Is Monopoly a Justification for Government Regulation? – Learn Liberty

Is monopoly a justification for government
regulation? A lot of people have been very concerned about monopolies in markets, and
that concern leads people to ask, is there a form of government intervention that can
mitigate that problem? Either by breaking up a big firm into smaller firms so that they
can compete against each other or by regulating the profits a firm earns or the prices it
can charge for its product. Two things that really discipline a monopoly
firm’s ability to charge high prices are consumer demand and how much we’re willing
to pay for the product or service and the availability of competing products or services
that are substitutes for that good. Another question that often comes up is the persistence
of that monopoly over time. Even if there is some kind of market power or market dominance
in a particular industry, does that erode over time or does it persist? And if it persists,
is there some form of government regulation or intervention that would make consumers
better off? One of the challenges in coming up with that
kind of policy, though, is that any regulation that is going to reduce the profits of a monopoly
is going to reduce the motivation, the lure, the incentive to the innovator to come in
and enter that market and compete against the monopolist. And that’s the core of the
insight that we get from the economist Joseph Schumpeter, who really argued that the competitive
process is one of competition for market dominance and that these monopoly profits are the lure,
they’re the carrot that brings innovators in so that they can come up with a new, better
product or service, a different product or service to compete against the monopolist.
When competition takes that form, any kind of government regulation or government activity
to break up big firms into smaller firms that compete against each other may break up that
temporary monopoly lure and may actually undermine innovation and undermine competition. What
really keeps monopolies from persisting over time is entry, the ability of entrepreneurs,
innovators, competitors, to enter the market and compete against the monopoly firm and
offer consumers new or different products and services that will lead the original monopoly
to reduce its prices because of this competition. One other important idea to consider is that
the form the government regulation can take may also itself provide an entry barrier,
some kind of cost that makes it harder for competitors to come in and compete in markets.
And this is one of the really important, transformational things that we’ve experienced in the past
two decades with the Internet is that the Internet reduces those costs of starting up
new business and communicating your value proposition to more consumers. And so innovation,
such as the Internet, actually makes markets richer and more competitive because individuals
strive for achieving that market dominance. But they’re all doing it at the same time
and competing against each other, offering a wide variety of products and services.

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. One thing I think you fail to realize is that in many markets, competition actually expands the market. For example, could you imagine the music industry with only one song? Who would pay to go to a concert when they hear that same song everywhere? Monopolies only really work in markets where all companies have to sell the exact same product, the monopoly is regional, or the government is backing the monopoly. Monopolies are actually very rare.

  2. OF course there is!
    How did you buy your cup of coffee today? Did you steal it or did you voluntary trade some coins for a cup of joe?
    What many people do not understand is the scalability of the free market – from two to infinite – in its operations

  3. Nonsense.
    All monopolies exist as grant by government – no exceptions. To example a symbiosis of monopolies that favor its creator-government demonstrates nothing except "Duh! What do you expect???"

  4. All monopolies exist by government writ – no exceptions.
    If you have complaint about the existence of monopolies, there is but one cause.
    IF you believe monopolies provide a greater good for society, please present a cogent economic argument for it.

  5. Yes, government is a monopoly on the provisioning of violence.
    As it is monopoly, it suffers all the defects of monopoly – ever increasing prices for ever reducing quality.
    Eventually, the Empire collapses as its costs are enormous, yet, so feeble it is unable to withstand the assault of barbarians at its gates.

  6. They don't benefit society, besides the hypothetical Monopoly has not existed thus far. If it did naturally arise, it would be bad. You are correct though, in stating that currently they achieve their pseudo-monopolies through government.

  7. Technically neither as I don't drink coffee, but I see what you are addressing. There is a scalability to the broad notion of free market, however the moment that it is scaled due to regulation or whatever it may be it becomes a "limited free market". The notion a free market is an umbrella, with a true free market on one side. The idea of supply and demand without the constraints of regulation or trade laws. Its a horrible idea as it leads to literal slavery and just plain ole abuse

  8. Agreed – a different scales, different forces may apply.
    Supply and demand do not, nor ever, require regulation or "trade" law. Supply and Demand is an EXPLANATION regarding rise and fall of prices.

