
MIT Professor says powerful elites set up monopolies so they can abuse consumers - teslacar
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/12/what-bill-gates-got-wrong-about-why-nations-fail/?re
======
dang
It breaks the HN guidelines to rewrite titles like this, so please don't.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
M_Grey
I imagine that it would be intolerable to have a huge amount of money and
power, and also accept that you're part of the root cause of the worst the
world has to offer. When you can convince yourself that you're a "thought
leader" instead, and that you would be more responsible with those riches
anyway... well... of coursed you believe that.

Most people with very little personal impact and responsibility struggle to
accept their small role in things. I suppose it would be too much to expect
more from people just because they managed to get money. It's not too much to
demand though.

~~~
xiphias
What's interesting is Peter Thiel is one of the few rich people who accepts
and says it openly that creating monopoly is the only way to get extremely
rich. Although I don't like the deals he does to get government contracts, I
can't deny that he's quite successful in creating monopoly.

~~~
whack
To be fair to him, the argument he's making is in essence the same argument
behind the patent system. That in a world of perfect economic competition, all
economic profits will be competed away. In such a world, no one has an
incentive to create or fund startups, because even if they are successful,
their economy profits will vanish due to competition. Hence, if you want to be
successful as a startup, you need to find a business model that grants you at
least a temporarily Monopoly. This also happens to benefit society for the
same reasons that a patent system benefits society.

You may not buy the intellectual argument above, but at least he isn't saying
it with malevolent intent.

~~~
kem
Is it really true that in a world of perfect competition profits would be
competed away? It depends on what you mean by "perfect," but I always assumed
there would still be differences in skills, access to certain resources, and
whatnot, so that profits might be decreased, but not eliminated.

The point you're making, though, is why patents are so important to get right
and not overextend. I'm personally opposed to them completely, although I
respect arguments for limited patents.

~~~
slavik81
'Perfect competition' is a technical term, like 'ideal gas'.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition)

~~~
whack
To add on, my previous post was referring to "economic profits", which is
different from nominal profits. A sublink from above clarifies this further.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Normal_pro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Normal_profit)

------
jeffbush
I read the book "Why Nations Fail." I found it to be poorly organized and
repetitive. But the biggest problem I had with it was that it suffered from
the fallacy of the single cause. The authors tried to attack every other
theory about the prosperity of nations in favor of their one thesis. Their
arguments against other theories seemed weak and poorly supported. While I
think there is truth to their hypothesis that economic prosperity is related
to inclusiveness of a society, and they presented some sound arguments for it,
trying to say it is the only cause is a bridge too far in my opinion.

------
bediger4000
Amusing who argues against the idea that elites set up monopolies to accrue
money and power.

------
cypherpunks01
I'm pretty sure you don't need a PhD to figure that one out!

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Indeed. And worse, we have antitrust laws _on the books already_. All that
remains is to actually enforce them.

------
coldtea
> _MIT Professor says powerful elites set up monopolies so they can abuse
> consumers_

It takes a MIT processor to know that?

~~~
jhoechtl
No, the majority wouldn't listen to others

