Freakin' I'm Xeridi, sponsored by Capital One Bank.
With no fees or minimums, banking with Capital One is the easiest decision in the history of decisions,
even easier than deciding to listen to another episode of your favorite podcast.
And with no overdraft fees, is it even a decision?
That's banking reimagined. What's in your wallet?
Terms apply, see capitalone.com slash bank, capitalonena member FDIC.
Take your business further with a smart and flexible American Express Business Gold Card.
It offers flexible spending capacity that adapts to your business.
You can also earn up to $395 in annual statement credits on eligible purchases at select business merchants.
That's the powerful backing of American Express.
Terms apply, learn more at americanexpress.com slash business gold card.
Last week in part one of this series, we heard about the long and strange history of eyeglasses.
What we often see in early arts are representations of the devil wearing spectacles.
And we learned how today, the $150 billion iWare industry, has one dominant player, a French Italian conglomerate called Esselor Luxatica.
They have full control over prices, and that's just a license to make money for them.
We also heard how challengers like Warby Parker are trying to change the economics of the industry.
When we had this idea to sell iWare for a fraction of the cost, people loved that idea.
Today, on Freakinomics Radio, in part two of our series, we learn about the massive rise of myopia,
the even more massive rise of China as an eyeglass market, and what an eye doctor knows that you don't know.
I always tell people you don't compromise on parachutes or eyeglasses.
Oh yeah, one more thing.
We ask whether intense consolidation in an industry like iWare could be a threat to democracy itself.
If people feel a tiny group of consolidated industries and their beneficiaries make all the money,
it tends to create a lot of widespread anger.
The surprising economics of the eyeglass industry, part two, beginning now.
This is Freakinomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything, with your host, Stephen Dubner.
Tim Wu is a law professor at Columbia.
He has also been in both the Obama and Biden administrations, an advocate of stronger anti-trust legislation.
Wu argues that too many industries have just one or two dominant players which can push up prices.
This would include the eyeglass industry.
It has to compare itself with other obscene margin takers like the pharmaceutical drug industry.
The specific target of Wu's criticism here is Esselor Luxotica, which controls a massive portion of the global industry,
from eyeglass retailers to optical labs, from luxury partnerships to vision insurance.
Some of the worst abuses of market power are in medical industries where you can't really go without the thing.
You need glasses, right, if you want to see things that are far away.
There is something particularly offensive when you take advantage of an essential need that people have.
To be fair, I'm extremely grateful to the whole history of science of eye care.
If I were born in an era before eyeglasses, I would have been Viking food.
They would have chopped me up to feed to the horses or something.
I would have been useless.
If I have to pay a thousand dollars for a pair of glasses, that means that you see really well.
I don't love it, but I am grateful.
I guess the story I've always told myself is just think of all that technology that has gone into that.
Yeah, if Luxotica employed a team of crack scientists who had invented eyeglasses five years ago,
I would be singing their praises and saying, well, look, these guys invented this thing.
They'll give them a break.
I don't know who invented the idea of a prism, but certainly they didn't.
That's like giving American airlines credit for inventing the airplane.
They're the one who's throwing you in the middle seat and charging you for overhead baggage.
They're not the right brothers. I think you got the wrong guys.
One thing about the airline industry, their product has gotten cheaper.
Adjusted for inflation, airline tickets have fallen by at least a third over the past 40 years.
As for eyeglasses, there are some inexpensive ones out there.
Zeni Optical sells glasses online for an average of $44 a pair.
Glasses at Warby Parker started $95.
But the industry average is around $350.
What's driving these prices?
Let's talk to someone who knows the details.
A regular single-vision lens can start at $150.
That is Harvey Muscott.
He is an optometrist and the fourth generation of his family to run the Muscott eyeglass chain,
which started in New York.
And I both fix her upper, like to consider myself.
I work in the family business my whole life, summers for beer money.
So I was always introduced and exposed to the optical business.
When you grow up in a family business, it's what all of the generations talk about at dinner.
It's a part of your culture.
And that's Zachary Muscott, Harvey's son.
