6 ms·

> Competition dies when rewards are removed If a monopolist offers a product for free just because they have plenty of cash to do so, all rewards to compete in

by rickmb 15y ago

> Competition dies when rewards are removed If a monopolist offers a product for free just because they have plenty of cash to do so, all rewards to compete in that market are removed. That kills competition stone dead, and that's why we have laws against it all over the world, including Silicon Valley. Guarding the free market against monopolist abuse is standard operating procedure in all capitalist countries. Bottin just happens to be the first to take this to court, and happened to have found a judge willing to listen. This could have happened anywhere, it just happened to be in France this time. You may argue the court was wrong in this case, but the basic principle is part and parcel of every free market economy.

endtime 15y ago
>the basic principle is part and parcel of every free market economy. Is this a theoretical or empirical claim?
eldude 15y ago
A monopoly does not kill competition, it disuades it. Nobody competes with the monopoly because the incentives are not great enough to do so. The same incentives for success do not disappear because a monopoly emerges. The monopoly must still sell their item to a free market that's free to refuse their goods on moral or pragmatic grounds. A monopoly means solely that they are not challenged by a competitor and can therefore sell their product beholden only to demand, and not supply. Again, this is a _good_ thing. The demand of the consumers that products be offered at the price they want, as opposed to the company's, is again plain and simple _greed_. Let's not be coy about it. Consumers want more for less and they seek to use the government and the tyranny of the masses to force corporations, the private property of others, to give it to them. Again, this conduct is reprehensible and any government that encourages it will only be hurting itself and its citizens. Let me repeat that, a monopoly is not some magical power to force one's will upon the people. In a free market, a monopoly remains subject to the demand of the market and cannot and will not succeed by offering a product nobody wants. Success is not anti-competitive, far from it! Success is the greatest incentive for competition that has ever existed. You're forcing your desires onto a free market that is clearly making its own choice. You're proclaiming to know more about what's best for people than they do. Leave the free market alone, empower and grant the people their free will, educate, and if you want to change the world, do so by competing and earning it, not by undermining others' rights to satisfy your own ideology.
- arg01 15y ago
  The governments are (local) monopolies that supply a product(customers) to businesses on the governemnts terms. So, using your logic businesses can choose on moral or pragmatic grounds not to buy from these monopolies (i.e. set up in another country). Please continue to argue how a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a good thing while arguing a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a bad thing.
  - eldude 15y ago
    Monopolies which no one is free to compete against (e.g., the federal government) are corrupt monopolies. They use the force of a gun to force the will and goods of other to serve their own selfish greed. The founding fathers of the United States understood this, and instituted a federal system in which states were not only free, but expected to compete against each other. Unfortunately, those who seek power and control over others and their rights recognized this obstacle, and have gradually coerced and persuaded the populace toward supporting an increasingly larger federal government at the expense of free competition amongst states. No one is legally allowed to compete with the federal government, and thus any endeavor in which it labors who's sole purpose is not to uphold the rights of its people, is corrupt. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this corruption, whether out of malice or negligence is of no importance. There is no contradiction. A successful business progressing to the point of an earned "monopoly", is still beholden to both competitors and a free market. It has neither violence nor coercion as means to enforce its interests. However, a government monopoly (note the lack of quotes), retains the privilege to force by means of violence any that refuse its product. If you refuse to pay taxes, you will go to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, you will be forced to go to jail. If you refuse to be forced to go to jail against your life, your life will be taken from you. You are not free in this transaction; there is no nobility in the greed of the government to take what it wants at your expense. It would serve you well to brush up on the definition of a monopoly, specifically as Webster defines it[1]: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action The important distinction here being "legal privilege". The _federal_ government maintains the sole legal privilege to be the provider of many goods and services which _no other entity is allowed to provide_. Google does not enjoy such a legal privilege and is competing in, please excuse the very loose use of the phrase, a free market. Please do not co-opt the word monopoly so trivially. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

by rickmb 15y ago

endtime 15y ago

>the basic principle is part and parcel of every free market economy. Is this a theoretical or empirical claim?

eldude 15y ago

A monopoly does not kill competition, it disuades it. Nobody competes with the monopoly because the incentives are not great enough to do so. The same incentives for success do not disappear because a monopoly emerges. The monopoly must still sell their item to a free market that's free to refuse their goods on moral or pragmatic grounds. A monopoly means solely that they are not challenged by a competitor and can therefore sell their product beholden only to demand, and not supply. Again, this is a _good_ thing. The demand of the consumers that products be offered at the price they want, as opposed to the company's, is again plain and simple _greed_. Let's not be coy about it. Consumers want more for less and they seek to use the government and the tyranny of the masses to force corporations, the private property of others, to give it to them. Again, this conduct is reprehensible and any government that encourages it will only be hurting itself and its citizens. Let me repeat that, a monopoly is not some magical power to force one's will upon the people. In a free market, a monopoly remains subject to the demand of the market and cannot and will not succeed by offering a product nobody wants. Success is not anti-competitive, far from it! Success is the greatest incentive for competition that has ever existed. You're forcing your desires onto a free market that is clearly making its own choice. You're proclaiming to know more about what's best for people than they do. Leave the free market alone, empower and grant the people their free will, educate, and if you want to change the world, do so by competing and earning it, not by undermining others' rights to satisfy your own ideology.

arg01 15y ago
The governments are (local) monopolies that supply a product(customers) to businesses on the governemnts terms. So, using your logic businesses can choose on moral or pragmatic grounds not to buy from these monopolies (i.e. set up in another country). Please continue to argue how a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a good thing while arguing a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a bad thing.
- eldude 15y ago
  Monopolies which no one is free to compete against (e.g., the federal government) are corrupt monopolies. They use the force of a gun to force the will and goods of other to serve their own selfish greed. The founding fathers of the United States understood this, and instituted a federal system in which states were not only free, but expected to compete against each other. Unfortunately, those who seek power and control over others and their rights recognized this obstacle, and have gradually coerced and persuaded the populace toward supporting an increasingly larger federal government at the expense of free competition amongst states. No one is legally allowed to compete with the federal government, and thus any endeavor in which it labors who's sole purpose is not to uphold the rights of its people, is corrupt. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this corruption, whether out of malice or negligence is of no importance. There is no contradiction. A successful business progressing to the point of an earned "monopoly", is still beholden to both competitors and a free market. It has neither violence nor coercion as means to enforce its interests. However, a government monopoly (note the lack of quotes), retains the privilege to force by means of violence any that refuse its product. If you refuse to pay taxes, you will go to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, you will be forced to go to jail. If you refuse to be forced to go to jail against your life, your life will be taken from you. You are not free in this transaction; there is no nobility in the greed of the government to take what it wants at your expense. It would serve you well to brush up on the definition of a monopoly, specifically as Webster defines it[1]: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action The important distinction here being "legal privilege". The _federal_ government maintains the sole legal privilege to be the provider of many goods and services which _no other entity is allowed to provide_. Google does not enjoy such a legal privilege and is competing in, please excuse the very loose use of the phrase, a free market. Please do not co-opt the word monopoly so trivially. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly