> Perhaps, Corbyn’s political philosophy suggests, what we need is not more choice, but less; not more competition but more monopolies. But before you counter w

> Perhaps, Corbyn’s political philosophy suggests, what we need is not more choice, but less; not more competition but more monopolies. But before you counter with something along the lines of “Why don’t you go and live in North Korea, pinko?” consider this: Paypal founder Peter Thiel argues that monopolies are good things and that competition, often, doesn’t help either businesses or customers. “In the real world outside economic theory, every business is successful exactly to the extent that it does something others cannot. Monopoly is therefore not a pathology or an exception. Monopoly is the condition of every successful business.” Competition, in short, is for losers. Corbyn is talking about state monopolies while Theil is talking about "monopolies" in air-quotes such as Microsoft from the 1990s or, well, PayPal from roughly the same era. The emergence of PayPal alternatives since the 1990s and the decline & later rejuvenation of Microsoft illustrate the difference. Yes, a successful business can appeal as a "monopoly," but in a free market, it is rarely an actual monopoly. Apple and other small manufacturers provided alternatives—other choices—even at Microsoft's peak of desktop dominance. I would argue that the highly-successful Apple that we have today was in large part shaped and honed by a decade of fighting for scraps in a market that Microsoft dominated. So if your opinion is that Microsoft was a monopoly in the 1990s, then I think it is reasonable to agree with Theil that monopolies—using that definition—are ultimately a good thing for consumers. But we should not kid ourselves about matters that can end up being so important to life and happiness: a state monopoly expressly disallows even the smallest and (seemingly) inconsequential alternative choices. State monopolies are definitively not the same thing as Microsoft and PayPal.