4 ms·

This isn't a "market" doing something, it's a monopolist doing monopolist stuff. One kind of precludes the other...

falcolas 2y ago
Not at all. The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies. As demonstrated again and again throughout US history, with only anti-trust regulation bringing the monopolies to an end.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies Not at all established. Monopolies require strong states to exist.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    > Monopolies require strong states to exist. How so? When competition can merely be purchased, why wouldn't the larger company do so? Or if the competitor doesn't want to sell, the larger company can undercut them until they're forced to sell or exit the market. No government required for either tactic, and there are plenty of examples of both occurring in US history. For example, Standard Oil, which was formed when about 40 smaller companies joined forces. Another place where monopolies take root with no state input is when there's a large barrier to entry, such as with railroads. The cost (and justifying the cost to investors) is too much for most companies to even break ground, let alone complete. For example, Bell System, which owned the copper in the ground and the equipment producer Western Electric. Now then, of course a state can and do also raise the cost of entry for new competitors - but then we're going to be talking about a regulated market.
- epistasis 2y ago
  Unregulated markets tending to monopolies means that markets require regulation, not that a monopoly is a market. Unregulated markets are not the "natural" state of a market, and not the meaning of a "free" market. A free market is one in which there is competition and new agents are able to enter the market, not ones where there is no law.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    Wikipedia and the American Heritage Dictionary expressly disagree: "In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority."
    - epistasis 2y ago
      Good point, I shouldn't use the term "free" market. I mean a functioning market, as is intended by anti-monopoly law.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Not so. Cornering the market is what every company would attempt to do if there weren't regulations that restrict their ability to do so.
- epistasis 2y ago
  I don't disagree that everyone wants to corner the market but I do disagree that what would be left would be a market.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    the definition of a "free market" is one that evolves "naturally" without (or with only minimal) government controls (aka regulations), so in that sense it would indeed be a market; the ultimate free market is one without any external controls at all
    - epistasis 2y ago
      Huh, regardless of the definition of "free" and whether the rest of the "free market" stuff is true or religion, I wasn't talking about "free." I was talking about whether there's a market. And a market with a sole provider isn't a market in my books, and is in fact kind of the antithesis of a market. That's why we have anti-monopoly laws, so that we can have markets. In recent decades, the interpretation of anti-monopoly has transitioned a bit to focus more on consumerism rather than markets, and the definition of monopoly has shifted from "is there a sole provider" to "is the dominant market player causing consumer harm." But originally, before that shift, anti-monopoly laws were in favor of markets.
      - insane_dreamer 2y ago
        Interesting. I wouldn't categorize a market that has N customers and 1 vendor, or 1 vendor per type of good (as in this case, since a market could have other types of goods and services not sold by a grocery store), as not a "market". It's not a "competitive market", but since a market is by definition, a place where buyers and sellers exchange goods for money (or goods for goods), then I think it still qualifies as such.

Not at all. The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies. As demonstrated again and again throughout US history, with only anti-trust regulation bringing the monopolies to an end.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> The natural end state of an unregulated market is monopolies Not at all established. Monopolies require strong states to exist.
- falcolas 2y ago
  > Monopolies require strong states to exist. How so? When competition can merely be purchased, why wouldn't the larger company do so? Or if the competitor doesn't want to sell, the larger company can undercut them until they're forced to sell or exit the market. No government required for either tactic, and there are plenty of examples of both occurring in US history. For example, Standard Oil, which was formed when about 40 smaller companies joined forces. Another place where monopolies take root with no state input is when there's a large barrier to entry, such as with railroads. The cost (and justifying the cost to investors) is too much for most companies to even break ground, let alone complete. For example, Bell System, which owned the copper in the ground and the equipment producer Western Electric. Now then, of course a state can and do also raise the cost of entry for new competitors - but then we're going to be talking about a regulated market.
epistasis 2y ago
Unregulated markets tending to monopolies means that markets require regulation, not that a monopoly is a market. Unregulated markets are not the "natural" state of a market, and not the meaning of a "free" market. A free market is one in which there is competition and new agents are able to enter the market, not ones where there is no law.
- falcolas 2y ago
  Wikipedia and the American Heritage Dictionary expressly disagree: "In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority."
  - epistasis 2y ago
    Good point, I shouldn't use the term "free" market. I mean a functioning market, as is intended by anti-monopoly law.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Not so. Cornering the market is what every company would attempt to do if there weren't regulations that restrict their ability to do so.

epistasis 2y ago
I don't disagree that everyone wants to corner the market but I do disagree that what would be left would be a market.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  the definition of a "free market" is one that evolves "naturally" without (or with only minimal) government controls (aka regulations), so in that sense it would indeed be a market; the ultimate free market is one without any external controls at all
  - epistasis 2y ago
    Huh, regardless of the definition of "free" and whether the rest of the "free market" stuff is true or religion, I wasn't talking about "free." I was talking about whether there's a market. And a market with a sole provider isn't a market in my books, and is in fact kind of the antithesis of a market. That's why we have anti-monopoly laws, so that we can have markets. In recent decades, the interpretation of anti-monopoly has transitioned a bit to focus more on consumerism rather than markets, and the definition of monopoly has shifted from "is there a sole provider" to "is the dominant market player causing consumer harm." But originally, before that shift, anti-monopoly laws were in favor of markets.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Interesting. I wouldn't categorize a market that has N customers and 1 vendor, or 1 vendor per type of good (as in this case, since a market could have other types of goods and services not sold by a grocery store), as not a "market". It's not a "competitive market", but since a market is by definition, a place where buyers and sellers exchange goods for money (or goods for goods), then I think it still qualifies as such.