3 ms·

Oh boy - it's that time again. Time for a bunch of people with no competition law or economics background to get upset over the term 'monopoly'.

• biglenny 8y ago
  You seem to have a unique perspective based on your comment history. Could you explain why or why not you see F/G as monopolistic forces? I have no opinion on the matter, but I'm trying to understand.
  • ABCLAW 8y ago
    I think the all or nothing discussion linked to the word monopoly is what causes most of the issue. Abuse of dominant market position is the most accurate developed term of art to describe what these firms do. But the devil is in the details - the treatment, definition and remedies associated with the offense are fairly arcande, and seemingly innocuous terms can make or break the entire framework. Here's the EU's brief blurb on the issue: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/abuse_en.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/abuse_en.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html This is, however, just the basic 101 theory. The reality is a lot less rosy. In actuality, almost every level of the pro-competitive state regulatory framework is subverted, and that's by design. A state benefits from corporations that abuse their dominant market position and act anticompetitively if the harm suffered is less than the benefits. For instance, if the harm is primarily suffered in foreign markets, or by a different financial class, etc.