« Poverty, altruism & communication | Main | Capitalism & investment »

September 22, 2010



It seems to me that capitalism does seek to suppress competition. The current form of capitalism does this by working with governments to raise entry barriers and gain many forms of subsidy which aid in forming oligopolies.

(we are of course here talking of capitalism in its original sense, not the rehabilitation attempt which equates it with free markets - in which case we don't have capitalism).

Luis Enrique

It makes quite a difference (as I'm sure you know) whether firms kill their competition by out-competing them, or by lobbying to obtain protection. Which did Cable mean? If the former, why's he making that sound like a bad thing?


Financial firms may well be becoming more monopolistic. Not only has the crisis led to concentration but the share of profits has been steadily rising over the last decade and is more or less back to its precrisis levels (albeit before the headlines of the last few days). Given their profits, plus the amounts paid in salary and bonus a lot of surplus value seems to be going their way. This of course is helping them resist regulation. Not sure they are weak, even if they don't find traditional lending very profitable.


Maybe Marx was right and its only government intervention that has prevented competition being killed.

Companies lobby, but there's also considerable state intervention (eg MMC, planning depts) keeping check on the anti-competitive practices of the likes of BT and Tesco. In normal circumstances the state would have prevented Lloyds TSB from purchasing HBOS, wouldn't it?

Maybe Cable can see how the Tories dream of a smaller state with less intervention will cripple competition and he's fighting back?

There is no truly capitalist economy for which we can test Marx's theory is there? The US calls itself capitalist but I understand they have even more anti-monopoly legislation than we do?


With banks unable or unwilling to lend, new businesses are less able to grow to compete against larger firms. And existing firms are less able to get the finance to expand into areas where incumbent firms enjoy super-normal profits.

Well, yes, but then without finance it's also tricky for would-be monopolists to buy out their rivals. (Which is good anyway. Mergers and acquisitions are generally bad ideas.)


To. Big. To. Fail.

Financial Planning

he weakness of the banking system means that some of these pressures are weaker than normal. With banks unable or unwilling to lend, new businesses are less able to grow to compete against larger firms.

moncler switzerland

It's so nice to have you do all of the research for us. It makes our decision making so much easier!! Thanks.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad