4 ms·

However, the brewing and trucking industries have done the exact opposite. Maybe your model is broken. De-regulation is a misnomer, and using it as a pejorativ

However, the brewing and trucking industries have done the exact opposite. Maybe your model is broken. De-regulation is a misnomer, and using it as a pejorative shows ignorance as to how regulation really works. Quality will always matter way more than quantity.

Animats 4y ago
Brewing: * Anheuser-Busch InBev - 45% of US beer market * MillerCoors - 25% of US beer market Trucking: The big ones are FedEx and UPS, who of course dominate small package delivery. For big loads, the big players are XPO Logistics and J. B. Hunt. Everybody else is considerably smaller. Full-truckload shipping has distance cost and is simpler than package delivery, so the network effects are not as strong and there's room for local and regional players. [1] https://blog.bizvibe.com/blog/largest-trucking-companies https://blog.bizvibe.com/blog/largest-trucking-companies
- darksaints 4y ago
  That isn't monopolization. There are over 8000 active microbreweries in the US, and they haven't been put out of business by Anheuser Busch. In fact, Anheuser Busch has been scared of their growth for decades now. In 1979, when the wave of beer de-regulation started, there were only 90 breweries in the entire US. There are almost 1M independent public-carrier trucking companies in the US. There are some 300,000 independent owner operators. Your model is broken. De-regulation doesn't inevitably cause monopolization, there is something else that does that. In fact, you already alluded to it: network effects. Along with high fixed costs (which overly aggressive regulation contributes to), they're one of the defining features of a natural monopoly.
rnk 4y ago
I feel like your brewery examples doesn't support your thesis. In brewing we have a couple of mega breweries. There are thousands of upstart local breweries. They have trouble distributing beer because most states have enforced useless middlemen that control this, the liquor distributors. The distributors control whether the local breweries can get on supermarket shelves or into bars. The breweries can't just do this on their own in most states. And guess who owns most of the liquor distributors. Yes, it is other mega breweries. In reality the booming beer industry would be far advanced if there wasn't the constant sequence of breweries selling out to big beer (because the monopolists limit the ability of the small breweries to grow and succeed). We need to break up the monopolists controlling the industry.
- darksaints 4y ago
  De-regulation of brewing took us from 90 breweries to over 8000. So at the very least at the local level brewing can thrive. You're right that distribution inhibits smaller breweries from growing a national presence. But again, that is due to regulation. Alcohol distribution is heavily regulated, and there is tons of legacy regulatory capture, and larger distributors are constantly lobbying for more regulations to maintain their stranglehold on distribution. Brewing - deregulated. Distribution - heavily regulated. Maybe you don't need to break up the brewing giants, just dismantle the captured regulation stranglehold they have on distribution.

Animats 4y ago

Brewing: * Anheuser-Busch InBev - 45% of US beer market * MillerCoors - 25% of US beer market Trucking: The big ones are FedEx and UPS, who of course dominate small package delivery. For big loads, the big players are XPO Logistics and J. B. Hunt. Everybody else is considerably smaller. Full-truckload shipping has distance cost and is simpler than package delivery, so the network effects are not as strong and there's room for local and regional players. [1] https://blog.bizvibe.com/blog/largest-trucking-companies https://blog.bizvibe.com/blog/largest-trucking-companies

darksaints 4y ago
That isn't monopolization. There are over 8000 active microbreweries in the US, and they haven't been put out of business by Anheuser Busch. In fact, Anheuser Busch has been scared of their growth for decades now. In 1979, when the wave of beer de-regulation started, there were only 90 breweries in the entire US. There are almost 1M independent public-carrier trucking companies in the US. There are some 300,000 independent owner operators. Your model is broken. De-regulation doesn't inevitably cause monopolization, there is something else that does that. In fact, you already alluded to it: network effects. Along with high fixed costs (which overly aggressive regulation contributes to), they're one of the defining features of a natural monopoly.

rnk 4y ago

I feel like your brewery examples doesn't support your thesis. In brewing we have a couple of mega breweries. There are thousands of upstart local breweries. They have trouble distributing beer because most states have enforced useless middlemen that control this, the liquor distributors. The distributors control whether the local breweries can get on supermarket shelves or into bars. The breweries can't just do this on their own in most states. And guess who owns most of the liquor distributors. Yes, it is other mega breweries. In reality the booming beer industry would be far advanced if there wasn't the constant sequence of breweries selling out to big beer (because the monopolists limit the ability of the small breweries to grow and succeed). We need to break up the monopolists controlling the industry.

darksaints 4y ago
De-regulation of brewing took us from 90 breweries to over 8000. So at the very least at the local level brewing can thrive. You're right that distribution inhibits smaller breweries from growing a national presence. But again, that is due to regulation. Alcohol distribution is heavily regulated, and there is tons of legacy regulatory capture, and larger distributors are constantly lobbying for more regulations to maintain their stranglehold on distribution. Brewing - deregulated. Distribution - heavily regulated. Maybe you don't need to break up the brewing giants, just dismantle the captured regulation stranglehold they have on distribution.