He is the firm's chief design officer.
That covers the design of their glasses as well as the Muscott shops,
which have some distinctive touches.
Walking into a Muscott shop, it's like walking into my grandmother's living room.
I don't know if I can recreate the smell, but it's certainly.
Would you want to recreate the smell?
I'm not going to answer that, but it's certainly a warm feeling.
There's knickknacks, there's random items at the cashier,
a little bunny rabbit holding a business card, things that were collected by my grandfather
when he would bring it home.
And my grandmother said, that's not staying here, bring it back to the shop.
And that became the aesthetic of our brand.
The story starts out in 1899 when my great grandfather, Hyman,
who I'm named after, Harvey, came to America, the classic story of coming to America
to pursue your dreams and escape oppression.
In Eastern Europe at the time, he was an optician from the old country,
and set up his wares on the lower east side, Orchard Street,
and sold ready-made glasses from Pushcart.
And then his son, Saul, was born in America in 1910,
and Saul was pretty entrepreneurial,
and they set up a brick and mortar shop, and we sat on the corner of Orchard
and Tulancy for 78 years.
My dad followed his father into the business as an optician.
They took their craft seriously, they loved opticianry,
they loved taking care of clientele and customers.
The Muscat aesthetic today is Old World New York with a dash of newvo cool.
We are at the, I would say, the lower end of the high-end segment
were really positioned as a fashion brand that, of course, offers medical functions
and the expertise of opticians, but, you know,
we're really positioning ourselves in the luxury brand's side of things.
The names of the frames at Muscat are memorable.
The boy chick, the Frankie, the nib, their best-selling frame,
worn by David Beckham and Johnny Depp, and Rashida Jones,
is called the Limthosh.
I asked where that name came from.
It was actually a made-up family word, kind of like a Yiddish slang
that they would use when picking on one another.
You're such a Limthosh.
Stop being a Limthosh.
We never take ourselves too seriously, Stephen, and we like to have fun.
And these were just words that were used in the family that I heard growing up.
So what is it about the Limthosh that makes it universally appropriate,
or so widely appropriate at least?
Can you describe, you know, whether it's the shape, the textures,
the way it sits, just what is it about that frame?
It's the perfect balance of square and round.
It is not perfectly round.
It is not perfectly square.
Because of that shape, it invertently fits super well on different types of noses
or as we call them, industry bridges.
What are you wearing right now, Harvey?
I mean, glasses-wise.
I am wearing my Limthosh in a champagne color which we call flesh.
The fact is, while speaking to the mascots,
I too was wearing a pair of Limthosh frames.
I've been a mascot customer for a few years now,
and that's one reason I wanted to hear from them.
I started buying my glasses at mascot, not because of how the frames look,
although I do like them.
I wound up there because the glasses I was getting at other places just didn't work very well.
The lenses, I mean, they were a little imprecise or had too small of a sweet spot.
They scratched too easily.
I now told Harvey mascot my eyeglass history and I asked him to walk me through the pricing.
I don't want to get too technical, but...
No, I want the technical.
Well, we have to start with, are you wearing progressives?
I am, yes.
And is your prescription over a minus four?
Yes.
Sounds like you're pretty near-sighted.
Highly myopic prescriptions with high astigmatic corrections.
A lot of competitors have trouble with these more complex prescriptions
that we take pride in providing and we're comfortable doing
and our licensed personnel understand.
Do you have prism?
Yes.
So once I get into that fairly complicated lens,
and also let's say I want my lens to be nice and thin
because I don't want it to look like I'm looking through the bottom of a Coke bottle,
what is that lens cost?
You can add $100, $200 for higher indexes,
which is just increased density of the material that makes the lens thinner.
You check all the boxes for a very complicated patient and customer
that Moscow loves to serve.
So you're probably upwards of $1,000.
Yes, I am.
Yep.
And now, what would you say to someone who hears this
and maybe who doesn't wear glasses yet,
who might once they hit 40 or whatnot and say $1,000 for a pair of glasses?
Come on, that's absurd.
