Sowell is a national treasure, as has been said here recently.
One area where monopolies naturally form is where the barrier to entry is small market size. There simply is not a big enough market for more than one firm to survive. But in most markets, that is not true, and competition will emerge. Amazon is successful because it provides a service that nobody else has yet been able to beat. But given access, and maybe a strategic slip by Bezos, that is likely to happen. But it will take time.
The largest companies ca. 1900 were the railroads. Most of them do not exist anymore, and those that do certainly do not have the economic (market) power they once did.
Investment money goes in many different directions, because investors have different goals, priorities, time horizons, and risk tolerance. Telecom is what some refer to as a 'natural monopoly' because of the high capital cost of building the infrastructure. Same with power utilities. However, technology is ever-evolving. Much of telecom is now wireless, and you don't have to run miles of cable to operate any more. Technology changes things, mostly for the better but not always. AI is a case in point: the jury is out on that, mostly because the people developing it do not seem to have the general public's best interest at heart. We will see.
But as Mr Sowell points out, monopolies are the exception, not the rule; and in most cases they are either ephemeral (new firms will beat them as the world changes) or locked in by regulation. Investors always look for the best return (however they prioritize it) and while everyone would like to own a profitable monopoly, it usually does not last forever. Look at things over the time horizon of Kondratieff cycles, or centuries, and what seemed like an impenetrable fortress monopoly fell by the wayside after failing to keep up. The moon, after all, can be a harsh mistress -- in more than one way.
Well, as for Bezos, I imagine his cloud computing for the CIA will assure no laws will change that would put his monopoly at risk in any way, and I imagine he will get just about whatever laws he wants enacted or changed. His fellow cult figure Croesus Elan who absolutely would not be what he is, like Bezos, without government largess, has run afoul of said government, and may just get the Trump treatment.
Looking at history however, while monopolies fall, another seems to take it's place.
Otherwise, some businesses will be large. But people matter. And this economy acts like neither people nor the earth matters.
The economy is agnostic with respect to the earth, if you are referring to environmentalism. But it is sensitive to people, because it is driven by consumer sentiment and motivations. If people care about the environment, their sentiment will affect the market.
The modern world's first great public works project was the London sewer project, which came about because the people of London were tired of living in a sewer, in the world's richest city. So they set about building the modern world's first underground sewer, and vastly improved their standard of living.
Your earlier point about the downfall of Rome is significant, however, because Rome had underground utilities (water and sewer) and formulas for concrete which the modern world has yet to match. So finding a way out of this mess without throwing out the baby is indeed the key to moving forward. Keeping a limited government, doing only the things that truly require a centralized, force-based approach, while letting the market's 'invisible hand' guide the economy, is IMO the best solution going forward. Not perfect, but better than the others.
Always remember that capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised, except for all the others that are worse. I don't remember who said that but it is true.
I would amend that to say economics is agnostic, but then David Ricardo believed the earth to be basically inexhaustible, which still largely holds sway, which is not an agnostic stance. I still hold that this very fixed economy does not at all care for the health and welfare of people or the earth. An economy could be very good for the health and welfare of people. But you are right, a majority of Americans would have to care, and a majority of Americans simply don't.
I want a free market too. This economy rather seems headed in the direction of digital, programmable coin, ever more control over consumer choices, ever more gov collusion with corp, and maybe even a controlled population drawdown. So actually the most successful capitalists seem like they are trying to make capitalism looks like the most totalitarian and most deadly system ever devised, so hopefully they don't ruin the idea of a free market too. Because the woke brigade taking over institutions is most definitely not free market.
Both economics (the science) and the economy (of a civilization) are agnostic to anything that does not impact consumer perception and preference, except for externalities like government regulation. As corollary, the economy does not care about anything -- it has no consciousness at all.
Individuals have opinions, to which the economy is agnostic except for their individual (minuscule) impact on the overall system, and the extent to which they can affect the preferences of others.
The economy, left to its own, is neither 'good' nor 'bad,' it simply exists. What is good is that (without government interference) it enables participants to choose their own preferences and to satisfy them without interference from regulation or for the most part, the preferences of others, limited only by their own means.
