Totally ridiculous...
Boils down to arguing, pointlessly, about which form of socialism "means well" more, and does better in its hope to be the one that is the least destructive of its self interest in minor matters... while ignoring that socialism is broadly destructive... of others interests... in far larger and more important matters...
It matters not a whit that Jack Ma is not able to suppress innovation, in his own interest, with an exercise of monopoly power... when the CCP is there to suppress and control ALL of the innovation and all market participants, instead ?
No fraud, no monopoly, no barriers to participation... means no monopoly for Jack Ma... and no monopoly for the CCP... in anything other than in the exercise of governing power fostering rules against fraud, monopoly, and the erection of barriers ? Otherwise, all you are doing is ensuring the biggest fish in the pond swallows all the biggest of the smaller ones... while claiming that as a benefit for the smaller ones...
That's what the article says, too... "hooray for the CCP"... for being a socialist tyrant and preventing "too much" freedom or "too much" success... ?
Munger is not wrong in thinking that we need to do better to reign in the monopolists here... but he's not right in thinking that's actually what's happening in China... ?
The biggest fish in China... saw the smaller fish growing larger as a risk... so it ate them...
Nice job on the spin, though...
Reigning in monopoly is a good idea... but, defending the biggest monopolies by preventing any meaningful competition developing,,, with a tyrannical suppression and punishment of successful competitors... is not the same thing as "implementing rules limiting monopoly"... ?
Jack Ma... will not be allowed to teach others "how to succeed" ?
And, the world... but China in particular... is made a poorer place by it... |
