2 ms·
"In any market" is too strong a statement. In markets with high barriers to entry or other factors that make it less competitive, sure, and we call them natural
by hpkuarg 4y ago
"In any market" is too strong a statement. In markets with high barriers to entry or other factors that make it less competitive, sure, and we call them natural monopolies. But you're claiming that every market is a natural monopoly.
- kashkhan 4y agoyes some markets take longer times and sometime tech changes so we never reach the end. but the end result is always the same as long as firms are involved. It's a feature of capitalism.
- hpkuarg 4y agoIt's not some immutable law of capitalism. There is such a thing as diseconomies of scale, where firms that are too large end up being less competitive and unable to innovate as quickly. Once they reach that size they might borrow the power of government to crush competition and retain their monopoly, but at that point we may as well it call a feature of socialism, not of capitalism. I'd be surprised if in twenty years of market forces (that is, assuming neither government antitrust action nor cronyist behavior making competitors illegal) more people were using Google for search than they are now.
- WalterBright 4y agoIf monopolies are always the end result in a free market, name one.