Well, usually before 40 you don't need progressive,
so they won't be that expensive.
But if you're over 40, I would say you have two eyes.
You want the best possible vision you can get.
Vision is a precious sense.
You don't compromise on parachutes or eye glasses.
The Moscow brand has been growing, especially over the past decade.
They have more than two dozen shops around the world,
many in the US, but also in Japan, South Korea, and spread around Europe.
Compared to Escalor Laxatica,
they are a minnow.
And for a long time, they didn't even make their own lenses.
It was the one piece of the puzzle that we had installed.
I personally had done everything in the optical business,
from opticianary optometry to working with frames.
But we would purchase our lenses from various lens vendors,
the Escalors of the world.
In what form were they purchased finished essentially
or they kind of like a hockey puck that you grind down?
They're called finished blanks.
You can buy lenses finished, and then you just edge them locally
in your lab, which means cutting them to the frame proper size
and all of that.
The degree of magnification is already set, you're saying.
Yeah, the prescription is ground by surfacing equipment
that grinds into the surface of the lens of front and back surface
so that the prescription is accurate.
But a couple of years ago,
Moscow took a page out of Escalor Laxatica's playbook
by incorporating a bit of vertical integration.
Instead of buying lenses from a supplier,
Moscow started to make their own.
It was something that we wanted to migrate to and focus on
and learn about.
How come?
Because at the end of the day, prices were rising.
Cost continued to rise.
We don't sacrifice on quality.
And we would never, for example,
buy less expensive screws or wire templates.
I think it speaks to the fact that we're control freaks
and not being able to control certain aspects of what you do
was bothersome to me.
Relying on others to do your work is always problematic for us.
So now we surface our own lenses.
We don't have to buy them from the Escalors of the world.
And we actually grind the prescription in and control it.
But it wasn't about profit.
It was more about service levels in our shops
and controlling the quality of the lenses
that we were producing, understanding how they were made,
modifying them in a way that would optimize vision for our customers.
So you opened this lab just a few years ago.
And this is on Long Island, correct?
Correct.
Yes.
We started it from scratch.
A very gray as a result of it.
So you're investing in your lens operation.
You're investing in expanding around the world.
A couple dozen shops.
Have you taken any outside money?
Or is this all mascot reinvestment?
The latter.
Credit facilities for banks and our own money.
I don't want to sound like your depression era great grandfather.
But does it keep you up at night sometimes?
Sure.
We expand the brand thoughtfully.
We do things for the right reasons.
Not just for hitting targets and numbers.
So that's why it's taken us 109 years to have 27 shops.
I told Harvey mascot about the complaints that Tim Wu had raised
that eyeglass firms didn't invent eyeglass technology
any more than American Airlines invented the airplane.
And that technologies usually get cheaper over time.
So why aren't eyeglasses getting cheaper?
The eyeware business requires license personnel on the retail level.
It's a unique specialty retail industry.
So licensed opticians are licensed by states.
You need to be licensed in order to open an optical shop in New York, California, most of the states.
Doctors of optometry are the vision specialists that provide prescriptions along with eye health exams.
So the cost structures are very different.
Doctors aren't making what a gap employee is making selling apparel.
So when you combine all these costs and laboratory costs and specialized skilled costs,
it's very different.
And to just apply that to like a straight retail profit analysis would be a little bit inaccurate.
So you think Tim Wu is misunderstanding the complexity of the industry a little bit.
Most people do.
I went back to the eyeglass industry analyst we heard from in the first part of this series,
Cedric Rossi, who works for a European investment bank.
He is an expert in Eslore Laxatica, but also knows a great deal about Warby Parker and every other eyeware brand I could name.
I asked Rossi if he's familiar with mascot.
Yeah, a little bit.
It's starting to expand in Europe.
It was a brand that was almost nonexistent outside New York if I'm correct.
Yes, you're right.
Even in the US actually it was not very well known.
Until now the owners are starting to realize that there is some opportunities not only in the US but also internationally.
Most God is a very interesting brand to differentiate yourself from competition.
