4 ms·
I understand your point, but I do not think the resource would become so valuable if only one company controlled this resource. > Although Standard had 90 perc
by samdoidge 10y ago
I understand your point, but I do not think the resource would become so valuable if only one company controlled this resource.
> Although Standard had 90 percent of American refining capacity in 1880, by 1911 that had shrunk to between 60 and 65 percent, due to the expansion in capacity by competitors [1]
Standard Oil did become hugely rich and powerful. It did reach massive marketshare as a result of cutting prices, but I wouldn't call it a natural monopoly. I see a monopoly as having no competitors.
[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#cite_note-47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#cite_note-47)
- drieddust 10y agoOk so you are happy to 30 wait for competition to emerge against a monopoly? That's one full career.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoThat's one definition but in practice it's too weak. One company can get so dominant, esp if it fosters dependence, that it effectively has no competition. They also buy out competitors or bankrupt them by selling below cost. The dominant firm can do that longer. The biggest players pre-Antitrust used to love that technique.