No, not through size alone it takes more than that. But I'm not ruling out the existance of a point where the increased bureaucracy and inefficiencies inevitably leads to evil in spite of good ownership.

That would solve the problem. It would probably also create much bigger problems. Something should be done but what I cannot tell you.

I did and I see standard oil continually lowering their prices as costs fell to keep newcomers out of the business. I see alcoa doing the same. The same goes for some of the "robber baron" railway tycoons.

Have you actually looked at history or did you only look at the parts supporting your preconceptions?

As for companies "turning evil" when above a certain size I'm convinced it's due to the shortsightedness that comes when the original owners relinquish or otherwise are no longer in control. Then the only check on shortsighted behaviour are the shareholders and they tend not to hold accountable for errors nor very interested in the long term.

The only decently behaving (giving the customers what they want) large companies seem to be the ones still under the original owners control. Examples are: google, walmart and maybe IKEA. There are probably better examples and you'll probably disagree with walmart.

No, I don't find it troublesome that he spends his cash they way he sees fit. What I do find troublesome is the amount of hypocrisy it takes for you to complain about Bezos spending while still spending money on an internet connection instead of saving some starving children with that money instead.

You see, if you come by money or goods voluntarily you are free to spend it the way you see fit. You should afford the others the same freedom.

Condescending, moi?

OK, I understand and agree.

Thank you for the clarification!

That's the second reading fail I made in a single day. I need to stop reading things.

But I still don't get how you can call what COD did first steps if you're aware of BF2.

Indeed he does....

I somehow substituted Lenin with Putin in my mind. My bad.

Useful idiots is an old KGB or general soviet/russian intelligence expression.

I came across the term in spy novels over ten years ago.

Ever heard of battlefield 2? I believe that was one of if not the first game with "persistent levelling". Not to the same degree as COD or the later Bad Company but there were a few years between the titles.

Yeah but the difference is that the soviets did follow Marx. What California did was price fixing which is not following Friedman, Rand or whatever name fits.

When communists claim that soviet wasn't communist they are either liars or using equivocation. When libertarians claim that a market isn't free enough it is usually true. And in the case of deregulation in California it's so bleeding obvious you'd have to purposely ignore such small regulations as fixing the fucking price.

The question is if the other neighboring monopolies are getting subsidies from taxes. If they are they're not cheaper you're just paying differently for it.

Nice ad hominem, dickface.

That's a great argument you've got there.

You stuff food in your face, I stuff food in my face, ad nauseam. That isn't a meal, that's boring.
You put the penis all the way in, you take the penis most of the way out, ad nauseam. That isn't fun that's boring.
You say things, I say things, ad nauseam. That isn't fun that's boring.
You abuse commas, I abuse commas, ad nauseam. That isn't fun, that's boring.

You have a point but your argument or whatever you want to call it sucks.

Poor people put less of a premium on a good environment than rich people do.

There are countless examples in western countries of toxic waste dumping. Much of it about as informed as what's going on in China. It would appear that pollution is a stepping stone to wealth.

American examples:
Valley of the drums
Love Canal
Alkali lake chemical waste dump
Iron Mountain Mine

I did as soon as I heard it proposed that mere possession of child porn would be made illegal.

It's not rocket surgery, you know.

Growth is when something is better than it was minus maintenance. When you say you can't grow the economy forever you are right in a sense (sun ending, heat death of the universe etc.) but wrong in the sense that you actually mean. Further growth is only impossible when everything and I mean everything is exactly like everyone wants it. Then your silly talk about further growth being impossible might be wroth listening to. As it is you should probably go suck a tailpipe as you're not good for much else.

Also, growth in monetary terms must be higher than inflation otherwise your company is losing. Being static is fine but it still requires a monetary growth equal to inflation.,