4 ms·

That's the point. Bill Gates was convicted of being a monopolist and checks were put on what his company could and could not do. That does not happen in Mexico.

by jakarta 16y ago

That's the point. Bill Gates was convicted of being a monopolist and checks were put on what his company could and could not do. That does not happen in Mexico. In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. Same goes for the Bell Telecom companies in America, they were also all broken up. We have checks in place to curb the anti-competitive forces of certain companies.

volski 16y ago
In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. John D. Rockefeller actually ended up being a lot richer because the courts broke up Standard Oil[1]. He went from having a controlling stake in the most powerful company in oil, to having a controlling stake in most of the powerful companies in the whole oil industry (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell). I just wanted to clarify that point because the order in which your statement was crafted kind of made it seem like the courts broke up his wealth when they actually expanded it. 1.Rockefeller, who had rarely sold shares, held over 25% of Standard’s stock at the time of the breakup. He, as well as all stockholders, received proportionate shares in each of the 34 companies...The companies’ combined net worth rose fivefold and Rockefeller’s personal wealth jumped to $900,000,000.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
- napierzaza 16y ago
  I agree with your statement, while at the same time it was the monopoly that got him to the position he was in. It's hard not to make money once you're at that point. I don't think he could have gotten that rich if actual competition existed and he was investing in hundreds of companies. He didn't do any manoeuvring to get his stakes in all those separate companies, unless you count back room deals.
  - lzw 16y ago
    A monopoly is someone who owns an entire market. In the history of america, the only monopolies that have existed were government granted ones, like the US Postal Service. The government passed a law prohibiting the offering of first class mail. At the time they did this, there was a thriving and growing and diverse mail delivery system made up of thousands of small businesses and private contractors. Standard Oil was never a monopoly, and never had monopoly pricing power. Standard oil was only ever able to get large because they quickly and constantly drove down the price of gasoline. There is this tendency for americans to call businesses that are not monopolies under the definition to be monopolies to justify using violence against them (it is violence when a company is forcibly broken up or forced to not engage in "anti-competitive" (by which they really mean "competitive") activities.) The reality is, none of these businesses were monopolies, and as much as I hate microsoft, they weren't a monopoly. Existing laws would have been sufficient for enforcement against microsoft for their crimes, which included fraud and misrepresentation. But the "anti-trust" laws are all about preserving government power and are used only against businesses that become big enough to wield influence and thus attract opponents in government... usually opponents in government in the pocket of competing businesses. The US would be a better country and have a more robust economy, if Standard Oil had never been broken up. This and the "anti-trust" movement is a triumph of socialism over capitalism.
    - Tycho 16y ago
      What di you make of the DeBeers 10 year diamond monopoly? If all the supposed monopolies out there, this seems the hardest to debunk. I read one economist say they were really a cartel with government protection, but he didn't cite any evidence. DeBeers seem to have controlled the trade through their own shrewdness. Only point I can think against it is there's nothing to stop people reselling diamond rings so it's wrong to say they control the market.
      - lzw 16y ago
        The only way a cartel can work is via government enforcement. Cartels can try to fix prices, but as soon as they do, if the price is above the free-market price, members of the cartel will try to gain marketshare by selling under the table at a lower price. Cartels are not sustainable in a free market for this reason. I can't comment on DeBeers because I do not know enough of the history of the situation. I will say, though, that diamonds are essentially worthless, and it is primarily by brilliant propaganda / advertising that people continue to buy them.
lionhearted 16y ago
> In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world ... We have checks in place to curb the anti-competitive forces of certain companies. If anyone is curious about John Rockefeller, I'd very strongly recommend "Titan" by Ron Chernow, which is a very detailed and fair biography of Rockefeller. It's one of the more important biographies I've read for my own development as a person. After reading it, I'm thoroughly convinced that the oil industry would've been much smaller and much more expensive without Rockefeller's work, and he was a genius about chemistry, engineering, distribution, and all sorts of things. Rockefeller is probably in the 10 Americans of wealth created of all time - oil prices fell a huge amount due to Rockefeller's leadership, ability to find talent. He paid people well and treated them well. Did a lot of philanthropy, and raised his kids really modestly too. They lived in a three bedroom home with his wife and six kids for a long time, treated people really well. His kids didn't know they were one of the wealthiest families in America until they were teenagers. Really an amazing guy. I'd recommend that biography to anyone. I think most people, even people who strongly believe in social causes and regulation, will admire the guy a lot after reading his biography. He did a massively lot of good for the world.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- lzw 16y ago
  I haven't read Titan, but I can recommend "The Myth of the Robber Barrons". Excellent book. The short story is this: All those robber barrons did far more good for society than the government that broke them up. The propaganda about how they were doing so much harm and needed to be broken up for the good of society is the basic propaganda of socialism. But of course, since it is taught as history, people believe it.
smokeyj 16y ago
True monopolies are often the side effect of regulation, telecom not being an exception. Big companies lobby for regulation to create a steeper barrier to entry for start-ups, effectively mitigating competition.