Your definition of 'care' is not the same as that of others. That is always true. People care about different things. If you believe that something you care strongly about is important, then in a free world where you have freedom of speech, you are given the opportunity to convince others that the things you care about are or should be important to them. If you succeed, then these things will be reflected in market preferences, and the market or economy will adjust to reflect that. The 'invisible hand.'
I would not worry too much about where the market, economy, or 'system' is headed today. Change is afoot. What we have in 5 or 10 years will look very different than today. It may -- or may not -- look like the WEF's great reset. Something is about to get reset, for sure; but nobody knows how it will all work out. The fires have been lit, but nobody (on this earth) controls the wind. Again, you still have the opportunity to speak out and convince others that the things you care about should matter to them. People, even the normies, are looking for that sort of leadership. They want something to care about and work for, that will make their children's and grandchildren's lives better. So be a beacon of light to the world. You might be surprised at the effect.
I have been speaking up about it all my adult life, just as I am with you. My reach however is as nothing compared to Bezos, Larry Fink, Jerome Powell et al. They define modern economics for us. Do we have a choice about Fed printing? They are not agnostic. They are actively gaming the system. They do not care about us or the earth as much as they do about their control of the economy. The economy is such people. The economy is people.
Much of the groundwater in Minnesota is polluted with nitrates+, undrinkable, here in the land of ten thousand lakes. Is that because of gov interference, or a lack of it? Is that a consumer choice? What would change that, when agribusiness dictates it, and anyone who does care is outnumbered and feels mostly hopeless? The WEF claims to care but every one of their agricultural policies seeks greater control over people and to seperate people further from the land, and even as part of a planned depopulation.
I suppose I sound fatalist. When all I really want is fresh, healthy water and soil, and biodiversity. But tell me, what in keynsian, Austrian, chicago school or neoclassical economics in any way suggests that is desirable or economic?
Agreed that what we have now is a heavily gamed system, not even close to a free market that responds to individual actions the way Adam Smith meant.
Pollution: that is an economic good, or perhaps I should say lack of pollution is an economic good. In my hometown of Midland, Mich. -- not too far from you -- my father who was a research chemist at Dow always thought that they should have bragged more about what they did to keep the environment clean. The plant (at the time the largest chemical plant in the world inside a single boundary) is located on a relatively small river, from which it gets all of its process water. Dow's management, this was in the 1950s, decided that they would invest in technology to return used process water to the river cleaner that it came in, and with no increase in temperature which can harm aquatic life. They did this and many other things without an EPA (didn't exist) or anyone else telling them that they should. It cost quite a bit of money, but they did it because they believed it was the right thing to do. They lived near that river, their kids were growing up in that town, and an un-polluted (or maybe less polluted) world was an economic good in which they were willing to invest some of their shareholders' money. Like the London sewer -- initiated by citizen dissatisfaction, not government mandate -- given an otherwise adequate standard of living, people will choose a cleaner, less polluted world as an economic good. It is not free, but it is worth having and spending some resources on.
Pollution in Minnesota as elsewhere comes I am sure from a number of sources. One of the problems with pollution is what economists call 'the tragedy of the commons.' You may know of it, but for the benefit of readers who don't, this was the old 'village green' where anyone was free to graze their animals. Problem was that this tract of land had very low productivity; pastures require time to re-grow after being grazed and if that is not done, they end up hardscrabble, unproductive land. But by waiting for the pasture to return to strength, it was a sure bet that someone else would put their cow on it before you did. You can see what happens, and the inevitable result.
The tragedy of the commons, like polluted waterways, are a result of damaging things happening without the person doing the damage paying any price. This is an 'inefficiency' or fault in the market. If dumping excess nitrates had a price reflecting its actual effect on everyone using those waterways, then much less excess nitrates would be used. WEF's 'solution' is to arbitrarily ban or severely reduce nitrogen fertilizers -- which coincidentally also results in less food being produced, so some of us useless eaters will likely starve to death. A better solution is to put a price on the pollution, paid by the polluter. That will not eliminate pollution entirely, but it will reduce it and ecosystems can recover from some pollutants, provided that the abuse is not excessive.
