Random thought that seems pretty good at the moment.
Our main problem now is not monopolies on selling, it’s monopolies on buying. (Yes, I know it’s called a monopsony, but that’s an Economist Word and I won’t use it.)
A monopoly on buying is unfamiliar because most people don’t experience it. It only affects the producers**. The DEI/ESG crap, along with the whole corruption of tenure and publishing, is a perfect example. Most profs aren’t true believers in this crap. It’s enforced by a SINGLE BUYER. When federal agencies are the only buyer for research, you have to SELL to the buyer. Agencies and foundations insist on adherence to Green and Diverse agendas, so every successful proposal has to appeal to those single-minded buyers. Before the 1946 Deepstate coup, most research was funded by industries or industry trade groups who wanted to solve a specific problem and didn’t care about fashionable agendas. The polio vaccine was crowdfunded, not government funded. A lot of basic acoustics research was funded by Trinity House, with a single specific problem in mind.
The agency monopoly had similar effects in manufacturing, as Ike tried to warn us in ’58. Manufacturers focused solely on war contracts and spy contracts because the biggest and MOST RELIABLE buyer was the government. They allowed Japan and China to take over the more competitive consumer products.
Amazon has a monopoly on buying. Consumers can still buy from other sources, online and offline. But a producer who wants to succeed has to meet Amazon’s price and requirements, so the whole system is under Amazon’s control.
A monopoly on selling is easy to understand, even if it’s not easy to avoid. Ford had a near-monopoly on selling autos for 20 years, NOT because Henry captured the regulators but because Henry mastered efficient production. He treated his workers well so they would stick around, and treated his customers well so they would stick around. Loyal workers and loyal customers make it possible to produce more efficiently. Other carmakers couldn’t hope to match Ford’s price at first, but they could try to match his loyalty, and often succeeded. The longest-lasting carmakers had steady workers and steady customers and steady cash reserves, so they were able to keep going despite Ford’s monopoly on the low-price end.
Modern techists do the exact opposite. They change things fast, keep consumer prices low by offshoring, use gig techniques to get maximum hours for minimum pay, and expect constant turnover at both ends. They live on stocks and bets and debts instead of savings and real value.
Fordism: Move slow and make things.
Elonism: Move fast and break things.
= = = = =
** I’ve been involved in writing and using grants, so I know how the selling works. Outsiders don’t see the process, so they assume (perhaps rationally) that profs believe what they’re writing. Salesman don’t have to believe what they tell the prospect!
Polistra's Mill 