Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 16

Deductive approach, static analysis, variables permanently assumed as static elements, they all add up to the staging of a fiction passed off as reality.
Increasing returns to scale means an obvious fact: a bigger organisation is more competitive than a smaller one; in other words, the stronger is stronger than the weaker. What’s the point in attempting to conceal that?
Fooling the weaker into believing there are no stronger and weaker, and by doing this preventing the latter from taking action to protect itself from the stronger. How?
The truth of increasing returns to scale is a dynamic factor, a variable that shows that bigger businesses not only do influence prices, start on their route towards oligopoly and monopoly, and outdo smaller ones, but that they do so across national borders as their competitive advantage expands across the markets. It shows that rich countries outdo the poor ones across open borders; it shows what protectionism protects poor countries from with closed borders. Conversely, the neoclassical static lie of constant returns to scale serves the interests of the oligo−monopolies and of the rich countries by concealing the truth: no increasing return to scale, no oligo−monopolies nor rich countries outdoing poor ones. At least not in the holy scriptures of mainstream economics.
When the stronger organisation attacks the weaker, the stronger wants free reign to unleash its strength against the weaker, while the weaker seeks help from third parties to defend and protect itself. Hence the stronger organisation wants “free trade” and governments out of its way, particularly the weaker ones, while the weaker one wants its government to intervene with protectionist measures. Unless its government has been fooled into believing there are no stronger and weaker, there is no attack, and everything that is going on is perfectly justified, natural, and all well and good.