29 ms·

> Anti-trust for an industry where there are at least five companies doing well in any given space? That's not called a monopoly, it's called competition You n

> Anti-trust for an industry where there are at least five companies doing well in any given space? That's not called a monopoly, it's called competition You need to be completely out of touch with reality to read an article on 5 companies dominating a global market and your take from that info is that there are no anticompetitive practices because 5 is more than 1.

lynx97 1y ago
"completely out of touch" is definitely an exaggregationg. Besides, as if competition would really increase quality. Where I dwell, we have around 3 active delivery services. Only 1 of them has an app with useable UX, icnluding accessibility. Competition? Meh. What for? So that I can watch the smaller guys blunder their way to the top?
- motorest 1y ago
  > "completely out of touch" is definitely an exaggregationg. Is it, though? I mean, can you present a coherent argument supporting the idea that a global market being dominated by 5 multinational corporations does not flag a risk of anticompetitive practices? > Competition? Meh. What for? So that I can watch the smaller guys blunder their way to the top? Is this what you have to offer to refute the idea you're completely out of touch?
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    If by "coherent" you mean the Webster definition then yeah, anyone can. If by coherent you mean "using only facts and opinions that I accept at face value within my world view" then no. Personally, I think 5 is way too little. But there are probably some markets for various products and services where 5 is fine. I don't think the number matters so much as that there be potential for a long tail of upstarts who could potentially displace a big player quickly. Whether 95% of the market is captured 2 or 22 players doesn't matter, they gotta know that someone is waiting to take their place if they screw up.
jack_h 1y ago
If five companies competing is anti-competitive, then how many competitors does it take to suddenly become competitive and why? What is the significance of this larger-than-five number? Is it the same across industries? How do you derive it? This seems to rest on the mistaken belief that a corollary of monopolies being bad is that more competition is always better than less competition. If everyone was a competitor in the restaurant food delivery market we'd all starve to death as no one would be growing food. An efficient economy wouldn't waste resources competing over less important things like restaurant food delivery over something more beneficial.
- harimau777 1y ago
  Perhaps the issue isn't whether there is a specific number of companies. It seems to me that there is a competition problem when companies behave in a way that is harmful/disliked/bad but no one steps in to provide an alternative because they can't compete with established marketing, economies of scale, network effects, etc.
- skt5 1y ago
  The HHI [0] attempts to quantify that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl–Hirschman_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl–Hirschman_index
graemep 1y ago
Its called oligopoly and oligopsony: https://moneyterms.co.uk/oligopoly/ https://moneyterms.co.uk/oligopoly/
nradov 1y ago
There is infinite competition for food delivery. People can just go pick up their own damn food.
- harimau777 1y ago
  I don't think that simply the ability to perform a task is sufficient for competition. It could still be impossible for a newcomer to compete with established corps' marketing budget and economies of scale.
  - nradov 1y ago
    The point is who cares. Getting a burrito delivered is a pointless luxury service that no one actually needs. Instead of complaining about competition, just stop wasting money on it.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > The point is who cares. You don't care. That's fine. It's not like there is a retirement to be informed before commenting. Sit this one out and let everyone who do express their concerns.
ls612 1y ago
In the IO literature it would be expected that five companies of vaguely similar size in oligopolistic competition (say Cournot competition for simplicity) would be pretty close to the equilibrium of a perfectly competitive market.

lynx97 1y ago

"completely out of touch" is definitely an exaggregationg. Besides, as if competition would really increase quality. Where I dwell, we have around 3 active delivery services. Only 1 of them has an app with useable UX, icnluding accessibility. Competition? Meh. What for? So that I can watch the smaller guys blunder their way to the top?

motorest 1y ago
> "completely out of touch" is definitely an exaggregationg. Is it, though? I mean, can you present a coherent argument supporting the idea that a global market being dominated by 5 multinational corporations does not flag a risk of anticompetitive practices? > Competition? Meh. What for? So that I can watch the smaller guys blunder their way to the top? Is this what you have to offer to refute the idea you're completely out of touch?
- potato3732842 1y ago
  If by "coherent" you mean the Webster definition then yeah, anyone can. If by coherent you mean "using only facts and opinions that I accept at face value within my world view" then no. Personally, I think 5 is way too little. But there are probably some markets for various products and services where 5 is fine. I don't think the number matters so much as that there be potential for a long tail of upstarts who could potentially displace a big player quickly. Whether 95% of the market is captured 2 or 22 players doesn't matter, they gotta know that someone is waiting to take their place if they screw up.

jack_h 1y ago

If five companies competing is anti-competitive, then how many competitors does it take to suddenly become competitive and why? What is the significance of this larger-than-five number? Is it the same across industries? How do you derive it? This seems to rest on the mistaken belief that a corollary of monopolies being bad is that more competition is always better than less competition. If everyone was a competitor in the restaurant food delivery market we'd all starve to death as no one would be growing food. An efficient economy wouldn't waste resources competing over less important things like restaurant food delivery over something more beneficial.

harimau777 1y ago
Perhaps the issue isn't whether there is a specific number of companies. It seems to me that there is a competition problem when companies behave in a way that is harmful/disliked/bad but no one steps in to provide an alternative because they can't compete with established marketing, economies of scale, network effects, etc.
skt5 1y ago
The HHI [0] attempts to quantify that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl–Hirschman_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl–Hirschman_index

graemep 1y ago

Its called oligopoly and oligopsony: https://moneyterms.co.uk/oligopoly/ https://moneyterms.co.uk/oligopoly/

nradov 1y ago

There is infinite competition for food delivery. People can just go pick up their own damn food.

harimau777 1y ago
I don't think that simply the ability to perform a task is sufficient for competition. It could still be impossible for a newcomer to compete with established corps' marketing budget and economies of scale.
- nradov 1y ago
  The point is who cares. Getting a burrito delivered is a pointless luxury service that no one actually needs. Instead of complaining about competition, just stop wasting money on it.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > The point is who cares. You don't care. That's fine. It's not like there is a retirement to be informed before commenting. Sit this one out and let everyone who do express their concerns.

ls612 1y ago

In the IO literature it would be expected that five companies of vaguely similar size in oligopolistic competition (say Cournot competition for simplicity) would be pretty close to the equilibrium of a perfectly competitive market.