And that's why I think particularly tailors in Europe are offering a mascot into the stores to attract new customers that are used to buying a Reban and Oakley for years and years.
And now they also want to discover new brands.
If you were mascot and you're trying to take a relatively small New York retro fashion brand that's not inexpensive,
where would you look to expand particularly in the next five or 10 years?
When you are a US brand, the obvious international markets are the Anglo-Saxon markets.
It's very convenient to start with the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
The consumer behavior is pretty much similar to what you are having in the US.
And then Europe is also a market which is quite relevant for a mascot.
Also because people are highly attracted by fashion, then Asia but it's a tough market.
Because you have a lot of intermediaries, sometimes in Japan to exist, you need to be distributed by department stores, chains, in South Korea.
Same story.
Why is that? Why can't I have a standalone eyeglass store there?
That's how the market is structured.
Is it because of the medical component or no?
No, no, no, no, even for luxury companies, when they started to expand in Japan or in South Korea in the 80s,
they were distributed into department store chains because it was really hard to just have a free standing store in a very popular street.
Is that because South Korea and Japan let's say want to constrain foreign direct investment?
They don't want firms to come in and basically manage the real estate.
They want to keep the real estate management more local for taxes and ownership and so on.
That could be part of the answer but the only reason is that department store chains own a big chunk of the fashion market.
And so if you want to address a new market, it's more convenient to be distributed into department stores because you rely on the distribution that is already well established.
Rossi says that everyone in the eyeglass industry is looking to Asia Pacific for the next big growth spurt.
He says the most attractive target, especially to a global giant like Escalora Laxarica, is China.
China is only 4% to 5% of Escalora sales.
As a comparison, China already accounts for more than 20 or 25% of some luxury groups like Hermès or Montclair for instance.
In the optical industry is quite difficult to penetrate in emerging markets because it will exist.
You need to have a ton of knowledge and opticians.
So does Escalora Laxarica or any other eyewear manufacturer actually fund the education or the business practices of optometrists in these countries?
Exactly.
They do.
Exactly.
And Escalora Laxarica opens a few schools to train opticians because they know that if they want to develop their business in those countries, they also need to help the local governments create from scratch the eyewear market.
And so that's why the Chinese government was highly supportive to the initiatives implemented by Escalora Laxarica at that time.
It's because the welfare state does not exist in China.
And so if they have some western companies helping to create the local eyewear market, they were highly supportive to these initiatives.
Does Escalora Laxarica see that as a cost center or a profit center?
They're charging tuition or are they subsidizing or somewhere in the middle?
I would say it's even more than that.
It's an investment for the long term growth.
That makes sense, doesn't it? That Escalora Laxarica would be willing to invest in schools to train Chinese opticians?
Because the Chinese eyedlass market is growing fast and it's growing differently.
Coming up after the break.
In China, I do see the commercial side moving too quickly.
A new treatment for myopia is big business in China right now and Escalora Laxarica has positioned itself once again to take advantage.
I'm Stephen Dubner, this is Freakonomics Radio, we'll be right back.
What does it mean to be rich?
Maybe it's less about reaching a magic number and more about discovering the magic in life.
At Edward Jones, our dedicated financial advisors are the people you can count on for financial strategies that help support a life you love.
Because the key to being rich is knowing what counts.
Learn more about our comprehensive approach to planning at EdwardJones.com slash Find Your Rich.
Edward Jones, member SIPC.
Team mobile 5G Internet keeps getting better and now with two new plans you can get Internet right where you want it.
Introducing Home Internet Plus. Boost your Internet connection to harder to reach places with our Wi-Fi mesh access point.
It can hit all your smart devices with 24-7 interactive video assistants.
With Wi-Fi that reaches the attic, I finally have a home office and I can escape for a peaceful movie night in the backyard.
On second thought, I'll stream for the basement.
And, Team Mobile 5G Internet goes beyond the home, too. With the away plan, you can stay connected where the call of adventure takes you.
Get Team Mobile Home Internet Plus for 50 bucks a month without a pay and a Go 5G Plus line.
Check availability at teamoval.com slash home Internet and get Internet right where you want it.
