3 ms·
There's a large body of economic literature arguing that competition breeds efficiency and better service. Granted it's only starting to grapple with the questi
by biorach 4y ago
There's a large body of economic literature arguing that competition breeds efficiency and better service. Granted it's only starting to grapple with the question of how to regulate the new economy - c.f. Lina Khan's paper on Amazon which made quite an impression [1]
So it's not clear that breaking up a digital marketplace monopoly would result in shittier products, tho I agree that the theory is less clear cut than in the case of more traditional businesses.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170405144903/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://web.archive.org/web/20170405144903/http://www.yalela...
- kqr 4y agoThis is one of those weird things where in principle, a monopoly should be both interested in providing the best possible service (to keep their position indefinitely, even through technology shifts), and in a unique position to invest in research to make it so (under competition, it's harder to invest in research.) In practise, that's not what happens.
- arrosenberg 4y agoThat's not even true in principle. A monopoly's interest is in moatbuilding and maintaining their monopoly. If service and research achieve that, then fine, but if they don't that's also fine.
- igorkraw 4y agoWhy would a monopoly be interested in providing the near possible service? They can simply lobby to make upstarts impossible, or buy them, or bleed them dry with localised dumping prices, or steal all of their best ideas given they have more resources. All of these have much higher margins. It's not a "weird thing" it's the inherent reason why anti trust laws and regulations are required for efficient markets, and why rent seekers always argue for free markets