3 ms·
> The confusion comes from people trying to steal that term to refer to "big companies". This is an oligopoly. Because companies are arbitrary constructs, it's
by Supermancho 5y ago
> The confusion comes from people trying to steal that term to refer to "big companies".
This is an oligopoly. Because companies are arbitrary constructs, it's a defacto monopoly by multiple sellers. The terminology is useful, but not in the sense that it is then end-all of qualification.
- dahfizz 5y agoTo claim big companies == oligopoly == monopoly is objectively wrong, and the opposite of useful terminology.
- Supermancho 5y ago"big companies" were in quotes because there was context. This implies "too big to fail" or "big enough to trigger antitrust talks", et al. Collusion often results in this, which is not a dejour monopoly, but a defacto monopoly. Collusion isn't even strictly necessary. Endstage capitalism naturally selects the winners who stay on top. It's a simple concept taught in beginning economics. "big companies" == oligopoly == monopoly is exactly what people mean when talking about worrisome "big companies", without the commensurate analogies. A monopoly is about perspective which is about scale not some subjective definition (like sanderjd endlessly trolls about). Legal systems all over the world combat real/threatened monopolies (eg the CCP recently acted unilaterally) in various forms. Whether you think it's a useful reasoning to group companies and use a specific term is irrelevant. I sincerely hope you can understand that. Good luck with whatever.
- sanderjd 5y agoI truly feel like I just read a paragraph from 1984. You're tying yourself in knots to rationalize using language to mean something you want it to mean, but which it does not actually mean. Yes, oligopoly is a fine word to use, but you can't just wave your hands around to transmute that into monopoly.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]