During congestion, customers on this plan may notice speeds lower than other customers.
In further reduction, if using greater than 1.2 terabytes per month due to data prioritization, after $20.00 a bill credit plus $5 per month without auto pay.
Debit bank account required regulatory fees included for qualifying accounts, $35 connection charge applies.
Maria Lu is a professor and researcher in the Optometry School at the University of California Berkeley.
She, like me and many, many, many other people, has myopia, also known as nearsightedness.
I'm fully convinced, at least for my own nearsightedness. This is heavily driven by my early introduction of pretty intense academic stress.
And just how intense was her academic stress?
I skipped two years in primary school, one year in middle school and one year in high school.
Lu grew up in China and was diagnosed with myopia at age 13. She got a medical degree in ophthalmology and practiced there for several years before moving to the US, where she acquired several more degrees, a doctor of optometry, an MBA, a master's in public health, and a PhD.
For many years, Lu says myopia was thought to be a purely genetic condition, but she was of the school that thought otherwise that it can also be driven by environmental factors like long stretches of reading or other close up work, or too much time focused on screens, or not getting enough sunlight.
Here's one piece of evidence in her argument that genetics aren't the only driver. She is the only nearsighted person in her family.
Here is another piece of evidence. The rate of myopia around the world has been going bonkers over the past few decades.
We know for any common condition, if you see a drastic change in the disease prevalence, this cannot be explained by the human genetic mutation, because human genetic makeup simply do not mutate at this rate.
In the US, 42% of the population has myopia. In the 1970s, the rate was just 25%. Several countries in Asia, including China, Singapore, and Japan, have myopia rates of 80 to 90%.
In Seoul, South Korea, 96.5% of 19-year-old men have myopia.
Not only were seeing a very rapid increase in the overall prevalence, we're also seeing a rapid change in terms of the age of onset.
We're seeing kids start developing myopia at a younger and younger age. This is very concerning, because the earlier the age of onset, the faster the progression.
As infants, our eyeballs grow to a round shape. Myopia occurs when the eyeball elongates past the round shape to more of an oval.
The environmental argument says that this elongation is the eyesway of adapting to the demand of focusing on something close to your face, a book maybe, or perhaps more likely, a smartphone or a computer screen.
It is now estimated that 30% of the global population has myopia, and researchers expect that number to hit 50% by 2050.
Maria Liu thought that something should be done about that. So, at Berkeley, she started the myopia control clinic.
When I was trying to start the clinic, I bagging 2013, our previous clinical director was not very convinced that number one myopia is even controllable.
And number two, a commercial potential for this type of service. So, I volunteered my Sundays to get the clinic started just to really show that, yes, we have a huge demand for this kind of service.
And yes, this is evidence-based practice, not some voodoo.
And it isn't just a matter of seeing better. Myopia, left untreated, can lead to a variety of severe eye conditions.
There are treatments to help slow the progression of myopia, including eye drops, contact lenses, and surgery. But there is a newer, perhaps more promising, treatment.
The use of the novel spectacles.
The novel spectacle is a pair of glasses designed to slow the elongation of the eyeball.
The lens includes thousands of micro dots that defuse the light that hits the eye.
The novel spectacles will become, in the future, in my personal opinion, the first line treatment globally for progressive myopia.
Unfortunately, this is the type of treatment that has not been approved by US FDA, so we don't have such treatment available in our clinic yet.
But in China, novel spectacles, based on those micro lens technology, are becoming the first line defense for myopia control.
And the Chinese market for novel spectacles is booming.
Lou sees this firsthand in her practice in California.
Not only Chinese families going back to China and getting those glasses, but many families fly to Canada.
Canada offers a couple of those devices or designs already.
I've had multiple patient families flying to Canada specifically just to get those glasses.
But Lou is concerned that some of these novel spectacles won't do what people are hoping they'll do.
To my knowledge, there are over 200 different designs of those novel spectacles, specifically for myopia control.
Out of these 200 plus designs, there are about 10% of them that actually alter went to any sort of clinical testing.
