[joz1-k]

The reason governments no longer fight huge corporations or even clear monopolies is also due to heavy globalization. If one government destroys a monopoly (a global mega-corporation) in its country, it may strengthen the monopoly (and the global mega-corporation) in another country. So the line of thinking is, "We don't like this nasty monopoly, but at least it's our monopoly."

[SchemaLoad]

I don't really buy this. The government still has the ability to just ban or tax the foreign monopoly. And seemingly the EU has the ability to fine foreign businesses for being monopolies too.

China being a good example. Google being a monopoly in the rest of the world doesn't really impact them much since they just block the foreign products.

[joz1-k]

> the EU has the ability to fine foreign businesses for being monopolies too.

Specifically, the EU has no ability to fight foreign monopolies. Though, it has an ability to fine them and extort some pocket money from them. However, this hasn't had a tangible effect on creating more competition in those markets.

[xyzzy123]

Then people accuse you of being "protectionist" or "mercantilist". Your companies aren't internationally competitive. This cripples your exports unless you can convince other countries to also block the goods that are undercutting you.

[neves]

I thought it was Super PAC that rigged American democracy. Now China is the more efficient economy since their companies are must obey the State.

[at_compile_time]

We must be working from different definitions of efficient.

Yes, the CCP can say jump and expect their corporations to do so, but when everyone in a modern economy jumps at the same time, massive oversupply is the result. More market-based economies are also prone to similar overproduction when everyone gets caught up in the same mania (see AI datacenters), but investors will eventually stop lighting their money on fire when it becomes clear that the returns aren't there. Chinese companies, on the other hand, will just keep jumping until the CCP decides that they are done jumping.

Our feedback loop is geared towards only doing things that provide a return on investment. Their feedback loop has things like social stability and global competitiveness as competing goals to actually doing productive work.

Yes, they are able to accomplish a tremendous amount when they set their minds to it, but doing a tremendous amount more of something than there is actual demand is waste, the opposite of efficiency.

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/china-is-sending-its-...

[eli_gottlieb]

> Their feedback loop has things like social stability and global competitiveness as competing goals to actually doing productive work.

Sounds like you're making the case for their system here!

[at_compile_time]

When I say they prioritize social stability, I mean that they won't stop producing cars regardless of how little economic sense it makes because they need to keep people employed to stave of massive civil unrest. And global competitiveness counts for little when the countries they want to export to implement anti-dumping policies to protect their own industries from government-subsidized Chinese exports.

[jfengel]

China is efficient but largely because they don't actually have to obey the State. They are capitalist; they compete in the global market and follow market signals.

The CCP does put a heavy thumb on some scales, but so does every country. Perfect efficiency is not optimal when circumstances change, so states always enforce some redundancy.

There are many differences, of course, but just don't get the idea that China consists of monopolies in a command economy. They call it "capitalism with Chinese characteristics."

[prewett]

To be pedantic, it's "socialism with Chinese characteristics". The idea is to save face by renaming "capitalism" as "Chinese characteristics".

[mym1990]

Any source for this? My hunch is that there is so much money sloshing around that government interests are easily swayed and conflicts of interest are relatively common now.

[joz1-k]

What would be an acceptable source for you? Which was the last US mega-corporation that the US government broke up? It certainly wasn't Microsoft or Google. Allowing huge companies to grow even bigger gives them more competitive power in the global market. This wasn't as important before we had super-globalized economies.

[mym1990]

I don't think the question is whether monopolies are being allowed to exist, my question is what is the source as to WHY you think it is happening. A source would be any kind of proof that having a monopoly in one country is a strategic advantage over other countries. Data, publications, etc...

[joz1-k]

> A source would be any kind of proof...

I cannot give you proof for the line of political thinking. :)

> ...having a monopoly in one country is a strategic advantage over other countries.

Having a large, unified domestic market is a strategic advantage because it enables companies to grow to a size that makes them formidable global competitors [0]. The United States and China are examples of this phenomenon. The point isn't whether it's advantageous to allow such companies to become monopolies. Once these companies reach a certain size, politicians are reluctant to break them up because they don't want other global companies to take their place.

[0]: https://companiesmarketcap.com/

[mym1990]

My argument is that the point is whether its advantageous to allow companies to continue to grow because whether a company has a monopoly or anticompetitive edge is the central argument behind breaking them up. By allowing companies to become monopolies or near monopolies, you disturb the very unified domestic market that you initially mentioned, which hamstrings growth in the future.

I believe companies aren't broken up because they are now so big, it is a logistical nightmare to do so, therefore those companies lobby the crap out of politicians to kick the can down the road. NVIDIA is nearly 3x the market cap of the next non-US firm...is that really the global competition you're looking for?