Imagine if companies really had to compete to offer the best products like capitalist apologists preach?
The works of malicious compliance that came from this would be epic.
If your company exceeds >35% market share of an industry, the state should be given an option to take control of that company at a set price.
The Russian govt thanks you for your service
“We want to help you make smart purchasing choices with your money! Now here are all the alternate companies that we own, have a stake in or have a trade agreement with!”
You can’t have that percentage be higher than 20%, & have it work right.
50% & you’ve already reduced that market-segment to a 2-horse race or monopoly.
You have to prevent that, XOR you’re creating a national-dependency on “too big to fail” corporation, which is certain, sooner or later, to become a national footgun.
_ /\ _
Agree that a maximum of 20-25% market share (so a 4 or 5 horse race) makes it a more fair fight, admittedly on nothing but vibes and experience. And markets without the competition require any majority holder to help competitors gain a foothold and create the competition. This would minimise desire to create monopolies as they would be forced into breaking them.
I know in practice this would never happen but I’m talking hypotheticals here.
Nice idea, but the monopoly laws already tried to address this phenomenon and companies just restructured to avoid them.
In your scenario, a company just has to split their market in half, rename the product for half their customers, and they’re no longer holding 50% of the market.
A good example of this is Japanease luxury car brands. They only exist so manufacturers could get around limits imposed by the US on number of imports. Two companies owned by one at the top doubled the amount they could import.
That’s actually super interesting. Any info on US based similarities (ie Ford/ Lincoln)? Are they for similar purposes or just following suit?
So base it on the parent corporation, and added bonus, no linking to your own companies as ‘competitors’.
Capitalism excels at breeding innovation. Not in like, useful technology or anything, but in constructing labyrinthine bureaucratic structures to bypass regulations.
Isn’t that the truth?
We could do it the ethical way, but let’s spend twice as much effort trying to cheat.
I think forcing interoperability between similar services would help with this. No more company-specific printer ink. No more “exclusive” chat services.
If a service is bad you can just change it without having to change who still use it/what uses it
Imagine Spez’s reaction if he was forced to federate.
Once you hit 50% of market share, all owners get a thank you card and pizza party. It’s then nationalized.
Na, they must open source all the platforms they use. Not own, use. Outsourced your hr to Workday? Well now workday have to open source or you need to cancel your contract.
What economic system is OP an apologist for?
Companies already have to do this when they break the law. They write a stupid hidden page where the text is 3 pixels high. Doesn’t work.
nah, I’m talking about a fixed banner on top 0 on every page taking to a competitors list they do not control :)
How about any firm that hits a 15% share of any significant mature market gets declared the winner and is abolished.
Why would it be abolished?
You’d have to change services commonly
It should not happen often. If it does, something’s wrong with your system of regulation.
How would abolishing work? Just delete the company and fuck the clients?
I, too, hate monopolies and centralization, but that just seems inconvenient
Like, Valve’s steam has reached past 15%, would everyone lose access to the games?