In China, I do see the commercial side is moving too quickly, but in the rest of the world, all of these major players are playing a vital role in advancing the research side for us to better understand and better manage myopia.
One of those major players helping advance the research is, as you may have guessed, Esselor, Laxatica.
There are one of the major manufacturers that invested a lot in clinical testing.
The sample size, the rigourousness of the clinical study designs are very, very different.
We've seen some designs being tested with a sample size of 30, but Esselor has pretty good clinical data, not only in terms of the years of observation,
but also the diversity of the children being recruited for the study.
As an investment for Esselor, Laxatica, this makes a lot of sense.
The management of myopia is already big business and we'll be getting much bigger.
This is going to be the next major wave in either revenue boosting or profit boosting.
The retail price range for novel spectacles can be anywhere from a couple of hundred dollars up to 1500 US dollars.
Esselor Laxatica's model is called the Stellis.
Because of their upfront investment in R&D and clinical testing, Asselor Stellis definitely is on the higher price range.
There is another design in the US that's currently making its way through the FDA's approval process. It's called diffusion optics technology lens or dot.
It is a joint venture between the American firm Cooper Vision and Esselor Laxatica.
Interestingly, the two designs, the Stellis versus the dot design, are based on very different design principles.
They are not just a copycat of one another.
It's good to see novel spectacle industry offering designs based on different principles.
In case a patient is a non-responder to one design, we may be able to try a totally different design rather than trying another copycat.
How does Lou feel about the relatively high cost of novel spectacles?
So the question is, do I see a high price of these novel spectacles justifiable?
I would say yes and no.
The yes part is to manage pediatric myopia, even just simply with glasses, it takes a lot more chair time for the practitioners to explain why we're prescribing those devices, how frequent we need to see your child back.
And there are a lot more auxiliary testing that's required to accurately evaluate the safety and the efficacy of the treatment.
In the US, we're able to charge more for the service fee.
But in China, there is no way the doctors can charge for their tear time.
So all of the time they spend in patient and parent education in making sure these devices are properly used are built into the overall cost of the lenses.
In China market, a lot of the manufacturers are still very profit driven.
It's not evidence-based and it's causing confusion more than helping the advancement.
And how about the US market?
We've had patients asking for novel spectacles on a daily basis.
So it's whoever is doing the most heavy lifting being the first product approved in US market, certainly deserved to have the momentum at least for the first two or three years.
And a lot of that heavy lifting has been done by Esselaura Luxardica.
I really respect their effort in trying to help on the more basic research side, not just something that's immediately translatable to a commercial profit.
And so, on balance, Marie-A-Lue believes that Esselaura Luxardica is a force for good in the fight against myopia.
Using the billions of dollars they earn selling Prada and Chanel branded glasses by selling Ray Bans and Oakles to invest in new optical treatments.
But again, we are living through an era of capitalism where consolidation is the norm.
So, is it a problem that one player in the eyeglass industry has so much global leverage?
Tim Wu says, yes, and not just for the reasons you may think.
That's coming up after the break. I'm Stephen Dubner, and this is Frekenomics Radio.
Frekenomics Radio is sponsored by Range Rover Sport.
Range Rover Sport leads by example, combining assertive on-road performance with signature Range Rover refinement and commanding all terrain capability.
The third generation Range Rover Sport is the most desirable, advanced, and dynamically capable yet.
Range Rover Sport redefines sporting luxury, an instinctive drive with engaging on-road dynamics and effortless composure.
Combining dynamic sporting personality with the pureless refinement you expect, Range Rover Sport communicates power, performance, and agility.
Advanced cabin technologies such as active noise cancellation and cabin air purification offer new levels of comfort and refinement.
The purposeful cockpit-like driving position sets the tone for a focused interior that promotes exhilarating driver engagement.
Award-winning PIVI Pro infotainment is at the heart of the experience and provides intuitive control of the vehicle systems.
Design your Range Rover Sport at Land Rover USA.com
Frekenomics Radio is sponsored by Lufthansa Allegras.
Lufthansa Allegras is the new way of flying, with all four classes thoughtfully redesigned.
