5 ms·

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?
        johncalvinyoung 8y ago
        Walmart prices do vary. In some places grocery competitors like Aldi do shade many of their prices significantly (and consistently, not just loss leaders).
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        Prices in different stores vary for a lot of reasons. One area will have higher real estate costs or higher taxes, or a lower volume of customers to amortize fixed costs over. This is also why a new competitor opening up seems to cause prices to decline significantly. Part of it is the competition, but part of it is that the same factors that allowed the competitor to justify opening a new store (e.g. a tax cut or population growth) also allow the existing store to reduce prices.
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

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?
      - johncalvinyoung 8y ago
        Walmart prices do vary. In some places grocery competitors like Aldi do shade many of their prices significantly (and consistently, not just loss leaders).
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        Prices in different stores vary for a lot of reasons. One area will have higher real estate costs or higher taxes, or a lower volume of customers to amortize fixed costs over. This is also why a new competitor opening up seems to cause prices to decline significantly. Part of it is the competition, but part of it is that the same factors that allowed the competitor to justify opening a new store (e.g. a tax cut or population growth) also allow the existing store to reduce prices.

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