and Company B starts selling widgets cheaper, Company A should have to compete with Company B.

if only govs would plug all loopholes allowing heavy tax optimizations (like the google does) they wouldn't have to specifically tax rich 😉

Or they can buy 51% of their stocks, and then just shut the competition down

Also disgusting.

But, of course, that's only a problem if the stocks trade publicly.

If it's privately held, you can guard against that.

or just phone the guys at the other company and agree to stay above a certain price
or advertise your products so differently that consumers can't compare properly

There is a myriad ways to undercut a startup with a big wealth

The main point I think is that we regulate wrong.

Our regulations are set to make it harder to compete

not to make it harder to monopolize.

then there's also sectors where infrastructure costs create natural monopolies (broadband, utilities)

Corporatism favors the big companies. Capitalism creates a more even playing field.

Any industry should be disruptable.

<:thonkraka:430185885720510475>

@RyeNorth Yup. You got it right.

Perhaps disallowing corporations to own intellectual property might help.

Specifically what comes to mind is the pharmaceutical industry.

IP is such a silly concept
owning ideas or concepts makes no sense

Part of the corruption in that field is that it's prohibitively expensive to compete, regardless of how easy a drug is to manufacture.

I can kind of get it for creative purposes

State should also do the kind of "baseline regulation" in some cases, i.e. offer the services at the low (but fair) price so that there would be a baseline and jacking prices up would be not viable for the private sector (unless they can offer some excellent addition that is worth more)

i get the argument that creators deserve credit
but that's not how IP law is structured

This sort of "soft regulation" works much better than any legislation does

I'm not so sure it would.

It lets market do its thing, but sets a limit

The State should not be competing in the market.

why not?

The state should be far more passive than it is.

if they can offer the same or better service at lower price, surely that's good

if the state is passive, it'll simply lose to the competition

@shinsoo Patent and copyright is just abused and misused. Does not mean those types of protections should not exist.

<:shrug_raka:430185885988945921>

The problem is patent trolling.

true, it just means they shouldn't exist as they do now

but the very idea of owning a non-physical concept sits badly with me

THere's probably plenty of advancements that have been stymied because someone somewhere holds a patent and wants their money for vaguely describing something someone else did the work for.

The thing is: state can afford to lose. Even if their offer is not the best, the mere existence of it would prevent the olygopoly or price damping

The Free Market has shown us in the past that if there is a cheaper way to do something, someone will come in to disrupt the market.

also it can provide the service where business considers it unprofitable

free market lol