  9. Monopolies do exist – by force.
    It is IMPOSSIBLE for a monopoly to rise "naturally" (ie; without force) as it requires PERFECTION. A demand of perfection in human affairs is a fallacy.
    Agreed, the defects of monopolies fundamentally damage the market

  10. You ever notice how a good NINTEY NINE PERCENT (excuse the pun) of these libertarian videos are going on and on and on about how freedoms on business are good, people should be able to work for no minimum wage, free markets, captalism is great add nauseum, very few are about the supposed social freedoms libertarians claim to be about, unless they are throwing out the random bone for legalizing drugs, prostitution and gay marriage to make the false appearance of them not just right wing shills

  11. The problem is that these are purely hypothetical situations. We have never seen such an event occurring in a free (i.e. unregulated) market economy and it is very unlikely that it will ever happen, for various reasons.
    Now, the question if it is legitimate to dismantle such a monopoly if it has risen under corporatism, is another matter entirely. I think it is.

  12. To the contrary, no one is suggesting that government-created monopolies should not have their government grant removed from them. While those monopolies are arguably socialistic (being the result of state action), they are not the result of that form of socialism known as "corporatism".

  13. I used to think that way too, but I want to point something out and maybe you'll have a different view afterwards. Monopolies can only be maintained through force. No market will sustain a monopoly for forever. Force can be divided into two categories, legal and illegal. Illegal force would be spying on other companies, blackmail, etc. Legal force is using the government as crowbar for leverage. So who really causes these monopolies?

  14. Also, in most places the government only allows there to be ONE electric company, ONE water company, etc. They cause utility monopolies directly, and this is a fact, not speculation. Go check with your local government, I bet they'll tell you the same thing. Furthermore, I don't think people would pay $100 a water bottle, they'd boycott, boil, and filter, although electricity would be much harder to do that with. 😛 The people would overthrow a monopoly peacefully or maybe even violently.

  15. The power to overthrow a monopoly is not as easy as it may sound. If I was in control of a monopoly, I would hire people to beat up the protesters and/ or kill them. The government would not take action if it was a true laissez faire nation, all aspects of society, even murder, which affects the markets even in a small amount, would be legal.

  16. Prove how a company that has "enough money" can stop a competitor "fairly easy"? Pray tell, use an example – like IBM – the largest company in the world at a time of the rise of the computer era …. could not stop the close PC market.

    As such, your posit is ridiculous … yeah, "fairly easy to stop competition with money". Ha!

  17. Duh!
    You demonstrate exactly what Prometheus said – a monopoly can only exist by force and violence – either its own (illegal, in "beating up protestors") or legal (by writ of government).

    You continue your profound absurdity that if "men is VOLUNTARY TRADE" expanded across society, MURDER would be legal.

    To you, voluntary action – an action of NON-VIOLENCE leads to EXTREME VIOLENCE. It is hard to imagine more imbecilic thinking than your display.

  18. I say that murder would de facto be legal because of the laisse faire notion of government stays out of the free market. If I murder someone, that means there are less people available in the pool of work force. Another thing with murder is that firms can create jobs that include murder, like assassins. If government makes this illegal then there would be more people in the pool of work force and some people would lose their jobs.

    The non-violence to violence thing is not something new. Go

  19. back about 50 years in history and you can see a non-violent protest in the streets of Birmingham turn to chaos when police started beating protesters. It seems as if you think that the world is a nice place and people won't hurt each other and people can just get along. Well, if so, the world would live in a Utopia. Don't get me wrong, I wish the world was like this as well, but it is not. If you think that the non-violence to extreme violence thing is imbecile then the thought that humans have

  20. never been like this is the most… I can't even think of a word that describes this that is not too soft. Idiotic is too soft, imbecilic is also too soft, even calling you a dip-shit is too soft. Humans hate humans. Humans can be greedy, and when greedy people are given power, they will do whatever they can to stay in power. The only way someone can be a true follower of laissez faire is if they were anarchists who don't understand the concept that people hate each other.

