4 ms·

> They behave as if they are attempting this, IMHO. Every rational company should behave as if they're attempting to become a monopoly, this is a completely me

> They behave as if they are attempting this, IMHO. Every rational company should behave as if they're attempting to become a monopoly, this is a completely meaningless point to argue either way.

Nursie 9y ago
This is like the idea that every rational company must skirt the very edges of the law, regardless of good ethics, to maximise profit. I don't personally believe either to be true, and I do believe there's a very real difference between out-competing the competition and using a ton of VC money to undercut them, or skirting rules and regulations that may add cost.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Taxis have an ACTUAL monopoly. Are you seriously siding with "banning potential monopoly" to protect an entrenched centuries old monopoly.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    >> Taxis have an ACTUAL monopoly Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London. >> Are you seriously siding with "banning potential monopoly" to protect an entrenched centuries old monopoly. Nope. That's a wilful misreading of what I've been posting and I'm not sure it warrants much response. I'm siding with protecting a diverse market from an unethical company who appear to be bending the rules and sinking a ton of investor money into distorting the market in an effort to capture it.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London. If thats your definition of monopoly, then UBER is also not a monopoly. Those still exist and can continue to exist. > I'm siding with protecting a diverse market You are not siding with protecting a diverse market because you are eliminating an option. Its the exact opposite direction. The rules are written by the same people that invented taxicabs. If the rules are removed, UBER would not be bending any rules. Its a problem created exclusively by the government, and uber drivers and passengers are being disregarded. This is what people want, and you are advocating for restricting those people in favor of another. To help one side, you are advocating the attack of another one. That is not an even standing.
      - Nursie 9y ago
        Uber are not a monopoly, never claimed they were. They act like they want to be though, and are using VC money to undercut AFAICT The rules are much more than there to protect just black cabs, they are there to protect consumers and workers too. Uber are a set of problems all to themselves, and have only their own attitudes and practices to blame. I am not advocating helping any one 'side', and to paint my arguments that way is disingenuous.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Some companies are happy to serve a restricted demographic, provide work for the owners and employees; you don't have to be a megalomaniac to lead a company. That seems rational, can you explain why it isn't? Some people aren't primarily motivated by power and profit.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > Some companies are happy to serve a restricted demographic Right, but whatever their target demographic is, they're still going to want to have an exclusive stake in it. I'm not saying that Taco Bell can/should seek to monopolize all food.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    We have customers who go to other places for our niche services (art/craft), I don't have a problem with that. We could seek to get those customers exclusively to use our services, I just don't find a compelling reason to do so (of course I'm greedy for money, but other than that?).
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      I mean no disrespect, but I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the concept of a monopoly.
      - laumars 9y ago
        Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising. Some independent stores simply aren't interested in being the monopoly in their local area for their particular product. Sometimes they just run the business because its a product they enjoy and running their own business is preferable to being an employee for someone else. Another example of businesses not run like monopolies is with consumables like fast food. You might have a successful fish and chip shop, Chinese or Indian take-away. Most UK towns will have multiple different independent restaurants but you seldom see these restaurants open up more shops in town, or even in other towns. Yet there is clearly a demand for good take-aways.
vertex-four 9y ago
I know plenty of small - and, actually, big - companies which have reasonably good relationships with their competition, actually. Craft breweries regularly collaborate with each other, as an example - even those which have taken significant capital investment.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Craft brewers are not in strict competition with all other craft brewers for the whole market. They would have to expand their operations immensely to do so (and likely no longer be considered "craft"). If I want a pilsner with more or less hop, a smooth saison, or a high-alcohol belgian-style wheat beer, no craft brewer I know of can afford to serve all of these whims. That said, a craft brewer could seek a local monopoly on the citrusy saison, and collaborate to serve different niches. Craft brewing is almost defined by a premium on variety, and that marketable variety creates an highly recursive system of market segmentation. Since flavour/atmosphere/taste has so many facets, and there is so much variance in terms of "customer success", all product categories which are differentiated by flavour and/or atmosphere and/or taste tend to multiply markets rather than consolidating them. Coca-Cola, for example, could be seen to have no competition at one level (the market for Coca-Cola specifically), and enormous competition (the market for all beverages). Legal restrictions on transportation and processing of raw coca leaf, and on marketing products as "Coca-Cola", help the Coca-Cola company retain a monopoly on Coca-Cola specifically.
jerf 9y ago
Every company should attempt to be the best in their field, yes. However, that does not in general encompass taking vast piles of VC money to run a loss-leader service for years and years on end in an attempt to monopolize an entire sector by undercutting all the competition that has to actually make a profit pretty much every quarter, with their valuation almost entirely based on the idea that they can succeed and then raise prices to become profitable. Yes, there is a qualitative difference here.
- stale2002 9y ago
  There aren't really any barriers to entry for local taxis. Uber really can't just put the entire world out of business. Undercutting competition just meana VC funded cheap rides for consumers.
meigwilym 9y ago
If people acted with the rationality of companies, we'd live in a society of psychopaths. Business wasn't always like this, and doesn't have to be either.

