The reason capital continues to concentrate in the largest capitalized countries in spite of the law of diminishing returns, is because size gives the enterprise an outsized role in policy.
Like in the "nifty fifty" era, in a time of low returns and marginal business opportunities, access to the state can be the difference between continued viability and failure.
This implies that the way to prevent this is as simple as limiting the enterprises (X) role in policy (Y).
However, the causal relationship isn't only X->Y. Taking from Chomskys manufacturing consent, enterprises also have the ability and interest to change policy through public opinion (Z). So instead we have X->Z->Y along with X->Y. You may fix the second, but how do you fix that first causal mechanism? You first have to convince the public that elections are bought and their opinions are being effectly molded by the media, but do it outside of the media they prefer to watch.
Eroding trust in public institutes is something Policytensor has been documenting. It seems that the trust is mostly eroding against the politicians, and not the enterprises. Indicative of how strong that media component is. So if anything the trend seems to be in direction of lessening the only tool we have, public support for policy change through politicians, to affect the only causal mechanism we can (X->Y).
I recall from "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" that the role of the presidency was not to wield power, but rather, to draw the public attention away from power. In this, Zaphod Beeblebrox was a highly successful president, having already been twice indicted for fraud.
That many Americans still think that we live in a democracy, or a democratic republic, is evidence of the oligarchs' success in this area.
You should adjust for inflation. I don't think it would change the conclusion dramatically but the numbers of small-cap vs large-cap companies would surely change.
If you believe, as I do, that the WEF/DOD/WHO globally synchronized "plandemic" was, in fact, an act of war, it would imply that these financial behemoths are in fact operating as a transnational quasi-state, as they seem to want to impose the Chinese techno-tyranny of social credit system and global CBDC on the world; implementing the old Rockefeller dream of one world government.
Berezovsky once said that his best investments were in politicians. Republics are especially subject to abuse if there are no controls on election spending. Martin Armstrong has called them the most corruptible form of government. Most politicians in the West seem transparently bought and paid for by the WEF, mindlessly supporting its agenda (it was lockdowns and "build back better"; now it's vax passports).
There is a serious bootstrapping problem in effecting election financing reform. Perhaps some Swiss-like form of referenda on major issues like going to war might be a short cut, as, with or without election financing laws, bribes can and will be paid.
Finally, my take on Elon Musk is that he recognizes that an ID is not the mark of the beast (we already have IDs), nor is digital money (I rarely use cash, accumulating points on every transaction trying to squeeze the financial grifters as much as possible). But having to share your vaccination status to transact is not okay. In my state we passed a law "ensuring government entities cannot force private businesses to institute COVID-19 mandates and private businesses cannot take action against unvaccinated employees nor compel an employee or visitor to show proof of vaccination." This cut corporate fascism off at the ankles and should be the case everywhere except for special travel circumstances.
Elon recognizes that beyond property rights, freedom of speech and thought are critical ingredients of successful capitalism.
I wish him luck keeping Twitter in business! He is going to need advertisers.
And I would add that he's aware of the concentration problem at the personal income level, and is in favor of a UBI. A better solution would be a negative income tax supporting breadwinners in need, and support for family leaves, etc. He is very pro-natalist ...
The reason capital continues to concentrate in the largest capitalized countries in spite of the law of diminishing returns, is because size gives the enterprise an outsized role in policy.
Like in the "nifty fifty" era, in a time of low returns and marginal business opportunities, access to the state can be the difference between continued viability and failure.
This implies that the way to prevent this is as simple as limiting the enterprises (X) role in policy (Y).
However, the causal relationship isn't only X->Y. Taking from Chomskys manufacturing consent, enterprises also have the ability and interest to change policy through public opinion (Z). So instead we have X->Z->Y along with X->Y. You may fix the second, but how do you fix that first causal mechanism? You first have to convince the public that elections are bought and their opinions are being effectly molded by the media, but do it outside of the media they prefer to watch.
Eroding trust in public institutes is something Policytensor has been documenting. It seems that the trust is mostly eroding against the politicians, and not the enterprises. Indicative of how strong that media component is. So if anything the trend seems to be in direction of lessening the only tool we have, public support for policy change through politicians, to affect the only causal mechanism we can (X->Y).
I recall from "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" that the role of the presidency was not to wield power, but rather, to draw the public attention away from power. In this, Zaphod Beeblebrox was a highly successful president, having already been twice indicted for fraud.
That many Americans still think that we live in a democracy, or a democratic republic, is evidence of the oligarchs' success in this area.
You should adjust for inflation. I don't think it would change the conclusion dramatically but the numbers of small-cap vs large-cap companies would surely change.
Won’t change the “market shares” of the size classes, which is part of the reason I’m paying so much attention to that.
If you believe, as I do, that the WEF/DOD/WHO globally synchronized "plandemic" was, in fact, an act of war, it would imply that these financial behemoths are in fact operating as a transnational quasi-state, as they seem to want to impose the Chinese techno-tyranny of social credit system and global CBDC on the world; implementing the old Rockefeller dream of one world government.
Berezovsky once said that his best investments were in politicians. Republics are especially subject to abuse if there are no controls on election spending. Martin Armstrong has called them the most corruptible form of government. Most politicians in the West seem transparently bought and paid for by the WEF, mindlessly supporting its agenda (it was lockdowns and "build back better"; now it's vax passports).
There is a serious bootstrapping problem in effecting election financing reform. Perhaps some Swiss-like form of referenda on major issues like going to war might be a short cut, as, with or without election financing laws, bribes can and will be paid.
Finally, my take on Elon Musk is that he recognizes that an ID is not the mark of the beast (we already have IDs), nor is digital money (I rarely use cash, accumulating points on every transaction trying to squeeze the financial grifters as much as possible). But having to share your vaccination status to transact is not okay. In my state we passed a law "ensuring government entities cannot force private businesses to institute COVID-19 mandates and private businesses cannot take action against unvaccinated employees nor compel an employee or visitor to show proof of vaccination." This cut corporate fascism off at the ankles and should be the case everywhere except for special travel circumstances.
Elon recognizes that beyond property rights, freedom of speech and thought are critical ingredients of successful capitalism.
I wish him luck keeping Twitter in business! He is going to need advertisers.
And I would add that he's aware of the concentration problem at the personal income level, and is in favor of a UBI. A better solution would be a negative income tax supporting breadwinners in need, and support for family leaves, etc. He is very pro-natalist ...