  21. Like I have said before, commodities can NEVER be monopolized and, thus there can't be an example.
    If you want to talk resource monopolies in totally unregulated free markets then look no further than Africa, where warlords who control all the water of a region sell or trade it off to raise personal armies to keep competitors from existing and to expand their territory. That is a monopoly, owning all of a resource. IBM owning part of the market is not.

  22. Again you muddle two, distinct, concepts – economics (free market) and government (politics).

    Please explain how free men in VOLUNTARY action (you do know what voluntary means, right = "proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent.") somehow becomes coercive (the act of compelling by force of authority) to murder.

  23. Your misunderstanding of human labor.
    You are not in "competition" with your neighbor's labor.
    You are in competition with your neighbor's ABILITY.

    If you are able to do a certain job at a degree higher then me, you get the job, not I. Me killing you does not make MY effort suddenly superior! – nothing about me changed, I am still the same guy. It is just as likely that I do not get that job as I was already excluded because I shown to be inferior.

  24. *cough*
    So you believe warlords = "free market"…. what part of "voluntary" escapes you? Warlords do NOT operate upon a voluntary pogram!

    No monopoly exists without violent force preventing competition – period – whether it is by government law or violence.

    Pointing to a regime of extreme violence whilst declaring "free market" is absurd. It's not free market – it is authoritarian or despotic or feudal, but certainly not free.

  25. Say we both have the same type of skills and we are the only two people who don't have jobs. The only place that needs a person to fill a job is in the town we both live in, but there is a problem. The firm is only going to hire one of us. Let's say you are better at the ability than me and the company is definitely going to choose you. I can alter the outcome of this by killing you and the company will choose me. My effort is suddenly superior to yours because you are dead.

  26. Let's say, that hypothetical nonsense proves nothing

    Further, it is FACT that no two people are the same at all.
    Additionally, there exists no enterprise or labor that is singly demanded by one. You are insisting in a Monopsony – single buyer of labor in this example – where, factually, it does not exist. There is no need for me to kill anyone for a job, as there is another right next door.

    In other words, "let's not say" and instead you provide an Argument From Principle, instead of fantasy

  27. You keep bringing up the voluntary v. coercive subject. The order for the murder from the firm owner is voluntary. The only way for it to be voluntary for the worker is if a he/she does or does not decide to go to the protest. If the worker does go to the protest, there is a chance that the worker will die. If anyone is committing a coercive act it would be the firm owner to force his workers to get back to work or be beaten/killed. The inactive government would just sit back, watch and do nada.

  28. Nonsense.
    People are empathetic by nature, and cooperative in form. The proof – look outside your window – if people "hate" each other, civilization could not exist as it is far easier to destroy then build.

    Yet, look outside and see grand and glorious buildings.

    People, by their nature, are compassionate, cooperative and empathetic to others and it takes FORCE upon them to change that state into what your superficial view can only see.

  29. Ah, yeah, as that is the defining difference between "free market" and gee, "not free market" -duh!
    Your fantasy description has no aspect of voluntary – you said it yourself – "if he doesn't kill, he will be killed" – to you this is VOLUNTARY!?!!

    Try again. *(or not, and instead ACTUALLY provide an argument and not an example – you have asserted the non-violent men use violence, do not pretend to give hypothetical bulls*t, but provide REASONING from principles of human action to say why.)

  30. Really?

    How did you buy your coffee and donuts today?
    Trade your pennies with the vendor or hold a gun to his head?

    You do not even see the world that surrounds you – you are the fish that cannot see the water in which you swim.

  31. Again PRINCIPLES, sir.

    What is the principle you are espousing? You seem to argue "non-violent men use violence" which, at face value, is a contradiction.

    So, provide REASONED argument and NOT MAKE BELIEVE EXAMPLES OUT OF YOUR AXX to demonstrate why your contradiction is not such, but a paradox (I know you will not be able to do it, but….try anyway, you might learn something yourself).

