populace or neighbors in exchange for economic support in times of war when the State must defend those within its boundaries from the rational demands of external market competitors. Tariffs, free trade agreements, foreign aid, and outright military threats are utilized by the State to internalize the benefits of the monopolies it grants to producers within its borders.
No "wealth distribution" is inherently immoral or problematic. What is problematic is systemic violation of human rights (aka property rights). The State is the foremost violator of human rights. Hence, the State is the embodiment of the very thing that leftists/socialists claim they want to use the State to eradicate.
Clayton -
1147196:Can wealth consolidation by a few occur in a free market?
Consolidation is just joint partnership or incorporation between business owners. If it raises productivity, the owners will earn profits as a result, and consumers will be better served. If it lowers productivity, the owners will earn losses, and consumers will be lesser served.
1147196:should government intervene to prevent it?
No. It would be a fundamental violation of property rights, and consumers would be injured as a result. Also, it would reduce productivity throughout the economy.
Because they fail to recognize the difference between economic power and political power. Economic power can be achieved only by voluntary consent. On the other hand, political power is achieved by aggressive force or threat of force, i.e., coercion and compulsion.
Besides, these accusations are very curious in light of the so many examples of huge giant corporations that have fallen in the past and are doing so at present. The market has no mercy for any company no matter how big and influential is perceived to be. Note General Motors requiring the political power in order to stay alive. Note the Big Wall Street banking empires hopeless without government bailouts. Where is this power they are talking about? It is all political power. It is there (statist) policies that are keeping these giants in business. They would have been history if it were up to the free market.
in a truly free market, one profits only by enriching others... where is the need for government intervention?