Farmers, like the managers at Dow in the 1950s or Londoners in 1858, don't want to live in a polluted environment any more than anyone else. This is a case where the market fails by failing to put a price on a common good. Regulation can be tried (e.g. fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards for cars; elimination of phosphate in laundry detergents) but it almost always results in a suboptimal solution. Regulation is, however, one of the favorite tools of what Sowell calls 'the Anointed' -- people who feel that they are more virtuous than us, and therefore are obligated to control us to 'do what is right.' As Fauci said, "Do what you are told!"
So how to put such a price on pollution? I don't have the answer, but it is easier to move toward a solution once the problem is fully understood. Rushing to 'regulate' is the instinct of the Anointed, i.e. politicians and the deep state. Remember that farmers are people too, they don't want to waste fertilizer, and they along with their state extension services (Minnesota has a good one) will, given time and the proper initiatives, find ways to more efficiently use fertilizer, giving both improved yields and reduced pollution. That will only happen once society decides it is an important goal and worth investing in. Cases like this are examples of situations where government investment in university research can be beneficial, provided that the farmers and rest of the stakeholders all have a voice in the process. We have to be careful though, because it is from exactly such good intentions that impersonal behemoths like EPA were birthed, and they now exist primarily to justify their own existence and to spread money around to a class of people that return the favor with campaign donations and other corrupting practices.
So I've rambled on a bit (!?!) but hopefully you can see that while markets are very efficient at what they do, and in most cases better than alternatives, they are not perfect. The tragedy of the commons is one of the most noted examples of that. Finding ways to address these failures is one of the challenges we will have, going forward, after the existing system implodes of its own weight and the dissatisfaction of its subjects. Hopefully we will not descend again into the abyss in which we now find ourselves. That is the lesson that governmental overreach can teach us, as we go forward.
Sowell is a national treasure, as has been said here recently.
One area where monopolies naturally form is where the barrier to entry is small market size. There simply is not a big enough market for more than one firm to survive. But in most markets, that is not true, and competition will emerge. Amazon is successful because it provides a service that nobody else has yet been able to beat. But given access, and maybe a strategic slip by Bezos, that is likely to happen. But it will take time.
The largest companies ca. 1900 were the railroads. Most of them do not exist anymore, and those that do certainly do not have the economic (market) power they once did.
Investment money goes in many different directions, because investors have different goals, priorities, time horizons, and risk tolerance. Telecom is what some refer to as a 'natural monopoly' because of the high capital cost of building the infrastructure. Same with power utilities. However, technology is ever-evolving. Much of telecom is now wireless, and you don't have to run miles of cable to operate any more. Technology changes things, mostly for the better but not always. AI is a case in point: the jury is out on that, mostly because the people developing it do not seem to have the general public's best interest at heart. We will see.
But as Mr Sowell points out, monopolies are the exception, not the rule; and in most cases they are either ephemeral (new firms will beat them as the world changes) or locked in by regulation. Investors always look for the best return (however they prioritize it) and while everyone would like to own a profitable monopoly, it usually does not last forever. Look at things over the time horizon of Kondratieff cycles, or centuries, and what seemed like an impenetrable fortress monopoly fell by the wayside after failing to keep up. The moon, after all, can be a harsh mistress -- in more than one way.
Well, as for Bezos, I imagine his cloud computing for the CIA will assure no laws will change that would put his monopoly at risk in any way, and I imagine he will get just about whatever laws he wants enacted or changed. His fellow cult figure Croesus Elan who absolutely would not be what he is, like Bezos, without government largess, has run afoul of said government, and may just get the Trump treatment.
Looking at history however, while monopolies fall, another seems to take it's place.
Otherwise, some businesses will be large. But people matter. And this economy acts like neither people nor the earth matters.
The economy is agnostic with respect to the earth, if you are referring to environmentalism. But it is sensitive to people, because it is driven by consumer sentiment and motivations. If people care about the environment, their sentiment will affect the market.
