5 ms·

Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets. There is no definition that a rational person could ever use to differentiate between a

Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets. There is no definition that a rational person could ever use to differentiate between a monopoly or otherwise. This is no different to the Cosa Nostra, a shakedown like any other: Google needs to pay their dues and kiss the ring. Edit: a lot of people disagreeing with me/don't like what I had to say. At least step up to the challenge: provide a rational definition for a monopoly.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
This is wrong. There are markets that naturally lead to monopolies, namely companies and businesses that have large upfront costs, relatively high risk, and small profit margins. A good example is the airline manufacturing industry. It's extremely difficult for new companies to get into airplane manufacturing because it's difficult and there isn't much incentive to do so.
- daniel-s 6y ago
  You haven't even said what a monopoly is, then gone ahead to explain why they must exist.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    You didn't define what a monopoly is either, so I kind of assumed you knew the definition... Monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of trade in a commodity or service. Of relevance too is a duopoly: a situation in which two suppliers dominate the market for a commodity or service. A complete and single monopoly isn't required for the market to start being inefficient and appear manipulated.
    - daniel-s 6y ago
      Your definition places every single company in the world in the category of monopolist and is therefore absurd. Every single company sells a commodity or service different to their competitors. For example, McDonald's sells burgers, as do Burger King. It's arbitrary (and therefore not something that one could determine rationally) where the line is drawn about what will be considered a product or service. If you want to draw the line at Burger there is no monopoly. If you want to draw he line at Big Mac then McDonald's has a 100% monopoly. Is the line Big Mac specifically, burgers, food? No matter the company and what it sells, you will always be able to come up with a definition of their product narrow or wide enough to find that they sell 100% of that thing when you want to. An example: Epic's complaints about the app stores. Apple has a monopoly on app stores running on iPhones, but not on mobile devices, not on consumer computer devices, not on computer-based gaming devices, not on entertainment services generally. They could never stop people playing Fortnite, but you could always call Apple a monopolist if you chose your definition appropriately. Ultimately, the decision is arbitrary and up to the discretion of a bureaucrat. In the absence of a rational method to determine monopolies the decision becomes one of who the bureaucrat decides to shake down.
      - question000 6y ago
        Now you're just being silly.
question000 6y ago
Free markets seem to have like a metaphysical power to people who hold the above opinion. Even if the above was true, wouldn't someone in a free market be free to form a monopoly if they wanted too? What would prevent them? Other people trying to form a monopoly? How can you assume they wouldn't just give up? It's basically just a faith based belief that someone will always be around to compete against the monopolists. Surely the average citizen has something better to do.
- daniel-s 6y ago
  If you want to claim that something exists you need a definition of what that thing is, which everyone seems to be missing. Your argument kind of boils down to, "why would there be competition in the marketplace?" which flies in the face of most fundamental ideas of economics. While you might be correct, you kind of need to be more correct than 200 years of economic thought.
  - question000 6y ago
    No you a definition of free market. Basically it appears to be a magical metaphysical thing like the Garden of Eden.
    - daniel-s 6y ago
      Now you're just being silly.
      - question000 6y ago
        Why? Seriously, I pointed out the major flaw in your argument and you just ignore it? "Real" free markets don't exists and they need to be regulated. It's a very basic tenet of socialism (the major political ideology on Earth). Like you must be trolling.
        daniel-s 6y ago
        Generally I would disagree with the immediate point/logic of your argument... However I will note in this case that your justification is that your idea comes from socialism: literally the worst human idea EVER, comparable unfavourably to genocide, and responsible for about 200 million dead people in the 20th century; again, worse than genocide.
sauwan 6y ago
>Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets. Well, if we're going to make unsubstantiated claims: That's entirely unfounded and demonstrably false.
- daniel-s 6y ago
  You responded to me with a 6 word, unsubstantiated, sentence that I'm wrong and just left it at that.
davvolun 6y ago
Regarding your edit > Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets. You made that claim, it's your responsibility to prove it first, not everyone else's to disprove it after you've made a flat, unsubstantiated claim. What is your definition of "monopoly" and "free market"? If I define "free market" as any market which is incapable of forming a monopoly, then yes, your statement is trivially true. But it naturally dis-includes a wide variety of markets that actually exist and may actually have monopolies.
- daniel-s 6y ago
  If you want to say that something exists you need to define that thing first. Otherwise anything that follows couldn't possible be rational on account of logic. I also refer to my other comment in this thread (long, I refer to Apple and Epic) about why a definition of monopoly is necessary and also impossible. I will add the exception of a government granted monopoly. In that case the government passes a law in which a company or whomever has the unique privilege to supply a product to the market, the precise definition of which will be given in the government's law. Whereas you have not given a definition of a monopoly I will define a free market as the array of voluntary transactions between people/groups in a society, absent any threat of violence.
  - davvolun 6y ago
    > If you want to say that something exists you need to define that thing first. I have yet to say anything, in one direction or another. You're saying a monopoly cannot exist given a free market. You define what you mean by "monopoly" and I can agree or disagree. You define what you mean by "free market" and I can agree or disagree. We can go from there. But YOU need to start. Based on your statement "socialism is as bad as genocide" (I'll let Norway, a country which has embraced state ownership or "socialism" while consistently having one of the highest per capita GDP in the world know they're to blame for the Holocaust???), as well as your obnoxious insistence that everyone else do the footwork for you, I don't particularly care what you have to say -- you appear to have disappeared up your own rectum frankly.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

