The last decision: what the liberal right does not want to see even in painting

The wonderful interview of José Antonio Zarzalejos with Cani Fernández, president of the National Commission for Markets and Competition, reveals the difficulties that institutions find today to fulfill their role effectively and precisely, but also the contradictions of political liberalism in a time when it is threatened by authoritarian capitalism. Liberals would do well to become aware of the moment in which they find themselves, because they will have to make very serious decisions in the near future; among them, that of choosing which of their ideas they are going to explicitly renounce.

The president of the CNMC points out in her words the worrying weakness of the Commission when it comes to fulfilling the functions assigned. And the task that falls to him has, at this time, a crucial importance. Any liberal understands that the concentration of power leads to abuses, and that the existence of effective institutional counterweights is essential for democracy to exist effectively.. This argument, which is widely shared, and which is continually revealed in the political architecture, is systematically overlooked when the accent is placed on the economy.. However, the idea is the same: concentrated power without defined limits leads to oppressive regimes.

It is surprising, therefore, the insistence on highlighting the dysfunctions that authoritarian figures, both from the right and from the left, suppose for democracy, while ignoring, at the same time, the difficulties that a reasonable coexistence and a healthy market imply for a broad and self-regulated power (the usual euphemism to emphasize that, in reality, limits do not exist).

And it is especially surprising because this concentration of power is at the base of the vast majority of the economic dysfunctions that we have suffered in recent years and from which we are currently experiencing.. The public debate on monopolies and oligopolies has been confined to the technological sector, due to the great concentration that exists, and due to the advances that are expected in it, for example, with artificial intelligence, but at the cost of forgetting the disturbing effects that it causes in the economy in general.

The effects of excessive power

The negative consequences of this disparity in power range from abusive price increases, lower quality, lower wages, shortages in supply chains, the destruction of small and medium-sized companies, the deterioration or disappearance of large companies. national companies and, of course, inflation; but the concentration of power is also directly related to aviation accidents, lack of weapons and strategic weaknesses. All this has already been exposed (read the links, if you are interested), so I will not insist on its description, but it must be emphasized to what extent it forms a surprising set of factors that are overlooked and that cause first-rate political effects. magnitude.

In the first instance, the concentration of power leads to an economy directed and planned by few actors, just what is indicated by liberalism as highly undesirable when carried out by the State.. Secondly, it implies the transfer of risks to the citizens, who are the ones who suffer and pay for them, and thirdly, it greatly disrupts society: the tendency to create monopolies and oligopolies explains “why it is so difficult to launch a small business that works; why so many jobs have been relocated; why it is so difficult to control the costs of medicines; why the quality of food or toys has plummeted; why company managers outsource so many activities; why the profits of big companies continue to rise; or why the powerful are becoming even more powerful”.

The peculiar thing is that this power is fought when it is the political institutions that accumulate it, but excused when it comes to private actors.. One example among many others: there are those who see a difference between public entities collecting large amounts of data on the private lives of citizens (and for this reason, among other things, the Chinese regime is perceived as a danger), and that they do so a few private companies, as they only use them for commercial purposes. But it is reasonable to think that whoever possesses this knowledge about citizens will be tempted to use it for ill-advised purposes, regardless of whether they are public or private actors, and that, therefore, such capacity should not be allowed or, in some cases, very specific cases, authorized with high restrictions.

This example of disparity in treatment is transferable to many other areas: what is feared and rejected by the State is praised when a few companies carry it out. It shouldn't be like this, as long as you agree with liberalism.

The American Example

This lesson was very well understood by Americans. Antitrust laws were an essential part of their political mobilization since the final decades of the 19th century, because they clearly perceived how the foundations of their democracy were threatened by a series of actors who had concentrated ownership of key companies in their country; they had created a power, under the legal form of trusts, that was completely altering the nature of the United States. Roosevelt's New Deal, which was the high point of that long tendency to control power, did not only involve public intervention in the economy; also, and above all, it implied the subjection to clear and precise limits both to financial capital and to productive companies to avoid a pernicious concentration. Biden's team is resuming that path, focusing first on technology, but with the intention of going further. He acts in this way motivated by the need to generate a healthy economy, to support the strategic needs of his country and to defend its political system.. It is not an exclusive position of the Democrats: there are relevant Republicans who are strongly committed to antitrust.

It is natural: if liberalism wants to defend democracy, it will have to emphasize these policies to limit economic power. Otherwise, it will be turning towards authoritarian capitalism: the lessons of the second and third decades of the last century are forceful in this regard.. It won't take too many years to find out the answer..