> They behave as if they are attempting this, IMHO. Every rational company should behave as if they're attempting to become a monopoly, this is a completely meaningless point to argue either way.

Nursie 9y ago

This is like the idea that every rational company must skirt the very edges of the law, regardless of good ethics, to maximise profit. I don't personally believe either to be true, and I do believe there's a very real difference between out-competing the competition and using a ton of VC money to undercut them, or skirting rules and regulations that may add cost.

conanbatt 9y ago
Taxis have an ACTUAL monopoly. Are you seriously siding with "banning potential monopoly" to protect an entrenched centuries old monopoly.
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> Taxis have an ACTUAL monopoly Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London. >> Are you seriously siding with "banning potential monopoly" to protect an entrenched centuries old monopoly. Nope. That's a wilful misreading of what I've been posting and I'm not sure it warrants much response. I'm siding with protecting a diverse market from an unethical company who appear to be bending the rules and sinking a ton of investor money into distorting the market in an effort to capture it.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London. If thats your definition of monopoly, then UBER is also not a monopoly. Those still exist and can continue to exist. > I'm siding with protecting a diverse market You are not siding with protecting a diverse market because you are eliminating an option. Its the exact opposite direction. The rules are written by the same people that invented taxicabs. If the rules are removed, UBER would not be bending any rules. Its a problem created exclusively by the government, and uber drivers and passengers are being disregarded. This is what people want, and you are advocating for restricting those people in favor of another. To help one side, you are advocating the attack of another one. That is not an even standing.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      Uber are not a monopoly, never claimed they were. They act like they want to be though, and are using VC money to undercut AFAICT The rules are much more than there to protect just black cabs, they are there to protect consumers and workers too. Uber are a set of problems all to themselves, and have only their own attitudes and practices to blame. I am not advocating helping any one 'side', and to paint my arguments that way is disingenuous.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Some companies are happy to serve a restricted demographic, provide work for the owners and employees; you don't have to be a megalomaniac to lead a company. That seems rational, can you explain why it isn't? Some people aren't primarily motivated by power and profit.

microcolonel 9y ago
> Some companies are happy to serve a restricted demographic Right, but whatever their target demographic is, they're still going to want to have an exclusive stake in it. I'm not saying that Taco Bell can/should seek to monopolize all food.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  We have customers who go to other places for our niche services (art/craft), I don't have a problem with that. We could seek to get those customers exclusively to use our services, I just don't find a compelling reason to do so (of course I'm greedy for money, but other than that?).
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    I mean no disrespect, but I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the concept of a monopoly.
    - laumars 9y ago
      Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising. Some independent stores simply aren't interested in being the monopoly in their local area for their particular product. Sometimes they just run the business because its a product they enjoy and running their own business is preferable to being an employee for someone else. Another example of businesses not run like monopolies is with consumables like fast food. You might have a successful fish and chip shop, Chinese or Indian take-away. Most UK towns will have multiple different independent restaurants but you seldom see these restaurants open up more shops in town, or even in other towns. Yet there is clearly a demand for good take-aways.

vertex-four 9y ago

I know plenty of small - and, actually, big - companies which have reasonably good relationships with their competition, actually. Craft breweries regularly collaborate with each other, as an example - even those which have taken significant capital investment.

microcolonel 9y ago
Craft brewers are not in strict competition with all other craft brewers for the whole market. They would have to expand their operations immensely to do so (and likely no longer be considered "craft"). If I want a pilsner with more or less hop, a smooth saison, or a high-alcohol belgian-style wheat beer, no craft brewer I know of can afford to serve all of these whims. That said, a craft brewer could seek a local monopoly on the citrusy saison, and collaborate to serve different niches. Craft brewing is almost defined by a premium on variety, and that marketable variety creates an highly recursive system of market segmentation. Since flavour/atmosphere/taste has so many facets, and there is so much variance in terms of "customer success", all product categories which are differentiated by flavour and/or atmosphere and/or taste tend to multiply markets rather than consolidating them. Coca-Cola, for example, could be seen to have no competition at one level (the market for Coca-Cola specifically), and enormous competition (the market for all beverages). Legal restrictions on transportation and processing of raw coca leaf, and on marketing products as "Coca-Cola", help the Coca-Cola company retain a monopoly on Coca-Cola specifically.

jerf 9y ago

Every company should attempt to be the best in their field, yes. However, that does not in general encompass taking vast piles of VC money to run a loss-leader service for years and years on end in an attempt to monopolize an entire sector by undercutting all the competition that has to actually make a profit pretty much every quarter, with their valuation almost entirely based on the idea that they can succeed and then raise prices to become profitable. Yes, there is a qualitative difference here.

stale2002 9y ago
There aren't really any barriers to entry for local taxis. Uber really can't just put the entire world out of business. Undercutting competition just meana VC funded cheap rides for consumers.

meigwilym 9y ago

If people acted with the rationality of companies, we'd live in a society of psychopaths. Business wasn't always like this, and doesn't have to be either.