  32. I was not asserting that non-violent men used violence, I asserted that other people used violent actions against the non-violent. Never did i say that the civil rights activists beat up the cops, I said the opposite. Ether you are not understanding my analogies, or you are trying to twist my words so that it looks like I am spewing utter nonsense and it makes you seem like you are the better person.

  33. Some people do buy their donuts and coffee that way. In a modern day system the police will respond to the "burglary." In a free market system the government would not have police. Hell, if I lived in a free market system and I knew the person behind the counter had no gun, that's how I would get my coffee and donuts.

  34. The only difference between a free market and a not free market is government intervention. That is why the government is not acting to the event, because of the system of lassez faire capitalism.

  35. Ah duh! Yes you are!
    "I say that murder would de facto be legal because of the laisse faire notion of government stays out of the free market"

    You declare that a "laisse fair" – free market; voluntary *(non-violent) – allows murder – violence.

    Please provide a reasoned argument that men in VOLUNTARY trade resort to murder to complete or instigate such trade.

    This no twist of words. YOU connected the non-violent free market with violence (murder), not me.

  36. Yep, 1% of people do steal and kill.
    But 99% don't.
    You are fixated on the 1% and declare this representative and fail to see the 99% and declare them delusional.

    In a free market, the "police" would be voluntary and/or voluntarily funded – gee, just like the police were when they were founded a hundred or so years ago, go figure!

  37. And by your declaration of thuggery, you see the world through your depraved eyes and declare the world is you, wholly depraved.
    To inform you, you are depraved. The vast most of people do not steal and do not kill – not because it is illegal – but because it is against human nature and moral principles.
    You would steal if no one was looking – but the rest of us do not do so, regardless who is or not looking.

  38. This is like saying "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a noise." How do we know that a majority would steal or not steal?

  39. No. Again, you fail to understand what a "Free market" means – and resist any correction to your distorted view.

    Free market = VOLUNTARY TRADE
    Not Free market = NOT VOLUNTARY TRADE.

    There is no necessity to declare "government" in the latter – ANY coercion, regardless of source, that compels a man to part with his goods unwilling is NOT A FREE MARKET – whether the punk thug with a gun in the street or the government thug called a tax collector.

  40. Pay attention as I already provided the reasoning.
    Since it is easier to destroy then build – what takes years to build takes minutes to destroy and IF human nature was tended toward destructive means, (and theft is one such means that destroys social order), then civilization could not stand.

  41. (con't)
    If thievery was common place, the thief beats the honest man.
    No one could maintain property or goods necessary for their lives. Thus, they would have to fight.
    The thief beats the honest man, but the murderer beats the thief.
    Society would collapse into an orgy of mass, mutual slaughter.

    But look outside. Buildings reach to the sky, social order stands, no mass slaughter of men on men.

    Thus, the thief and the murderer exist at very distant margins, not the center, of society.

  42. I am going to ask you a simple question: Do you consider a law to force people to not do something, or face the consequence?

  43. Do you think that the US government worked together with the Soviets during the Cold War Brinkmanship era? Of course we didn't (at least very little). Are we still here? Yes. Humans tended toward destructive means (nuclear weapons), yet we are still here. According to your logic, we should have been blown to smithereens decades ago; yet here we are, having a discussion about how destructive means have not taken place.

  44. This is because we live in a society of both human nature and government law. If the government law was to slip out of our reach, we would have those people who do not follow human nature, but follow government law, fall into the society of wrong doers. More wrong doers=more chaos. The more people who do these things make it more common. After the last sentence, life goes to your comment.

  45. Hmm, you bet they did.
    "Trade between the United States and the Soviet Union averaged about 1 percent of total trade for both countries through the 1970s and 1980s. Soviet-American trade peaked in 1979 at US$4.5 billion
    The Soviet Union had turned to Canada and Western Europe for one-third of its grain supplies, as well as to Argentina, Eastern Europe, Australia, and China. United States government price subsidies helped to expand grain exports in 1987 and 1988.

  46. What nonsense!
    So my post, that says people are NOT destructive means, to you, that we should have blown ourselves up! Are you droll? You demonstrate MY POINT – that in fact, humans work NOT to destroy, steal, or murder, but promote social order, cooperation and peace.

  47. Why do you believe government law, made by the evil of men to prevent the evil men solves the evil of men?

    Look, you posit that men are evil. Fine. But they, then, are those men when you make them your government. Men do not change their color because you call them government.

    So you have a problem of reasoning. You argue men are evil, thus need men to tame the evil men, but men are always men, so the men you use to tame evil are evil… what do you get, but evil?

  48. Posit:
    Menn are angels.
    No State=OK State=OK
    Men do not need the State violence to control evil, because there is no evil to control, equally, if they still want a State, the State is run by angels, not corrupt, nor violent as it is unnecessary as men running the State are angels too.

  49. Posit:
    Men are not angels
    No State=Bad situation State=Worse situation

    A stateless society will be bad, because not only are people not angels, but many of them are irredeemably vicious in the extreme, the outcome in a society under a state will be much WORSE, because the most vicious people in society will tend to gain control of the state and, second, by this control over the state’s engines of death, they will wreak vastly more harm than they ever could have caused outside the state.

  50. It is unfortunate that some individuals commit crimes, but it is stunningly worse when such criminally inclined individuals wield state powers.

  51. You confused your Cold War terms. What you described was Detente (except when Regan got in office). Brinkmanship was 1950s thru late 1960s.

  52. But there is corruption. There is violence from the state. The state is just as bad as the people who run it.

  53. You are merely applying this principle (I will state it for you, as you probably have not actually articulated it for yourself, let alone beyond)

    Fact: violence exists.
    You are faced with this trade off.

    You can have the violence that is rare but intense, random but personal, unpredictable but local violence of the street thug that at its most severe only really effects you and not much further
    …. (more)

  54. (…)
    You can have the violence that is constant but generally tolerable, systemic over society but predictable, reaches everyone and everything of government, but at its most severe effects the entire world and threatens humanity with extinction.

    In the fear of the rare attack by a thug, you champion a force of evil capable of wiping out the human race.

  55. No, the State is evil no matter who runs it.

    The State exists on a absolute requirement of violence upon NON-violent men to enforce its edicts.

    Violence on non-violent men is evil.

    State is evil as it MUST use evil to exist.

  56. Yes, like the monopoly owner from way too many posts ago, the state used violence on non-violent men. The monopoly owner is evil. The monopoly owner uses this evil if his power is threatened.

  57. Do Mobsters try to help some people? I'm sure most Mobsters loved and helped their moms and kids….

    Did not John Wayne Gacy dress up as a clown and make children laugh?

    Hitler's office staff all relate what a kind and good boss he was to them, soft spoken and caring about their day to day issues and concerns, remembering their birthdays and anniversaries with gifts – like an old grandfather.

    To you, these moments justify the evil they do, right?

  58. Monopolies can only exist by violence. Period.

    Again, it matters not one bit where that violence is provided – whether by street thugs or police thugs.

    Monopolies are evil – not because of the bad economics they provide- but because of the violence necessary for such a beast to exist.

  59. A true free market is where entrepreneurs can trade whatever they want for whatever they want without the impediment of government. The moment any law is put into place that limits what can be traded it is no longer a pure free market. Slavery, for example, is part of a free market, and that doesn't seem very "voluntary".
    This is also all a moot point as a true monopoly has not existed to date, so none of us know how they would act. You are correct about monopolies being violent to exist though

  60. NOTHING justifies evil, sir – that's the point.

    It does not matter if you dress evil up in fine clothes and pretty hats and shiny buttons on their jackets – it's still evil.

  61. No.
    Free market has no requirement of "entrepreneurs". It is a MARKET, that is, there exists TRADE.

    All tradeis ultimately individual to two. Each enter the trade with a desire to gain more benefit from the trade then not.

    The core requirement is VOLUNTARY – that is, each person holds the right to say -EQUALLY- "yes" or "no" to the trade. Neither one is held to only say "yes" or only say "no". That is what makes Free Trade "free" – the voluntary choice of agreeing OR NOT to the trade.

