4 ms·

I'm a little surprised this didn't have a little more discussion.

nickik 8y ago
As a libertarian who argues for government regulation being the problem and not the market a lot, I must say, I'm not surprised. This is basically normal and what you expect. People are just blind to the massive amount of regulation that struggles and often basically predetermines the market and when you try to explain how 3 different regulation combine to make the improvement impossible peoples eyes gloss over. If the regulation is not "THIS GUY HAS A MONOPOLY" its very hard to get anybody exited or even talking about these regulations.
- chuckdries 8y ago
  Are you arguing that these companies have their monopolies because of regulation?
  - yifanl 8y ago
    It's hardly outside the realm of possibility that the big telecoms are lobbying for regulation that makes it easy for them and hard for everyone else.
  - IntelMiner 8y ago
    I mean. They did identify as a Libertarian. Isn't that one of the core philosophies of Libertarianism? That the "market will sort itself out"
    - tomjakubowski 8y ago
      That is true for the right-libertarianism dominant in the US (also true for some flavors of left-libertarianism). I guess that's probably what most refer to with "big-L Libertarianism".
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      perhaps true of "big L" libertarianism, but this is not entirely a fair representation of the broader political philosophy. most libertarians i have talked to will certainly acknowledge that market failures happen even in unregulated markets. as i understand it, the core motivation for libertarianism is that power is real and impossible to "distribute" evenly. relatively more powerful people will always be able to divert state resources to serve their own ends. the only way to limit this effect is to limit the power of the state itself. so the argument is not so much that free markets are beautiful, perfect things; rather, the free market is usually preferable to the regulated markets that powerful actors will allow to occur.
  - MrEldritch 8y ago
    This is not an uncommon argument. It's not that the free market never leads to monopolies - but almost all of the most recognizable monopolies either owe their business model to a distortion in the market directly caused by regulation, owe their continued long-term existence to a regulatory environment that makes it unusually hard for would-be competitors to even think about trying to fight them, or owe their particular reach and dominance to special advantages imposed from outside. Monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels can (and would) certainly occur even in the mythical Ancapistan, but accidental and deliberate abuses of state power make them both more common, more stable, and worse than they would be otherwise.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Historically monopoly’s show up in many market which seems like a strong counter argument. Companies like Intel have intentionally avoided becoming a full monopoly due to regulations, but economies of scale end up being a huge advantage. Walmart needs no help to kill off competition in a small town as a more local example.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        But notice how Walmart's "monopoly" is different from Comcast's. Comcast has a monopoly because barriers are high. Walmart has one because they're the fiercest competitor. If Walmart raised prices, competing stores would appear immediately. When Comcast raises prices, everyone else has to tighten their belt.
        Retric 8y ago
        Companies can’t start up and fail for zero cost. Which allows Walmart to raise prices without instantly getting competition in those areas. In higher population areas that can support more stores it’s a very different story.
        hackeraccount 8y ago
        Have you ever been to a Walmart where the prices are high?
  - mbrameld 8y ago
    I think the argument is that these companies became large enough to afford to buy the regulations that allowed them to discourage new entrants to the market. Then they consolidated the remaining players.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      It’s called regulatory capture. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp

As a libertarian who argues for government regulation being the problem and not the market a lot, I must say, I'm not surprised. This is basically normal and what you expect. People are just blind to the massive amount of regulation that struggles and often basically predetermines the market and when you try to explain how 3 different regulation combine to make the improvement impossible peoples eyes gloss over. If the regulation is not "THIS GUY HAS A MONOPOLY" its very hard to get anybody exited or even talking about these regulations.

chuckdries 8y ago
Are you arguing that these companies have their monopolies because of regulation?
- yifanl 8y ago
  It's hardly outside the realm of possibility that the big telecoms are lobbying for regulation that makes it easy for them and hard for everyone else.
- IntelMiner 8y ago
  I mean. They did identify as a Libertarian. Isn't that one of the core philosophies of Libertarianism? That the "market will sort itself out"
  - tomjakubowski 8y ago
    That is true for the right-libertarianism dominant in the US (also true for some flavors of left-libertarianism). I guess that's probably what most refer to with "big-L Libertarianism".
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    perhaps true of "big L" libertarianism, but this is not entirely a fair representation of the broader political philosophy. most libertarians i have talked to will certainly acknowledge that market failures happen even in unregulated markets. as i understand it, the core motivation for libertarianism is that power is real and impossible to "distribute" evenly. relatively more powerful people will always be able to divert state resources to serve their own ends. the only way to limit this effect is to limit the power of the state itself. so the argument is not so much that free markets are beautiful, perfect things; rather, the free market is usually preferable to the regulated markets that powerful actors will allow to occur.
- MrEldritch 8y ago
  This is not an uncommon argument. It's not that the free market never leads to monopolies - but almost all of the most recognizable monopolies either owe their business model to a distortion in the market directly caused by regulation, owe their continued long-term existence to a regulatory environment that makes it unusually hard for would-be competitors to even think about trying to fight them, or owe their particular reach and dominance to special advantages imposed from outside. Monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels can (and would) certainly occur even in the mythical Ancapistan, but accidental and deliberate abuses of state power make them both more common, more stable, and worse than they would be otherwise.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Historically monopoly’s show up in many market which seems like a strong counter argument. Companies like Intel have intentionally avoided becoming a full monopoly due to regulations, but economies of scale end up being a huge advantage. Walmart needs no help to kill off competition in a small town as a more local example.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      But notice how Walmart's "monopoly" is different from Comcast's. Comcast has a monopoly because barriers are high. Walmart has one because they're the fiercest competitor. If Walmart raised prices, competing stores would appear immediately. When Comcast raises prices, everyone else has to tighten their belt.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Companies can’t start up and fail for zero cost. Which allows Walmart to raise prices without instantly getting competition in those areas. In higher population areas that can support more stores it’s a very different story.
        hackeraccount 8y ago
        Have you ever been to a Walmart where the prices are high?
- mbrameld 8y ago
  I think the argument is that these companies became large enough to afford to buy the regulations that allowed them to discourage new entrants to the market. Then they consolidated the remaining players.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It’s called regulatory capture. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp