Sure, but at least companies can be competed with and if they get too big, are subject to government scrutiny. On the other hand, its really hard to control a large population of landowners and speculators who have a personal incentive to do whatever they can to increase the perceived price of their owned land.

[–] peeonyou@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

too big? government scrutiny?

what century is this?

[–] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Have you ever heard of Google? There is no such thing as 'too big' anymore. Hasn't been for a long time.

[–] TaterTurnipTulip@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is a very Polyannaish take and places way too much faith in a "free market" and government oversight. There is no free market when we are regularly allowing companies to get massive and become practical monopolies. When was the last time a company faced serious repercussions for getting too big?

There is certainly some more competition among smaller, local businesses. And the price of land/real estate can be an issue for them. But I would also ask to see how much the business owner is making in relation to their employees.

All that being said, I would like to see landownership completely overhauled, if not abolished.