Alternative to the Market

[charles mueller <cmueller@metrolink.net>]

        The following was sent to me as a private communication and I am
accordingly omitting the author's name.   He equates competition with the
'jungle' and suggests that, unless I'm willing to 'rethink' my well-known
opposition to monopoly, I am alas 'a hazard to the continuing progress of
our civilization.'  Ideally, my correspondent says, we would have 'one
massive monopoly, USA Inc.,' in America, and ultimately a 'One World, Inc.'
(See below.)

      Why?  Because 'inside the walls' of The Corporation, the commanding
ethos is  'the cooperation and teamwork of the individuals' living under its
protective wing.
A single nationwide/worldwide MONOPOLY by definition brings all citizens
under that solitary corporate umbrella.  'With no one OUTSIDE in harm's
way,' says my correspondent, 'who's to get hurt?   Particularly, as such a
large group can be self sufficient, why would any other group or individual
have to be harmed?  This group formation, this super monopoly, can be a
model to the rest of the world to do likewise, and eventually all can be
merged into World, Inc.' 

        Instead of too much monopoly, our problem, rather, is that we have
too little?  It is, needless to say, a challenging hypothesis!

        Charles Mueller, Editor
        ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
        http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller

                                                  **********
  
Your complaint about "monopoly" is, I'm afraid, evidence that our
collective minds have been straitjacketed by Doctrinaire Economic
Philosophy.

If you were to think like a Real Scientist, wherein it is essential to
get down to the most fundamental level of thought wherein profound
simplicity abounds and explains clearly every aspect of any discipline,
you would soon realize how wrong it is to condemn monopolism.

There are only two extremes of human society.  From the ancient jungle
originated the concept of "every man for himself, and the devil take the
hindmost," and its opposite end of the spectrum, "one for all and all
for one."  The jungle maximizes "competition" and with "cooperation and
teamwork," "competition" has no place.  The ultimate "competition" is
called "war."  The type originated in the jungle, if allowed to prevail,
would have meant no progress whatsoever from the aboriginal jungle.  We
would all be still hunting for grubs enough to last us till tomorrow,
literally killing each other in competition for that grub, with
absolutely nothing else being accomplished.  The modern version of the
jungle is named "capitalism," and that explains the outside world beyond
the walls of any individual or group.

We have seen that when groups of people form, each sharing in some small
segment of the total labor required as specialists in whatever is their
share of the total labor, with cooperation and teamwork, marvelous
things can be accomplished. That is the reason for and source of our
modern wealth of technology and GDP.  That's what makes "monopolies" so
powerful and a danger to those who reside outside the four walls of
those monopolies -- the cooperation and teamwork of the individuals
within.  

Is that the only solution you can come up with, destroy the cooperation
and teamwork to force the sum total of the cooperative labor involved
back to the social weaknesses and consequent disaster of every man for
himself?

How about the reverse approach, by drawing in and absorbing all
available people, and merging smaller groups into ever greater groups,
until at least in our neck of the woods we can form one massive
monopoly, USA Inc.  With no one outside in harm's way, who's to get
hurt?   Particularly, as such a large group can be self sufficient, why
would any other group or individual have to be harmed?

This group formation, this super monopoly, can be a model to the rest of
the world to do likewise, and eventually all can be merged into World
Inc.  Everyone would be able to enjoy performing whatever is his
specialized expertise for the exquisite pleasure of Self Esteem.  

All the shibboleths of current Doctrinaire Economic Philosophy can be
relegated to the history books, as there would no longer be any need for
markets, money, trade, debt, cost, taxes and whatever else Doctrinaire
Economics now stands for.  Instead, just maintaining and distributing
efficiently man's physical needs as demanded by each individual would
need no more erudition than that of bookkeeping -- certainly no one of
the PhD level required.  All those current PhD's of the Social Sciences
could all be put to better use as retrainees in the Real Sciences.

Imagine what a magnificient array of projects such a labor force can
accomplish under those conditions.  That capability may well be
necessary to avoid the possible collision with a mile wide asteroid
scheduled to bypass (hopefully) the earth in the year 2028, with enough
uncertainty yet about whether or not it will strike the earth, in which
case the human race might be wiped out.  Even if not for that, see the
site listed below for even more certain dire consequences if we return
to the jungle as breaking up monopolies are wont to do:

<http://dieoff.org/page5.htm>

Are you willing to debate this issue, or at least rethink your
position?  If not, I'm afraid that you are a hazard to the continuing
progress of our civilization.

                                           ...................


I tried to submit to the forum the same message emailed to you, but the
option that came up on whether to risk public scrutiny seemed to
effectively block any submission no matter what the answer.  You must
have a programming glitch.

                                             *********