5 ms·

"Control" has to be properly contextualized. Just because one company is the only available option for a service or product doesn't mean that business "controls

"Control" has to be properly contextualized. Just because one company is the only available option for a service or product doesn't mean that business "controls" the industry. Natural monopolies occur and get displaced by innovation all the time without any regulatory involvement.

lwhi 3y ago
You're splitting hairs to justify a political stance. Capitalism is dangerously flawed without carefully considered regulation.
- neodymiumphish 3y ago
  You're making an unsubstantiated claim that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You're also making assumptions about the motive behind my statements of fact to convince yourself or others that I'm wrong without disputing the relevant details of my comment. There are vanishingly few instances of a natural monopoly occurring out of thin air and remaining a monopoly. In fact, there's a strong argument that regulatory capture is the cause of the more egregious examples of long-standing monopolies, which would not have continued to exist were it not for the burdens of entry creating through coordination with the monopolistic entities. In our current political environment, it's hard to argue anything we face is actual capitalism as opposed to cronyism.
  - lwhi 3y ago
    No. We live in a world that is driven by a remarkably small number of massive corporations. Huge corporations acquire smaller corporations. Huge corporation merge with other huge corporations. To say this type of behaviour is not at least serving the same negative function as a monopoly is utterly disingenuous. This type of capitalism is not working well.
    - neodymiumphish 3y ago
      Cloudflare is half as old as Google and even younger than Amazon, yet your concern is with their monopolistic potential. Explain how that's possible if the companies at the top are maintaining all the control. We've seen significant shrinkage among the FAANG and their peers in the past few years. Walmart was considered a massive monopolist threat before Amazon came along and ate their lunch. These are examples that fly in the face of your contention. What are some examples that support your argument that any of these businesses holds a de facto monopoly? Again, the root cause of most of the monopolistic effects in our market are due to regulatory capture. Without regulations to set minimums for competitors, they face the threat of newcomers. This is why Walmart and other big organizations support minimum wage increases despite the negative impact on their bottom line. New supermarkets can't even begin to incorporate if they're faced with massive wage and regulatory requirements.
      - lwhi 3y ago
        What chance does a small team without a large amount of funding honestly have of competing with any of these businesses? I'm trying to talk generally about the concept of monopolies in a supposed free market economy and the need for regulation. Fundamentally, we don't necessarily need business to operate at the scale its grown to. The only reason these businesses have grown so vastly is because it increases profit in the hands of fewer people. We (as a society) can do better.
        neodymiumphish 3y ago
        Except that the examples I gave fly directly in the face of the situation you're stating. Amazon replaced Walmart with exponentially less starting cash. Netflix did the same to the entire media industry. Venture capital and business loans could easily fund the next big industry giant provided the barriers to entry aren't astronomical. But corporations are utilizing their lobbying powers to capture the relevant regulatory market in ways that protect their interests. Your problem is with corporatism and cronyism, whether you realize it or not.
        lwhi 3y ago
madeofpalk 3y ago
And to be clear - CloudFlare is hardly the only available option. Akamai has existed for significantly longer, and there's plenty of competitors. Cloudflare did not invent the CDN.

lwhi 3y ago

You're splitting hairs to justify a political stance. Capitalism is dangerously flawed without carefully considered regulation.

neodymiumphish 3y ago
You're making an unsubstantiated claim that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You're also making assumptions about the motive behind my statements of fact to convince yourself or others that I'm wrong without disputing the relevant details of my comment. There are vanishingly few instances of a natural monopoly occurring out of thin air and remaining a monopoly. In fact, there's a strong argument that regulatory capture is the cause of the more egregious examples of long-standing monopolies, which would not have continued to exist were it not for the burdens of entry creating through coordination with the monopolistic entities. In our current political environment, it's hard to argue anything we face is actual capitalism as opposed to cronyism.
- lwhi 3y ago
  No. We live in a world that is driven by a remarkably small number of massive corporations. Huge corporations acquire smaller corporations. Huge corporation merge with other huge corporations. To say this type of behaviour is not at least serving the same negative function as a monopoly is utterly disingenuous. This type of capitalism is not working well.
  - neodymiumphish 3y ago
    Cloudflare is half as old as Google and even younger than Amazon, yet your concern is with their monopolistic potential. Explain how that's possible if the companies at the top are maintaining all the control. We've seen significant shrinkage among the FAANG and their peers in the past few years. Walmart was considered a massive monopolist threat before Amazon came along and ate their lunch. These are examples that fly in the face of your contention. What are some examples that support your argument that any of these businesses holds a de facto monopoly? Again, the root cause of most of the monopolistic effects in our market are due to regulatory capture. Without regulations to set minimums for competitors, they face the threat of newcomers. This is why Walmart and other big organizations support minimum wage increases despite the negative impact on their bottom line. New supermarkets can't even begin to incorporate if they're faced with massive wage and regulatory requirements.
    - lwhi 3y ago
      What chance does a small team without a large amount of funding honestly have of competing with any of these businesses? I'm trying to talk generally about the concept of monopolies in a supposed free market economy and the need for regulation. Fundamentally, we don't necessarily need business to operate at the scale its grown to. The only reason these businesses have grown so vastly is because it increases profit in the hands of fewer people. We (as a society) can do better.
      - neodymiumphish 3y ago
        Except that the examples I gave fly directly in the face of the situation you're stating. Amazon replaced Walmart with exponentially less starting cash. Netflix did the same to the entire media industry. Venture capital and business loans could easily fund the next big industry giant provided the barriers to entry aren't astronomical. But corporations are utilizing their lobbying powers to capture the relevant regulatory market in ways that protect their interests. Your problem is with corporatism and cronyism, whether you realize it or not.
        lwhi 3y ago

madeofpalk 3y ago

And to be clear - CloudFlare is hardly the only available option. Akamai has existed for significantly longer, and there's plenty of competitors. Cloudflare did not invent the CDN.