4 ms·

This is why I mentioned _coercive_ monopolies. Natural monopolies are OK (e.g. Google search), as long as nobody tries to protect them by law and force.

kristofferR 11y ago
How do you define force? If natural monopolies are left unchecked to grow in power, how can you be sure that they won't become powerful enough to use force to protect their or their cartels' interests?
- atemerev 11y ago
  Because the ability to use force is generally a monopoly of the government, precisely for that reason. A better question would be "how can I be sure that capitalists and government won't cooperate for establishing monopolies"? For that, I don't have an adequate answer. At least, in capitalism, there are competitors lobbying against it, creating some virtual political market. Full government monopoly is generally much worse.
  - kristofferR 11y ago
    I think we disagree on the definition of force. I don't think of force as just the power of law, but also the power of size and power. A natural monopoly could, without any government interference or help, exert a lot of the same coercive tactics a government-supported monopoly can. With a large enough size, a natural monopoly could make the barriers of entry for any potential competitor so insurmountable that it would have the same effect as making competition illegal.
bad_user 11y ago
Yes, but once a monopoly happens, that market is no longer free, competition becoming impossible without regulation. A monopoly can also supply virtually unlimited resources for expanding in other markets without breaking any antitrust laws. The only thing that can break monopolies naturally is technologicall progress, because only new technologies can make older monopolies obsolete. But then again, relying on a constant stream of innovation to keep our economy from collapsing seems like a losing battle. And also, lately technology is all about making rich people richer and poor people poorer. So much for hope.
- atemerev 11y ago
  Why you can't compete with Google? It is a monopoly, but there are some competitors (Bing, DuckDuckGo). One misstep from Google, and its monopoly is lost.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    You can't seriously claim Bing and DuckDuckGo are competition. Bing only survives because Microsoft has deep pockets, a result of their monopolies and huge war chest of course. It now powers Yahoo's Search (since their own search engine is long dead) and DuckDuckGo. You see, DDG is nothing more than a glorified UI over Bing's infrastructure. And no, competing with Google Search isn't possible, unless you're Microsoft and like to play pretend.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - rtehfm 11y ago
      You don't think that Google search enjoys being on hundreds of million devices? Remember 1999-2001 when Google unseated Yahoo from the king of search? It was a feat that seemed impossible when you had established search engines like Lycos, Ask Jeeves, Excite, DogPile, etc. all competing in the space. As with most industries and its enterprises, you'll always have an event horizon and then singularity until markets are saturated and the industry becomes irrelevant to the consumer.
      - bad_user 11y ago
        I remember 1999-2001 very well. Google Search won because the alternatives sucked. Not sure how many people here have lived or remember those alternatives, like Yahoo or Altavista, but they sucked so badly that people were routinely looking for alternatives in the hope of something better to come along. When I first saw the Google logo on a screen in an Internet Cafe, I was an instant conversion because I was searching for software development material and wasn't able to find anything I wanted, searches being mostly a game of luck, patience and suffering from horrible UIs. But here's the problem: in 2000 there was no dominant design for search engines, so the market was still open for competition. The biggest problem is that right now Google Search is the dominant design. Google won because they changed how a search engine looked, felt and functioned. Nowadays though, people want and expect Google for searches. It's a verb you know. Then webmasters in turn are optimizing their websites for Google's crawler, which in turn ensures that Google always has an edge. And you can't beat them at their own game, because they have the mindshare and the resources to keep ahead. > ...until markets are saturated and the industry becomes irrelevant to the consumer I don't think search will ever be irrelevant, but that was my other point. Technological innovation is the only natural force that breaks monopolies, but relying on constant technological innovation means our economy, our way of life, isn't sustainable.
conjectures 11y ago
Why would natural monopolies be OK in general? The screwed up train system in the UK is a natural monopoly under lax regulation. It means we face high fares, bad service and low investment.
- atemerev 11y ago
  Railroads are doomed anyway (except maybe cargo, though self-driving trucks can change that), when London to Paris plane ticket can bought for £30. Lost cause. This is possible because railroads are hierarchical, and all other means of travel are point-to-point. Networks always win against hierarchies.

