5 ms·

> Never have I seen evidence of a lasting consumer-hostile monopoly that existed without the involvement of the State. As far as I can tell, natural monopolies

by aylmao 8y ago

> Never have I seen evidence of a lasting consumer-hostile monopoly that existed without the involvement of the State. As far as I can tell, natural monopolies are a myth grown from mistaken economic theory. I disagree, not with your premise but with this conclusion, because there's also little evidence of monopolies that broke down without involvement from the state. One also has to consider industries and states are all different. In a country like the US with a codified anti-monopoly law, yeah, you need collusion with the state to turn the blind eye. But precisely cause this anti-monopoly law exists, it's that monopolies HAVE been broken down, by the state. There's industries like software where a random developer can create something that grows into a huge corporation, or a OSS project that completely changes the industry, etc. because the cost of entry is so low. But there's also industries that are ridiculously hard to get into and require massive investments that only other big companies can make. The free market IS rich-gets-richer territory.

pitaj 8y ago
> there's also little evidence of monopolies that broke down without involvement from the state That's not evidence that anti-trust laws are necessary. > monopolies HAVE been broken down My premise is that those monopolies existed as a result of state involvement in the first place. You can't use the existence of anti-trust law as evidence that it's necessary. You must give evidence that monopolies which existed before anti-trust were bad for consumers. You must also show that those monopolies weren't created by other government actions (the solution in those cases would be to just reverse such government action, not anti-trust). > ridiculously hard to get into and require massive investments that only other big companies can make The capital barrier-to-entry argument is exactly what I was referring to by "mistaken economic theory". Competition doesn't just stop happening because it's expensive. You gave the solution yourself: cross-industry competition. Capital gains from one industry flow into competition in others. Only in a situation where one company controlled a majority of the industries in the economy would preventing competition would possible. And such a firm would be hugely inefficient. > free market IS rich-gets-richer territory Getting richer requires risk. Risk is often rewarded, but risk goes both ways. Also, there's no evidence that the free market is any worse in this aspect than other systems.
- WhatIsDukkha 8y ago
  Consumer harm has been THE ideological buzzphrase since the Reagan administration. You think this is "your" premise but in fact its the dominant ideological belief of anti-trust enforcement since the Reagan administration. This dogma is WHY we are in such a bad straight with companies with aggressive monopoly power in market after market (it extends FAR beyond tech). Libertarian'ish ideas like yours are in fact the consensus reality in public policy.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    If libertarian ideas were the status quo, there would be a lot less regulation than there is. I don't care about just anti-trust. The entire bureaucracy of the regulatory state affects the competition throughout the economy.
    - WhatIsDukkha 8y ago
      What I've said is historically uncontroversial. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado... For bonus points - Please list a successful libertarian society - contemporary or historical. In fact you can't. That because libertarianism is a type of utopianism. The society you aspire to can't exist with actual human beings in it.
WalterBright 8y ago
Standard Oil is the canonical example of a monopoly needing to be broken up by the government. But in the book "Titan" by Chernow, SO's market share steadily shrank throughout the years of SO's anti-trust trial, as competitors had by then figured out how to compete with SO and were outmaneuvering Rockefeller.

by aylmao 8y ago

pitaj 8y ago

> there's also little evidence of monopolies that broke down without involvement from the state That's not evidence that anti-trust laws are necessary. > monopolies HAVE been broken down My premise is that those monopolies existed as a result of state involvement in the first place. You can't use the existence of anti-trust law as evidence that it's necessary. You must give evidence that monopolies which existed before anti-trust were bad for consumers. You must also show that those monopolies weren't created by other government actions (the solution in those cases would be to just reverse such government action, not anti-trust). > ridiculously hard to get into and require massive investments that only other big companies can make The capital barrier-to-entry argument is exactly what I was referring to by "mistaken economic theory". Competition doesn't just stop happening because it's expensive. You gave the solution yourself: cross-industry competition. Capital gains from one industry flow into competition in others. Only in a situation where one company controlled a majority of the industries in the economy would preventing competition would possible. And such a firm would be hugely inefficient. > free market IS rich-gets-richer territory Getting richer requires risk. Risk is often rewarded, but risk goes both ways. Also, there's no evidence that the free market is any worse in this aspect than other systems.

WhatIsDukkha 8y ago
Consumer harm has been THE ideological buzzphrase since the Reagan administration. You think this is "your" premise but in fact its the dominant ideological belief of anti-trust enforcement since the Reagan administration. This dogma is WHY we are in such a bad straight with companies with aggressive monopoly power in market after market (it extends FAR beyond tech). Libertarian'ish ideas like yours are in fact the consensus reality in public policy.
- pitaj 8y ago
  If libertarian ideas were the status quo, there would be a lot less regulation than there is. I don't care about just anti-trust. The entire bureaucracy of the regulatory state affects the competition throughout the economy.
  - WhatIsDukkha 8y ago
    What I've said is historically uncontroversial. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado... For bonus points - Please list a successful libertarian society - contemporary or historical. In fact you can't. That because libertarianism is a type of utopianism. The society you aspire to can't exist with actual human beings in it.

WalterBright 8y ago

Standard Oil is the canonical example of a monopoly needing to be broken up by the government. But in the book "Titan" by Chernow, SO's market share steadily shrank throughout the years of SO's anti-trust trial, as competitors had by then figured out how to compete with SO and were outmaneuvering Rockefeller.