  62. We absolutely know how monopolies will act as we have monopolies and can review their act.

    All monopolies tend and tend to accelerate increasing price of their products married to equally diminishing quality of that product. Without respite, a consumer must contend with these constantly and consistent degradation of the goods OR abandon the purchase.

  63. So, reviewing something like security services, like military or police – monopolies of government — and see if that tendency and consequence exist.

    Well, yep! Both consume huge society resources – there are more cops that cost more …yet, violent crime has not been lower… yet, the cops demand more money and even more resources and ACTIVELY SEEK to create crime where none existed.

  64. Dude, I have no idea what you are trying to argue anymore. Monopolies have never existed to date. Also, that is a very loose requirement of a free market, as it is only consent is between the traders and no consent of the property, and the gov't can't define what property is.
    You are talking about laissez-fairism, a subtype of free market.
    So are you arguing for a free market, laissez-faire economics, anarchist capitalism, or something else?

  65. I don't know if you are new to these videos from Learn Liberty, but some of the libertarians will argue that monopolies can exist without being evil. Maybe we can put aside this entire conversation with this coming out of it: we both agree that the state and monopolies are both evil. With this common belief, we can gang up on those who believe in the monopoly without evil thought. (If I don't make sense, it is because I am tired.) Or agree on the outcome and not do the second thing. Which ever.

  66. Monopolies have absolutely existed to date. Never heard of the East India Company as but one example?
    Sorry, haven't asked my house if I can sell it or not. Doubt I'd get an answer regardless.
    Property is well defined.
    All of the above, since all are rooted upon the same fundamental – voluntary trade.

  67. I have heard these arguments – they posit that IF a free market monopoly existed, it would exist because it provides the perfect product and perfect price, hence, no competitor could find a niche to exploit profitably – but, the consumer wins, since he is getting such perfection in product and price and needs no competition to drive it.
    BUT the "IF" is irrational – it demands human perfection; perfect product, perfect price, perfect management and employees, etc – no flaws; all impossible.

  68. Hahaha this is so funny. Well, I bet I will see you on one of these videos in the future. Good night/morning/afternoon/evening to you.

  69. Maybe you should ask your daughter if you can sell her or not.
    The definition of property has been changing since the dawn of civilization and not well defined, even now with intellectual property. All of that gets thrown out the window with no lawful regulation.
    Again, what are you even trying to argue?
    Monopolies are bad? Duh
    Pure Free Market prevents monopolies? Not true, it disuades. It aslo promotes the sale of slaves or subjected and nuclear/chemical weapons to the public

  70. Why ask? I don't own her.
    The definition of property has been pretty stable. What men have "qualified" to be property has been malleable.
    Law does not turn non-property into property, such as "intellectual" property. Such law, however, can certainly distort society by that applied use of state violence – for only by state violence can non-property be forced to be accepted as real property. Left without force, such non-property reverts to what it really is and was – not property.

  71. So you argue monopolies are bad – yet, you argue that the State monopoly on violence, that by magic, if the State carries the monopoly, it is a good. Duh.

  72. The Socialist Myth of Economic Monopolies

  73. By definition, a monopoly is a business that has no competition.  A monopoly will charge more and produce less than a company that has to compete with other companies.  The things you claim will "discipline" a monopoly aren't there.

    The anti-trust laws (such as we have) were put into place because the monopolies did not erode.  They not only persisted, but actually grew stronger.  It could be argued that the government took action because the monopolies were becoming a sort of de facto government — and thus a threat to the elected government.  Still the public at large is better off with an elected government than with what may as well be a government but is answerable to no one.

    Monopolies, left to their own devices, create their own barriers to entry.  Suppose you're a would be innovator.  You try to enter the market and the monopolist (temporarily) undercuts your price.  They are willing to take that temporary loss to force you into bankruptcy because they know that they can make it all back and more when they return to monopoly prices.  Eventually, would-be innovators "know the score" and don't bother.  It's not worth it.  That way lies starvation.

