4 ms·

If a monopoly exists, and doesn't harm the consumer, what's the issue?

• shadofx 8y ago
  Tracking users and showing ads is blatant harm. Controlling the market and raising costs for sellers results in those costs being passed on to the buyer, causing indirect harm.
  • pitaj 8y ago
    Yes, a monopoly which harms consumers is bad. You didn't at all answer my question.
• kd5bjo 8y ago
  Like any monoculture, markets based on a monopoly are brittle. It takes time for courts to process complaints or for new companies to get started; if the only entity serving a market changes its behavior for any reason, it can shock the entire system and do great harm while our correction mechanisms work to alleviate the problem. You see this in the job market all the time: a local factory closes and puts everyone in town out of work.
• amelius 8y ago
  Two points: • You don't know if it doesn't harm the consumer, because if there were more players on the market, the consumer could (possibly) have more choice and access to better products. • The monopoly could harm the consumer in the future. At that point it may be more difficult for the market to bootstrap competing products (especially if the monopoly controls the entire supply chain). This is a bad situation, even if it doesn't harm consumers now.
  • pitaj 8y ago
    You can know if consumers are dissatisfied, which is a sign of market failure. It's impossible to prove that harm doesn't exist, because you can't prove a negative. If the monopoly does start substantially harming consumers, then I'd say that's when action should be taken, not before the market has a chance to respond.