The modern world's first great public works project was the London sewer project, which came about because the people of London were tired of living in a sewer, in the world's richest city. So they set about building the modern world's first underground sewer, and vastly improved their standard of living.
Your earlier point about the downfall of Rome is significant, however, because Rome had underground utilities (water and sewer) and formulas for concrete which the modern world has yet to match. So finding a way out of this mess without throwing out the baby is indeed the key to moving forward. Keeping a limited government, doing only the things that truly require a centralized, force-based approach, while letting the market's 'invisible hand' guide the economy, is IMO the best solution going forward. Not perfect, but better than the others.
Always remember that capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised, except for all the others that are worse. I don't remember who said that but it is true.
I would amend that to say economics is agnostic, but then David Ricardo believed the earth to be basically inexhaustible, which still largely holds sway, which is not an agnostic stance. I still hold that this very fixed economy does not at all care for the health and welfare of people or the earth. An economy could be very good for the health and welfare of people. But you are right, a majority of Americans would have to care, and a majority of Americans simply don't.
I want a free market too. This economy rather seems headed in the direction of digital, programmable coin, ever more control over consumer choices, ever more gov collusion with corp, and maybe even a controlled population drawdown. So actually the most successful capitalists seem like they are trying to make capitalism looks like the most totalitarian and most deadly system ever devised, so hopefully they don't ruin the idea of a free market too. Because the woke brigade taking over institutions is most definitely not free market.
Both economics (the science) and the economy (of a civilization) are agnostic to anything that does not impact consumer perception and preference, except for externalities like government regulation. As corollary, the economy does not care about anything -- it has no consciousness at all.
Individuals have opinions, to which the economy is agnostic except for their individual (minuscule) impact on the overall system, and the extent to which they can affect the preferences of others.
The economy, left to its own, is neither 'good' nor 'bad,' it simply exists. What is good is that (without government interference) it enables participants to choose their own preferences and to satisfy them without interference from regulation or for the most part, the preferences of others, limited only by their own means.
Your definition of 'care' is not the same as that of others. That is always true. People care about different things. If you believe that something you care strongly about is important, then in a free world where you have freedom of speech, you are given the opportunity to convince others that the things you care about are or should be important to them. If you succeed, then these things will be reflected in market preferences, and the market or economy will adjust to reflect that. The 'invisible hand.'
I would not worry too much about where the market, economy, or 'system' is headed today. Change is afoot. What we have in 5 or 10 years will look very different than today. It may -- or may not -- look like the WEF's great reset. Something is about to get reset, for sure; but nobody knows how it will all work out. The fires have been lit, but nobody (on this earth) controls the wind. Again, you still have the opportunity to speak out and convince others that the things you care about should matter to them. People, even the normies, are looking for that sort of leadership. They want something to care about and work for, that will make their children's and grandchildren's lives better. So be a beacon of light to the world. You might be surprised at the effect.
I have been speaking up about it all my adult life, just as I am with you. My reach however is as nothing compared to Bezos, Larry Fink, Jerome Powell et al. They define modern economics for us. Do we have a choice about Fed printing? They are not agnostic. They are actively gaming the system. They do not care about us or the earth as much as they do about their control of the economy. The economy is such people. The economy is people.
Much of the groundwater in Minnesota is polluted with nitrates+, undrinkable, here in the land of ten thousand lakes. Is that because of gov interference, or a lack of it? Is that a consumer choice? What would change that, when agribusiness dictates it, and anyone who does care is outnumbered and feels mostly hopeless? The WEF claims to care but every one of their agricultural policies seeks greater control over people and to seperate people further from the land, and even as part of a planned depopulation.
I suppose I sound fatalist. When all I really want is fresh, healthy water and soil, and biodiversity. But tell me, what in keynsian, Austrian, chicago school or neoclassical economics in any way suggests that is desirable or economic?
Agreed that what we have now is a heavily gamed system, not even close to a free market that responds to individual actions the way Adam Smith meant.