  74. People seem to think that big businesses magically create their own money and then use that money to oppress people. Monopolies appear because consumers prefer them over their competition. If monopolies are more harm than they're worth, people are going to stop giving them money.

  75. What about monopolies like disney? They have virtually no competition and own several companies that have nothing to do with their main company.

  76. What gives the government the right to monopolize a service? nothing.Why do we let them? because enough stupid people believe in the hype

  77. There's something fishy about learn Liberty, I think it has something to do with this video and there stance on monopolies. This makes me question there views and intent.

  78. I suggest we take a few pages from Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The best way to establish the conditions for a truly competitive market is for societies to collect the full potential rental value of land to pay for public goods and services, eliminating the taxation of earned income flows, of capital goods and commerce. Our property laws and systems of taxation should respect a labor and capital goods basis for private property. Land, which has a zero cost of production in terms of labor and capital goods should be understood to be the source of private property but as a commons from which private property is produced or extracted (with just compensation to society for this privilege).

    Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A.
    School of Cooperative Individualism

  79. This is BS. I'll at least give LL credit for conceding monopolies can exist. Seems like several free market fantasy propagandists won't even do that. Here's how monopolies operate in reality: several large players in the market acquire other smaller and midsize players; this starts a M&A war eventually leaving 3, 4, or 5 or so large corporations that are too big to fail (for example banks that all hold each others debt and derivatives) who act from a consumer perspective as a de facto monopoly. Oligopolies is what they are. They provide the illusion of competition and perhaps a price point somewhat below the actual monopolistic price but they fuck over consumers and employees all the same. As far as the threat of having a company broken up scaring CEOs away from being CEO's or even trying to do anything in the market that's utter BS. First of all, all these top VPs and execs are constantly rotating in and out of companies so all they have on their mind is short term gain; and secondly there are thousands of micro-caps, and small-caps that are not profitable to begin with yet there are always lots of people willing to try to make them succeed, and thirdly, as long as individual player's salaries are covered and those salaries are high dollar figures, they don't care a damn whether or not extra company growth will put them on the chopping block for being broken up; again they only care about the next quarter or the current fiscal year. It's short term thinking that rules the corporate markets.

  80. As someone who lived before and after the breakup of Bell Telephone, phones are better now and it's largely caused by competition made possible by the breakup. Sometimes I think Learn Liberty just takes a contrarian viewpoint for the heck of it.

  81. Bullshlt. The breaking up of e.g. standard oil did NOT demotivate other companies to stop exploring and selling oil… this woman just pushes her ideology in complete disregard of science or history.

  82. I don’t understand the fear of monopolies. Microsoft was a monopoly in the 90s, google is currently a monopoly. Natural monopolies form all the time in different industries, they’re not inherently a bad thing. It’s not like a monopoly owner can force smaller a business owner to sell their business, the terms are mutually agreed upon. Wanting the govt to try and regulate such occurrences is a childish ideal.

  83. Good points but what about the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple? They are so big and have so much cash sloshing around that they are not using to innovate.? Should/can the government take steps to incentivise these companies to reinvest this cash? Should the government offer grants to small businesses to make it easier for them to enter the market to compete against them?

  84. Come to Ohio where Ohio Health is a monopoly, and if you need emergency treatment you will be bankrupt by the time you leave. The service there is not that great either.

  85. Monopolies can only be created with govt assistance, usually through regulations favoring one company while punishing its competitors.

  86. What is not mentioned is that monopolies happen in the IP world because of patents, which by themselves are monopolistic.
    If it wasn't for software parents I doubt Google or Apple would have such quasi-monopolies.
    In the non-IP world monopolies tend to be very rare and mostly because of business govt collusion, not the free market

  87. Depends on the Monopoly, really.  How they got there, how they keep it, etc.  Technically speaking, a monopoly in a free market situation is not a bad thing, nor is it inherently permanent.

  88. Anytime people argue getting rid of ALL regulation, it's so they can justify doing something illicit. A market with zero regulation only leads to one thing, and it's neither capitalist nor civil. There are a lot of bad regulations, and these are used as an excuse by people with bad intentions to encourage the stripping of all regulations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment