[tuatoru]

This process is intrinsic to capitalism, though.

Every company has to get bigger by swallowing others, or instead be swallowed by another company that does it.

The board game "Monopoly" is a pretty good simplified simulation of the system's structures and operation. Fun for all in the early stages, not so much in the end game.

[eulers_secret]

Remember when ma bell was split up? Now there's a strong distaste for breaking up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antit... - The FTC seems to prefer to prevent monopolies by considering and blocking acquisitions... but this clearly has blind spots.

Like all economic systems, a strong and independent state/gov't is required to force-fix issues that don't make financial sense to fix (ex. FDA creation after The Jungle). I think our current system is suffering from regulatory capture, and I don't see a way to resolve this kind of near-corruption. Corporatism will continue until the system is no longer sustainable, which likely will never happen (within our lifetimes).

[LAC-Tech]

I feel like most governments speed up this process, ie by giving tax cuts to huge businesses to set up operations in their jurisdiction. Which in practice means actively punishing smaller businesses.

[lotsofpulp]

Technology speeds up the process.

[freedomben]

I have gripes with capitalism, but this isn't one. Capitalism essentially allocates resources to where they are most efficient (although IMHO not as purely as most Austrian economists would argue, because people aren't all that rational and information asymmetry makes rationality impossible in many other cases). Sometimes (ok often) that goes to huge megacorps due to economies of scale, but in return you take on massive bureaucracy that makes you less efficient, opening the door for disruption. Disruption happens all the time to big players that don't continue doing the best for the least[1]. Now that said, as barriers of entry continue to accrete due to regulatory capture and deep tech, I do worry that the ability for startups and small business to compete may decline.

Monopoly is a vastly over simplified model that doesn't consider much of modern economics. Interestingly, it was actually invented to demonstrate to people how evil capitalism is[2].

[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creativedestruction.asp

[2]: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20170728-monopoly-was-i...

[mytherin]

> Monopoly is a vastly over simplified model that doesn't consider much of modern economics. Interestingly, it was actually invented to demonstrate to people how evil capitalism is[2].

Close. Monopoly was created by Lizzie Magie, a Georgist, and its purpose was to demonstrate how evil land ownership by monopolies/rent seekers is and to advocate for a Land Value Tax [1]. Many of the forces you describe that apply to other areas in economics do not apply to land. You cannot create new land, after all.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)#Early_history

[freedomben]

Yes thank you. The point about not being able to create new land is a very good one.

[pessimizer]

The most direct message it sends is that even though everyone can start in the same place with the same resources, chance will ultimately and quickly lead every other player being in debt to the winner. Georgism is a socialism, believing that land is part of the common-wealth, so it should be rented, not owned.

[aksss]

Monopoly is simplified not only in its portrayal of one market, but in the fact that it's only concerned with one market. The reality of capitalism also includes this dynamic of new markets being created organically and deliberately, particularly as some markets close up. Innovation and entrepreneurial endeavors enabled by legal profit incentive are a big part of the full landscape of capitalism and are missing from any lessons we might try to project from Monopoly.