This is wrong. There are markets that naturally lead to monopolies, namely companies and businesses that have large upfront costs, relatively high risk, and small profit margins. A good example is the airline manufacturing industry. It's extremely difficult for new companies to get into airplane manufacturing because it's difficult and there isn't much incentive to do so.

daniel-s 6y ago
You haven't even said what a monopoly is, then gone ahead to explain why they must exist.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  You didn't define what a monopoly is either, so I kind of assumed you knew the definition... Monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of trade in a commodity or service. Of relevance too is a duopoly: a situation in which two suppliers dominate the market for a commodity or service. A complete and single monopoly isn't required for the market to start being inefficient and appear manipulated.
  - daniel-s 6y ago
    Your definition places every single company in the world in the category of monopolist and is therefore absurd. Every single company sells a commodity or service different to their competitors. For example, McDonald's sells burgers, as do Burger King. It's arbitrary (and therefore not something that one could determine rationally) where the line is drawn about what will be considered a product or service. If you want to draw the line at Burger there is no monopoly. If you want to draw he line at Big Mac then McDonald's has a 100% monopoly. Is the line Big Mac specifically, burgers, food? No matter the company and what it sells, you will always be able to come up with a definition of their product narrow or wide enough to find that they sell 100% of that thing when you want to. An example: Epic's complaints about the app stores. Apple has a monopoly on app stores running on iPhones, but not on mobile devices, not on consumer computer devices, not on computer-based gaming devices, not on entertainment services generally. They could never stop people playing Fortnite, but you could always call Apple a monopolist if you chose your definition appropriately. Ultimately, the decision is arbitrary and up to the discretion of a bureaucrat. In the absence of a rational method to determine monopolies the decision becomes one of who the bureaucrat decides to shake down.
    - question000 6y ago
      Now you're just being silly.

question000 6y ago

Free markets seem to have like a metaphysical power to people who hold the above opinion. Even if the above was true, wouldn't someone in a free market be free to form a monopoly if they wanted too? What would prevent them? Other people trying to form a monopoly? How can you assume they wouldn't just give up? It's basically just a faith based belief that someone will always be around to compete against the monopolists. Surely the average citizen has something better to do.

daniel-s 6y ago
If you want to claim that something exists you need a definition of what that thing is, which everyone seems to be missing. Your argument kind of boils down to, "why would there be competition in the marketplace?" which flies in the face of most fundamental ideas of economics. While you might be correct, you kind of need to be more correct than 200 years of economic thought.
- question000 6y ago
  No you a definition of free market. Basically it appears to be a magical metaphysical thing like the Garden of Eden.
  - daniel-s 6y ago
    Now you're just being silly.
    - question000 6y ago
      Why? Seriously, I pointed out the major flaw in your argument and you just ignore it? "Real" free markets don't exists and they need to be regulated. It's a very basic tenet of socialism (the major political ideology on Earth). Like you must be trolling.
      - daniel-s 6y ago
        Generally I would disagree with the immediate point/logic of your argument... However I will note in this case that your justification is that your idea comes from socialism: literally the worst human idea EVER, comparable unfavourably to genocide, and responsible for about 200 million dead people in the 20th century; again, worse than genocide.

sauwan 6y ago

>Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets. Well, if we're going to make unsubstantiated claims: That's entirely unfounded and demonstrably false.

daniel-s 6y ago
You responded to me with a 6 word, unsubstantiated, sentence that I'm wrong and just left it at that.

davvolun 6y ago

Regarding your edit > Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets. You made that claim, it's your responsibility to prove it first, not everyone else's to disprove it after you've made a flat, unsubstantiated claim. What is your definition of "monopoly" and "free market"? If I define "free market" as any market which is incapable of forming a monopoly, then yes, your statement is trivially true. But it naturally dis-includes a wide variety of markets that actually exist and may actually have monopolies.

daniel-s 6y ago
If you want to say that something exists you need to define that thing first. Otherwise anything that follows couldn't possible be rational on account of logic. I also refer to my other comment in this thread (long, I refer to Apple and Epic) about why a definition of monopoly is necessary and also impossible. I will add the exception of a government granted monopoly. In that case the government passes a law in which a company or whomever has the unique privilege to supply a product to the market, the precise definition of which will be given in the government's law. Whereas you have not given a definition of a monopoly I will define a free market as the array of voluntary transactions between people/groups in a society, absent any threat of violence.
- davvolun 6y ago
  > If you want to say that something exists you need to define that thing first. I have yet to say anything, in one direction or another. You're saying a monopoly cannot exist given a free market. You define what you mean by "monopoly" and I can agree or disagree. You define what you mean by "free market" and I can agree or disagree. We can go from there. But YOU need to start. Based on your statement "socialism is as bad as genocide" (I'll let Norway, a country which has embraced state ownership or "socialism" while consistently having one of the highest per capita GDP in the world know they're to blame for the Holocaust???), as well as your obnoxious insistence that everyone else do the footwork for you, I don't particularly care what you have to say -- you appear to have disappeared up your own rectum frankly.