Lean back without disturbing the passenger behind you with premium economies, fixed shell seats, plus business class seats include Bluetooth and all aisle access.
Starting this summer, Lufthansa Allegras will fly from Chicago and San Francisco.
All other Lufthansa gateways will follow.
Visit Lufthansa.com and search Allegras to learn more.
Lufthansa Allegras. It's your journey, it all starts with a yes.
Frekenomics Radio is sponsored by JIF.
The peanut butter group and chocolatey corp have merged to create PBC Inc.
And the byproduct of the merger is the new delicious JIF peanut butter and chocolate flavored spread.
Critics tried to say it creates a monopoly on crevability, but obviously it's not illegal to be irresistible.
This is going to revolutionize the snack industry and the contents of pantries across America.
Visit PBC Inc. to try the flavor merger of the century, JIF, PBC and C.
As we've noted throughout this series, the French Italian eyewear firm Esselord Laxatica has a dominant position in the global industry.
Just last week, they bought the streetwear brand Supreme, which doesn't even make eye glasses, at least not yet.
They were also reported to be in talks with Meta, a parent company of Facebook, that would have the software giant taking on a minority stake in Esselord Laxatica.
Those two firms have already partnered on a pair of Rayban smart glasses, Rayban being a property that Esselord Laxatica bought in 1999 and turned into the biggest eyewear brand in the world.
So Esselord Laxatica is very big and getting bigger.
This is the kind of thing that makes Tim Wu nervous.
He is the Columbia University legal scholar who has spent time in two presidential administrations.
In 2018, he published a book called The Curse of Bigness, antitrust in the New Guilded Age.
I went back to Wu for a final word.
So you argue that corporate or industrial concentration can lead to a variety of bad outcomes, but especially bad political outcomes, including extreme nationalism, even fascism.
Give me an example of what you mean by that.
I think the real road to Serfdom often goes through unmanaged aggregations of private power.
What I mean by that is if you have no active anti-monopoly policy of people feel a tiny group of consolidated industries and their beneficiaries make all the money, it tends to create a lot of widespread anger, particularly if there's an economic crash.
I think our best example is the 1930s, where there was a ton of anger obviously after the crash of the world's economies.
Countries weathered it in different ways, but most famously in Germany, this widespread economic discontent fed into the hands of a certain leader who I don't always like to mention, but obviously the Nazi party rose during that period on the backs of it.
I think you see this across history, these aggregations of economic wealth and power, big crashes leading to the rise of a populist.
We've had obviously a taste of that ourselves over the last 10 years or so, so I don't think we're entirely exempt from these tendencies.
You write that excessive concentration of economic power will breed anti-democratic political pressures.
I could understand you saying they could breed those pressures, but will breed. Do you really feel there is an inevitable connection between that kind of economic concentration and bad political outcomes?
I think it depends on the critical question of how the democratic government deals with the inequality and inequities.
We'll might be a strong word in that sentence, which I predict is from my introduction, but I think the more nuanced view is if there's a democratic failure, if people feel that they haven't done anything or worse are facilitating unfairness in the economy,
then the demand rises for the strong man who can really do what the people want.
I've studied the messaging of all these figures who come to power. It's always like you have this democracy, but they don't really serve you.
You need someone who has a direct line to the people, and that's me.
I read a lot of Hugo Shavitz's speeches. I've read the speeches of our former president or heard them.
I've read the speeches in 1930s. It is basically the same, usually coupled with some identity politics and other sweeteners.
I mean, the American situation is not as drastic as Vymar Germany, certainly, at least not yet, and hopefully never will be.
But we have already been seeing the impact of consolidation in the form of corporate capture or crony capitalism, whatever you want to call over the past 20 or 30 years.
It strikes me that this has had a pretty significant cost for American society.
Yeah, I think it is a significant cost, and it may ultimately be measured in the threats and democracy, but also measured in the economic well-being of many people.
If you spend any time near Congress, you realize that they will never really take a stand against a powerful industry.
I mean, in the last 20 years, you can count on the fingers of one hand at times they've done something that industry really doesn't like.
