3 ms·
Literal meaning of the word is absolutely irrelevant. Historically monopoly was about granted status, but it's mostly a theoretical concept today, where everyon
by zzzcpan 8y ago
Literal meaning of the word is absolutely irrelevant. Historically monopoly was about granted status, but it's mostly a theoretical concept today, where everyone is in the middle between monopoly and perfect competition. You can say that if it's not competitive enough, it's a monopoly.
- chrisseaton 8y ago> You can say that if it's not competitive enough, it's a monopoly. A market that is not competitive enough is an 'oligopoly'. That's the word you want. Why do you want to move the definition of 'monopoly' when we already have the word 'oligopoly'?
- zzzcpan 8y agoI don't want to move the definition, my definition is fine and is shared among many people. Yours is the one I think is wrong. You shouldn't imply that oligopoly is not a form of monopoly. It absolutely is.
- mfoy_ 8y agoDid you try checking the dictionary? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly
- zzzcpan 8y agoFrom your link: "the exclusive possession or control of something", "a company or group that has such control".
- mfoy_ 8y agoYou must be trolling.
- zzzcpan 8y agoI'm not. But I do find it interesting how some people here don't like certain definitions and claim they are wrong.
- chrisseaton 8y agoYou claim our definitions are wrong as well!
- mfoy_ 8y agoYou're describing markets the ways journalists are joked[1] about describing guns. Except you're doubling down and saying "No, you're wrong. All assault rifles are AK-47s, everyone knows what I mean when I say an AK-47, you know, a gun that shoots bullets fast and stuff!" [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/3h74f3/a_journalists_guide_to_firearm_identification/ https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/3h74f3/a_journalists...
- Dylan16807 8y agoYou're the one that linked the dictionary the says "or group"...
- mfoy_ 8y agoA "group" in a business sense isn't distinct, unrelated entities. The company I work for is the "something something group".
- drcoopster 8y agoEven better: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/oligopoly https://www.dictionary.com/browse/oligopoly Oligopoly _specifically_ describes what we have here. I learned a new word today.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 8y ago> You shouldn't imply that oligopoly is not a form of monopoly. But the article said 'monopoly', not 'oligopoly'. Monopoly is a form of oligopoly. But oligopoly is not a form of monopoly. All monopolies are oligopolies. Not all oligopolies are monopolies. This chicken situation is maybe an oligopoly. It isn't a monopoly. If you think a situation with multiple supplies and limited competition is a monopoly, then I'd ask you... why do we also have the term oligopoly? What do you think the difference is?
- NegativeK 8y agoYou can argue that all laypeople should use the terms that specialists use, or you can accept that people use words differently and try to understand people when they write/speak. The latter is far, far easier and actually achievable.
- sievebrain 8y agoThis is the first time I've encountered people using the word monopoly incorrectly like this. I'm not really minded to just roll over and accept wrong usage because a few other people object - the usage is wrong so they need to improve their English. Also for what it's worth I don't believe the article author misunderstands the word monopoly. I think they abused it to get clicks.
- zzzcpan 8y ago> Where on earth did I imply oligopoly is not a form of monopoly? > But oligopoly is not a form of monopoly. This is wrong, sorry. It's the other way around, since we are talking about market economies, not literal meanings of words.
- chrisseaton 8y agoWhat do you think a monopoly is? What would you definition be?
- zzzcpan 8y ago
- notSupplied 8y agoYou don't need any specialized degree to distinguish between the two, and it is frankly not that difficult that laypeople would have difficulty grasping the difference. I prefer not to contribute to the declining precision of language whenever possible. I think saying that "an oligopoly is conceptually similar enough to a monopoly to use interchangeably" is a slide towards hyperbole. This kind of imprecision, but with a sinister bias towards the more extreme version of a word, is subtly making public discourse more polarizing and antagonistic.
- dragontamer 8y ago> Historically monopoly was about granted status Historically, monopoly was about single players taking over the economic system. There are other, better words to use if you aren't describing ONE powerful company. Carnegie Steel Company. Rockefeller's Oil. Ma Bell. ONE supplier, across the entire USA. You're not winning this argument from etymology (where Mono literally means one), or historical. Ma Bell's breakup was as recent as 1980s, this isn't some "ancient history" here, its modern US history.
- ams6110 8y agoStandard Oil was never a literal monopoly, there was always some competition. They had about 90% of the market at their peak, and it was down to about 70% when they were broken up. True monopolies, e.g. Bell Telephone, local cable franchises, utilities, etc. are (almost?) always granted by the government.
- Dylan16807 8y agoYou get local monopolies even if the government freely allows multiple companies to string wires.
- mfoy_ 8y ago>Literal meaning of the word is absolutely irrelevant. Well, to that I say: "Pelecie inoteso su erik anohot fete derera notel not. Toyino litifid ca yigo lece yevi vitod emefan berie nisur, cinim pociepem oce irimo alucetef cupara yonebup eroyifeh oponud." If the literal definition of words is absolutely irrelevant, then this is a cogent argument that perfectly refutes your position.