4 ms·

> What a real monopoly is is when there is no consumer choice at all, leading to large corporate profits that hurt consumers at the pricing level. Well, sure,

> What a real monopoly is is when there is no consumer choice at all, leading to large corporate profits that hurt consumers at the pricing level. Well, sure, 100% national market share is obviously a monopoly. But you're also a monopoly if you distort a market (generally markets with less than 3 major players) or have control or distortion over individual markets (you can have a monopoly in NYC but not the US, for example). I think this obviously applies to telecoms, which often have monopolies over certain areas (and often granted by local government! thanks a lot Philly city council). I think there's a whole host of bad behavior that's non-monopolistic. That's what I think needs to be cracked down on. Some of these do relate to market share, but I don't think it's as simple as a boolean monopoly / not-monopoly. It's a gradient, and much of the behavior in that gradient should be dealt with. There's often collusion between companies on pricing, or agreements not to compete, etc...

noarchy 8y ago
>I think this obviously applies to telecoms, which often have monopolies over certain areas (and often granted by local government! thanks a lot Philly city council). That's a key distinction. Are there any actual monopolies (I don't mean companies that are merely dominant) that are not backed by government?
- ashelmire 8y ago
  Healthcare, insurance often do? I haven't really thought about that too much. According to the FTC, having a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. Let's clear up what we're talking about. I don't find monopolies to be a very interesting subject. What I have a problem with is anticompetitive behavior (which is illegal but the US has been notably slacking on enforcement for years). When a company uses their position as a platform for sales to start pushing into selling actual products in markets they've determined to be profitable, or a company bundles their applications with their mobile platform thereby dominating the app market, or when a company runs the largest platform for search but simultaneously distorts it through advertising and mysterious delisting or account shutdowns, then you have problems. These companies are anti-competitively distorting markets in ways that consumers can't understand and requires regulation. There are two ways tech companies are often uncompetitive. Predatory or below cost-pricing, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... is first among them. Think Uber, where they lose money each ride. "Free" services also seem like they violate this, as they prevent anyone from competing in that market. You can't sell private email services so long as free email exists. App and service bundling falls under the other condition, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a.... Mysterious delisting or shutting down accounts without reason or recourse falls under refusal to deal, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a....

noarchy 8y ago

>I think this obviously applies to telecoms, which often have monopolies over certain areas (and often granted by local government! thanks a lot Philly city council). That's a key distinction. Are there any actual monopolies (I don't mean companies that are merely dominant) that are not backed by government?

ashelmire 8y ago
Healthcare, insurance often do? I haven't really thought about that too much. According to the FTC, having a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. Let's clear up what we're talking about. I don't find monopolies to be a very interesting subject. What I have a problem with is anticompetitive behavior (which is illegal but the US has been notably slacking on enforcement for years). When a company uses their position as a platform for sales to start pushing into selling actual products in markets they've determined to be profitable, or a company bundles their applications with their mobile platform thereby dominating the app market, or when a company runs the largest platform for search but simultaneously distorts it through advertising and mysterious delisting or account shutdowns, then you have problems. These companies are anti-competitively distorting markets in ways that consumers can't understand and requires regulation. There are two ways tech companies are often uncompetitive. Predatory or below cost-pricing, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... is first among them. Think Uber, where they lose money each ride. "Free" services also seem like they violate this, as they prevent anyone from competing in that market. You can't sell private email services so long as free email exists. App and service bundling falls under the other condition, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a.... Mysterious delisting or shutting down accounts without reason or recourse falls under refusal to deal, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a....