That was, including after a major economic crash.
I agree we're not obviously where the 1930s are, but in some ways we're more stable country.
Other countries are already flipped. I mean, I don't know what Hungary is going to be like, or many other countries all across Central America.
But if you haven't noticed, authoritarianism, dictatorship is on the rise, and I think it's almost always played on the back of, well, the democracy failed.
It's a huge cost to an American situation to have corporate control of government.
Do you think that the eyeglass industry is important enough to worry about consolidation posing an actual danger to democracy?
I wouldn't, but that way I'd put it in combination with a lot of other frustrations that people feel.
The eyeglass industry is somewhat small, but potent symbol of what happens when you allow corporate consolidation to get out of control.
Obviously, it's not the largest industry in the country and it's not Google or Amazon, but it is literally in your face or on your face.
It's kind of a test case of an industry which has been allowed to buy most of its competitors.
Luxotica has been allowed to vertically integrate itself both in the manufacture of lenses and in retail and also insurance.
And therefore, find itself in a market position where it can regularly charge margins that wouldn't make even Apple computers jealous.
What do you think of Tim Wu's argument that the kind of dominance exercised by Esselaura Luxotica is a threat to democracy?
Or what do you think about anything else you heard in this series?
I'd love to hear from you.
Our email is radioatfreakonomics.com
Come up next time on the show.
If modern capitalism is a problem, how about this as a solution?
Time is an interesting commodity.
I'm like, why are people not talking about it?
You can imagine it being a time-barter system on steroids enabled by modern technology.
Are we at the point where time dollars can challenge real dollars?
That's next week on the show. Until then, take care of yourself. And if you can, someone else too.
Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio.
You can find our entire archive on any podcast app also at Freakonomics.com where we publish transcripts and show notes.
This episode was produced by Morgan Levy.
Our staff also includes Alina Kulman, Augusta Chapman, Delvin Abouaghi, Elvinor Osborn, Elsa Hernandez, Gabriel Roth, Greg Ripon,
Jasmine Klinger, Jeremy Johnston, Julie Canfer, Lyric Baudich, Neil Karuth, Rebecca Lee Douglas, Sarah Lilly, Theo Jacobs, and Zach Lepinsky.
Special thanks this week to John Schnarrer's and Ellen Frankman.
Our theme song is Mr. Fortune by the hitchhikers, our composer is Luis Guerra.
As always, thank you for listening.
Steven, we're just trying to solve world peace when Lentosh had a time.
The Freakonomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything.
Stitcher
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Amika Insurance.
Amika knows how important it is to protect your biggest assets, whether it's auto, home, or life insurance.
Amika has policies to fit your specific needs.
And their friendly and knowledgeable representatives will work with you to make sure you have the right amount of coverage in place.
As they say at Amika, empathy is our best policy.
Go to Amika.com and get a quote today.
Dive into the start of summer at Whole Foods Market. Check out their summer splash event with sales on fresh organic produce, organic strawberries, and a fan favorite sale on Ben and Jerry's and Talente.
Explore deals on grill-friendly meats like organic air-chilled chicken breasts, beef and chicken kebabs, all with no antibiotics ever from our meat department.
Plus grab easy size from prepared foods and cool off with refreshing drinks, kick off your summer and shop in store or online at Whole Foods Market today.
Dogs are an important part of our lives and keeping them protected is a top priority, especially against nasty parasites.
That's why you got to check out NextCard Plus, a foxilander, moxidectin, and piranctal-jewelble tablets.
NextCard Plus choose provide one in-done monthly protection that kills fleas and ticks, prevents heartworm disease, plus it treats and controls roundworms and hookworms.
That's a whole lot of protection packed into a delicious beef flavored, soft chew designed to make monthly dosing easy and enjoyable.
So the next time you're at the vet, ask about NextCard Plus choose. They're the one in-done monthly parasite protection you want for your dog.
Use with caution in dogs with the history of seizures or neurologic disorders.
Dogs should be tested for existing heartworm infection prior to starting a preventive.
