3 ms·

I'm sick of having 0 to 1 choice in so many things. If a monopoly is bad, then what's the next worst number of companies? Two. Isn't the governments job to enha

I'm sick of having 0 to 1 choice in so many things. If a monopoly is bad, then what's the next worst number of companies? Two. Isn't the governments job to enhance the "free" market by forcing competition through forcing open on-boarding, or IP sharing, or breaking up, or really anything effective to lubricate the wheels of capitalism.

Keyframe 9y ago
For years now we had a choice of 1. It's moving, again. It's also a high entry bar.
- RichardHeart 9y ago
  Here's some ways I can think of that would allow competition without splitting the company up. Forced Ip sharing, incentivised loans to fund new competitors, ip sunsetting, fab sharing, etc, etc. Everyone dislikes government intervention in business, yet something must be done, so I'd like to see the current evil vs the calculated result of the least evil of the government interventions, and vote for one. If monopolies are illegal, and this is a monopoly...
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
    I don't see how it's a monopoly: AMD's x64 chips are competent, and given that Windows now fully supports ARM it means that for an OEM working on a greenfield project they're free to explore non-Intel options entirely. Intel has a monopoly in microprocessors today the same way that Microsoft Windows is an OS monopoly today: it sort-of is, but it isn't holding anyone back either.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Monopoly does not mean 100% market share. It means they control the market and 95% is generally plenty to hit that point because of economy of scale generally prevents anyone else from staying competitive.
      - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
        But presently Intel and Microsoft are not being anti-competitive, despite their near-monopoly market share - on the contrary, competition is thriving.
        Retric 9y ago
        The huge Intel price drop due to AMD Ryzen clearly suggests they where was not competitive. (35% on the Core i7-6700K) https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-cpu-prices-drop-ryzen-launch/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-cpu-prices-dro... Further, Intel's market share directly links to their R&D advantage and process advantage. AMD can keep them honest every few years, but they can't keep up without a lot more market share and Intel has an insane war chest which they use to maintain that market share.
qubex 9y ago
Actually some counterintuitive results from Industrial Relations (the branch of economics that studies supply-side structure, amongst other things) and Game Theory indicate that competition might be greater between oligopolist firms than between those that exist in situations of perfect competition (mainly because by ”knocking out” an oligopolistic competitor you get a big chunk of market share and thus sales volume and economies of scale, whereas ”knocking out” an anonymous perfect competitor nets you (ideally) an infinitesimal additional market share shared by an infinite number of other competitors).
- simion314 9y ago
  The first case is good for the company because it will end up in a monopoly while the people will suffer. IMO competition and free market will not converge to the "best for the people/population" optimum point in all cases, lots of cases will converge to a good for the companies and very bad for the people.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  If my competitor offers a widget on Amazon for $X and I offer it on Amazon for $X-1, I will capture ~100% of that market and the competitor will capture ~0%. The internet's winner-take-all effect has both benefits and drawbacks for us consumers.
  - qubex 9y ago
    This is the economically expected outcome iff the lower-priced firm has no production capacity constraints and the products are an undifferentiated commodities to the point that consumers have no decision to make other than price.

Keyframe 9y ago

For years now we had a choice of 1. It's moving, again. It's also a high entry bar.

RichardHeart 9y ago
Here's some ways I can think of that would allow competition without splitting the company up. Forced Ip sharing, incentivised loans to fund new competitors, ip sunsetting, fab sharing, etc, etc. Everyone dislikes government intervention in business, yet something must be done, so I'd like to see the current evil vs the calculated result of the least evil of the government interventions, and vote for one. If monopolies are illegal, and this is a monopoly...
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  I don't see how it's a monopoly: AMD's x64 chips are competent, and given that Windows now fully supports ARM it means that for an OEM working on a greenfield project they're free to explore non-Intel options entirely. Intel has a monopoly in microprocessors today the same way that Microsoft Windows is an OS monopoly today: it sort-of is, but it isn't holding anyone back either.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Monopoly does not mean 100% market share. It means they control the market and 95% is generally plenty to hit that point because of economy of scale generally prevents anyone else from staying competitive.
    - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
      But presently Intel and Microsoft are not being anti-competitive, despite their near-monopoly market share - on the contrary, competition is thriving.
      - Retric 9y ago
        The huge Intel price drop due to AMD Ryzen clearly suggests they where was not competitive. (35% on the Core i7-6700K) https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-cpu-prices-drop-ryzen-launch/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-cpu-prices-dro... Further, Intel's market share directly links to their R&D advantage and process advantage. AMD can keep them honest every few years, but they can't keep up without a lot more market share and Intel has an insane war chest which they use to maintain that market share.

qubex 9y ago

Actually some counterintuitive results from Industrial Relations (the branch of economics that studies supply-side structure, amongst other things) and Game Theory indicate that competition might be greater between oligopolist firms than between those that exist in situations of perfect competition (mainly because by ”knocking out” an oligopolistic competitor you get a big chunk of market share and thus sales volume and economies of scale, whereas ”knocking out” an anonymous perfect competitor nets you (ideally) an infinitesimal additional market share shared by an infinite number of other competitors).

simion314 9y ago
The first case is good for the company because it will end up in a monopoly while the people will suffer. IMO competition and free market will not converge to the "best for the people/population" optimum point in all cases, lots of cases will converge to a good for the companies and very bad for the people.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
If my competitor offers a widget on Amazon for $X and I offer it on Amazon for $X-1, I will capture ~100% of that market and the competitor will capture ~0%. The internet's winner-take-all effect has both benefits and drawbacks for us consumers.
- qubex 9y ago
  This is the economically expected outcome iff the lower-priced firm has no production capacity constraints and the products are an undifferentiated commodities to the point that consumers have no decision to make other than price.