kristofferR 11y ago

How do you define force? If natural monopolies are left unchecked to grow in power, how can you be sure that they won't become powerful enough to use force to protect their or their cartels' interests?

atemerev 11y ago
Because the ability to use force is generally a monopoly of the government, precisely for that reason. A better question would be "how can I be sure that capitalists and government won't cooperate for establishing monopolies"? For that, I don't have an adequate answer. At least, in capitalism, there are competitors lobbying against it, creating some virtual political market. Full government monopoly is generally much worse.
- kristofferR 11y ago
  I think we disagree on the definition of force. I don't think of force as just the power of law, but also the power of size and power. A natural monopoly could, without any government interference or help, exert a lot of the same coercive tactics a government-supported monopoly can. With a large enough size, a natural monopoly could make the barriers of entry for any potential competitor so insurmountable that it would have the same effect as making competition illegal.

bad_user 11y ago

Yes, but once a monopoly happens, that market is no longer free, competition becoming impossible without regulation. A monopoly can also supply virtually unlimited resources for expanding in other markets without breaking any antitrust laws. The only thing that can break monopolies naturally is technologicall progress, because only new technologies can make older monopolies obsolete. But then again, relying on a constant stream of innovation to keep our economy from collapsing seems like a losing battle. And also, lately technology is all about making rich people richer and poor people poorer. So much for hope.

atemerev 11y ago
Why you can't compete with Google? It is a monopoly, but there are some competitors (Bing, DuckDuckGo). One misstep from Google, and its monopoly is lost.
- bad_user 11y ago
  You can't seriously claim Bing and DuckDuckGo are competition. Bing only survives because Microsoft has deep pockets, a result of their monopolies and huge war chest of course. It now powers Yahoo's Search (since their own search engine is long dead) and DuckDuckGo. You see, DDG is nothing more than a glorified UI over Bing's infrastructure. And no, competing with Google Search isn't possible, unless you're Microsoft and like to play pretend.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - rtehfm 11y ago
    You don't think that Google search enjoys being on hundreds of million devices? Remember 1999-2001 when Google unseated Yahoo from the king of search? It was a feat that seemed impossible when you had established search engines like Lycos, Ask Jeeves, Excite, DogPile, etc. all competing in the space. As with most industries and its enterprises, you'll always have an event horizon and then singularity until markets are saturated and the industry becomes irrelevant to the consumer.
    - bad_user 11y ago
      I remember 1999-2001 very well. Google Search won because the alternatives sucked. Not sure how many people here have lived or remember those alternatives, like Yahoo or Altavista, but they sucked so badly that people were routinely looking for alternatives in the hope of something better to come along. When I first saw the Google logo on a screen in an Internet Cafe, I was an instant conversion because I was searching for software development material and wasn't able to find anything I wanted, searches being mostly a game of luck, patience and suffering from horrible UIs. But here's the problem: in 2000 there was no dominant design for search engines, so the market was still open for competition. The biggest problem is that right now Google Search is the dominant design. Google won because they changed how a search engine looked, felt and functioned. Nowadays though, people want and expect Google for searches. It's a verb you know. Then webmasters in turn are optimizing their websites for Google's crawler, which in turn ensures that Google always has an edge. And you can't beat them at their own game, because they have the mindshare and the resources to keep ahead. > ...until markets are saturated and the industry becomes irrelevant to the consumer I don't think search will ever be irrelevant, but that was my other point. Technological innovation is the only natural force that breaks monopolies, but relying on constant technological innovation means our economy, our way of life, isn't sustainable.

conjectures 11y ago

Why would natural monopolies be OK in general? The screwed up train system in the UK is a natural monopoly under lax regulation. It means we face high fares, bad service and low investment.

atemerev 11y ago
Railroads are doomed anyway (except maybe cargo, though self-driving trucks can change that), when London to Paris plane ticket can bought for £30. Lost cause. This is possible because railroads are hierarchical, and all other means of travel are point-to-point. Networks always win against hierarchies.