by jakarta 16y ago

volski 16y ago

In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. John D. Rockefeller actually ended up being a lot richer because the courts broke up Standard Oil[1]. He went from having a controlling stake in the most powerful company in oil, to having a controlling stake in most of the powerful companies in the whole oil industry (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell). I just wanted to clarify that point because the order in which your statement was crafted kind of made it seem like the courts broke up his wealth when they actually expanded it. 1.Rockefeller, who had rarely sold shares, held over 25% of Standard’s stock at the time of the breakup. He, as well as all stockholders, received proportionate shares in each of the 34 companies...The companies’ combined net worth rose fivefold and Rockefeller’s personal wealth jumped to $900,000,000.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller

napierzaza 16y ago
I agree with your statement, while at the same time it was the monopoly that got him to the position he was in. It's hard not to make money once you're at that point. I don't think he could have gotten that rich if actual competition existed and he was investing in hundreds of companies. He didn't do any manoeuvring to get his stakes in all those separate companies, unless you count back room deals.
- lzw 16y ago
  A monopoly is someone who owns an entire market. In the history of america, the only monopolies that have existed were government granted ones, like the US Postal Service. The government passed a law prohibiting the offering of first class mail. At the time they did this, there was a thriving and growing and diverse mail delivery system made up of thousands of small businesses and private contractors. Standard Oil was never a monopoly, and never had monopoly pricing power. Standard oil was only ever able to get large because they quickly and constantly drove down the price of gasoline. There is this tendency for americans to call businesses that are not monopolies under the definition to be monopolies to justify using violence against them (it is violence when a company is forcibly broken up or forced to not engage in "anti-competitive" (by which they really mean "competitive") activities.) The reality is, none of these businesses were monopolies, and as much as I hate microsoft, they weren't a monopoly. Existing laws would have been sufficient for enforcement against microsoft for their crimes, which included fraud and misrepresentation. But the "anti-trust" laws are all about preserving government power and are used only against businesses that become big enough to wield influence and thus attract opponents in government... usually opponents in government in the pocket of competing businesses. The US would be a better country and have a more robust economy, if Standard Oil had never been broken up. This and the "anti-trust" movement is a triumph of socialism over capitalism.
  - Tycho 16y ago
    What di you make of the DeBeers 10 year diamond monopoly? If all the supposed monopolies out there, this seems the hardest to debunk. I read one economist say they were really a cartel with government protection, but he didn't cite any evidence. DeBeers seem to have controlled the trade through their own shrewdness. Only point I can think against it is there's nothing to stop people reselling diamond rings so it's wrong to say they control the market.
    - lzw 16y ago
      The only way a cartel can work is via government enforcement. Cartels can try to fix prices, but as soon as they do, if the price is above the free-market price, members of the cartel will try to gain marketshare by selling under the table at a lower price. Cartels are not sustainable in a free market for this reason. I can't comment on DeBeers because I do not know enough of the history of the situation. I will say, though, that diamonds are essentially worthless, and it is primarily by brilliant propaganda / advertising that people continue to buy them.

lionhearted 16y ago

> In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world ... We have checks in place to curb the anti-competitive forces of certain companies. If anyone is curious about John Rockefeller, I'd very strongly recommend "Titan" by Ron Chernow, which is a very detailed and fair biography of Rockefeller. It's one of the more important biographies I've read for my own development as a person. After reading it, I'm thoroughly convinced that the oil industry would've been much smaller and much more expensive without Rockefeller's work, and he was a genius about chemistry, engineering, distribution, and all sorts of things. Rockefeller is probably in the 10 Americans of wealth created of all time - oil prices fell a huge amount due to Rockefeller's leadership, ability to find talent. He paid people well and treated them well. Did a lot of philanthropy, and raised his kids really modestly too. They lived in a three bedroom home with his wife and six kids for a long time, treated people really well. His kids didn't know they were one of the wealthiest families in America until they were teenagers. Really an amazing guy. I'd recommend that biography to anyone. I think most people, even people who strongly believe in social causes and regulation, will admire the guy a lot after reading his biography. He did a massively lot of good for the world.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
lzw 16y ago
I haven't read Titan, but I can recommend "The Myth of the Robber Barrons". Excellent book. The short story is this: All those robber barrons did far more good for society than the government that broke them up. The propaganda about how they were doing so much harm and needed to be broken up for the good of society is the basic propaganda of socialism. But of course, since it is taught as history, people believe it.

smokeyj 16y ago

True monopolies are often the side effect of regulation, telecom not being an exception. Big companies lobby for regulation to create a steeper barrier to entry for start-ups, effectively mitigating competition.