Pollution: that is an economic good, or perhaps I should say lack of pollution is an economic good. In my hometown of Midland, Mich. -- not too far from you -- my father who was a research chemist at Dow always thought that they should have bragged more about what they did to keep the environment clean. The plant (at the time the largest chemical plant in the world inside a single boundary) is located on a relatively small river, from which it gets all of its process water. Dow's management, this was in the 1950s, decided that they would invest in technology to return used process water to the river cleaner that it came in, and with no increase in temperature which can harm aquatic life. They did this and many other things without an EPA (didn't exist) or anyone else telling them that they should. It cost quite a bit of money, but they did it because they believed it was the right thing to do. They lived near that river, their kids were growing up in that town, and an un-polluted (or maybe less polluted) world was an economic good in which they were willing to invest some of their shareholders' money. Like the London sewer -- initiated by citizen dissatisfaction, not government mandate -- given an otherwise adequate standard of living, people will choose a cleaner, less polluted world as an economic good. It is not free, but it is worth having and spending some resources on.
Pollution in Minnesota as elsewhere comes I am sure from a number of sources. One of the problems with pollution is what economists call 'the tragedy of the commons.' You may know of it, but for the benefit of readers who don't, this was the old 'village green' where anyone was free to graze their animals. Problem was that this tract of land had very low productivity; pastures require time to re-grow after being grazed and if that is not done, they end up hardscrabble, unproductive land. But by waiting for the pasture to return to strength, it was a sure bet that someone else would put their cow on it before you did. You can see what happens, and the inevitable result.
The tragedy of the commons, like polluted waterways, are a result of damaging things happening without the person doing the damage paying any price. This is an 'inefficiency' or fault in the market. If dumping excess nitrates had a price reflecting its actual effect on everyone using those waterways, then much less excess nitrates would be used. WEF's 'solution' is to arbitrarily ban or severely reduce nitrogen fertilizers -- which coincidentally also results in less food being produced, so some of us useless eaters will likely starve to death. A better solution is to put a price on the pollution, paid by the polluter. That will not eliminate pollution entirely, but it will reduce it and ecosystems can recover from some pollutants, provided that the abuse is not excessive.
Farmers, like the managers at Dow in the 1950s or Londoners in 1858, don't want to live in a polluted environment any more than anyone else. This is a case where the market fails by failing to put a price on a common good. Regulation can be tried (e.g. fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards for cars; elimination of phosphate in laundry detergents) but it almost always results in a suboptimal solution. Regulation is, however, one of the favorite tools of what Sowell calls 'the Anointed' -- people who feel that they are more virtuous than us, and therefore are obligated to control us to 'do what is right.' As Fauci said, "Do what you are told!"
So how to put such a price on pollution? I don't have the answer, but it is easier to move toward a solution once the problem is fully understood. Rushing to 'regulate' is the instinct of the Anointed, i.e. politicians and the deep state. Remember that farmers are people too, they don't want to waste fertilizer, and they along with their state extension services (Minnesota has a good one) will, given time and the proper initiatives, find ways to more efficiently use fertilizer, giving both improved yields and reduced pollution. That will only happen once society decides it is an important goal and worth investing in. Cases like this are examples of situations where government investment in university research can be beneficial, provided that the farmers and rest of the stakeholders all have a voice in the process. We have to be careful though, because it is from exactly such good intentions that impersonal behemoths like EPA were birthed, and they now exist primarily to justify their own existence and to spread money around to a class of people that return the favor with campaign donations and other corrupting practices.
So I've rambled on a bit (!?!) but hopefully you can see that while markets are very efficient at what they do, and in most cases better than alternatives, they are not perfect. The tragedy of the commons is one of the most noted examples of that. Finding ways to address these failures is one of the challenges we will have, going forward, after the existing system implodes of its own weight and the dissatisfaction of its subjects. Hopefully we will not descend again into the abyss in which we now find ourselves. That is the lesson that governmental overreach can teach us, as we go forward.
Historical references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_sewer_system#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
(yes I know, wikipedia... but these topics are not very controversial and are reported pretty well there, FWIW)