5 ms·

They did this until they were the only 2 left. The Standard Oil case you reference is widely misunderstood. Standard Oil's market share was dropping for a dec

by tc 17y ago

They did this until they were the only 2 left. The Standard Oil case you reference is widely misunderstood. Standard Oil's market share was dropping for a decade before the anti-trust case. And at the time of the case, 1911, there were some competitors you might recognize, such as Texaco, Shell, and Gulf already established in the market. And at any rate, do you really believe that society would be better off if these so-called private monopolies (I'm going to exclude the monopolies created by government force here, such as cable franchises, telephone companies for most of history, patents, etc.), such as Google, Standard Oil, or Alcoa, had simply closed their doors? "You're right, we're a monopoly. The world would be better without us. Effective next week, we're all going home to tend to our gardens and take up piano lessons." See also: http://mises.org/story/2694 http://mises.org/story/2694

tptacek 17y ago
No, the world wouldn't be better off without Google. And since Google isn't requiring you to load an ActiveX control off their front page that resets your browser home page every time you try to do a Google search, we probably don't have to worry about antitrust actions against their natural monopoly. When they do decide to add that "feature" to their home page, we aren't going to be asked to do without Google. Just the management team that decided to violate US antitrust law.
- tc 17y ago
  Basically the equation you are advocating goes as follows: 1. Larry creates something immensely valuable for the world. 2. Through innovation, Larry is able to sell it for a fraction of its earlier price, or even to give it away for free. 3. At some point, Larry decides he wants to put an ActiveX control on the homepage, lowering its value to you. 4. You advocate stealing Larry's company at this point, or using force to coerce Larry into doing what you want him to do, even though objectively speaking, you are still better off, even with the ActiveX control, than if Larry had never existed. Or at worst, he's done no harm to you, compared to the state in which he didn't exist.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    The ActiveX control doesn't lower it's value to me. The ActiveX control makes it impossible to compete with Google. Lowering your product's value to me is not unlawful. Contracts and conspiracies in restraint of trade are. I like how you use the terms "create", "immense value, and "innovation" to support your argument, and "steal", "force", and "coerce" for mine. Clearly, you want to hash this out. =)
    - tc 17y ago
      In the real world, how likely is it that such an ActiveX tactic would go unpunished by Google's competitors and browser vendors? Microsoft would just stand idly by? There are benefits to being good that exist outside of the law (http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html). But come on, I don't want to argue your specific example -- it is clearly meant to be ridiculous. Real-world natural monopolies tend not to last very long without government support (or a strained and narrow definition of what their market is that ignores substitution), particularly if they aren't serving their customers well. The exceptions that you can think of are just that, exceptions. And even at that, I can't think of very many good counter-examples. Microsoft is perhaps the best case, but even there, by strangling the desktop they arguable accelerated the move towards innovation in the cloud (so that we could get around them). You can see this effect even as early as 1995, when PG started Viaweb as a webapp in part because he didn't want to develop for Windows. Substitution is always the death of an otherwise strong monopoly. The government didn't breakup Microsoft, but no one is worried about them these days anyway (http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html). You keep falling back on what is or is not lawful. I'm not interested in debating that. It takes an expensive discovery process and a lot of lawyers and judges to determine what is or is not lawful in a complex real-world situation. In my book, lawful does not equal moral, and unlawful does not equal immoral. I find morality more meaningful to talk about. As for the terms I use, they simply reflect my moral approach to the problem. If you can imagine a scenario in which taking the fruit of a peaceful individual's labor from him or her by force is moral and just, then you're starting from different moral axioms than I am.
      - 17y ago

by tc 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

No, the world wouldn't be better off without Google. And since Google isn't requiring you to load an ActiveX control off their front page that resets your browser home page every time you try to do a Google search, we probably don't have to worry about antitrust actions against their natural monopoly. When they do decide to add that "feature" to their home page, we aren't going to be asked to do without Google. Just the management team that decided to violate US antitrust law.

tc 17y ago
Basically the equation you are advocating goes as follows: 1. Larry creates something immensely valuable for the world. 2. Through innovation, Larry is able to sell it for a fraction of its earlier price, or even to give it away for free. 3. At some point, Larry decides he wants to put an ActiveX control on the homepage, lowering its value to you. 4. You advocate stealing Larry's company at this point, or using force to coerce Larry into doing what you want him to do, even though objectively speaking, you are still better off, even with the ActiveX control, than if Larry had never existed. Or at worst, he's done no harm to you, compared to the state in which he didn't exist.
- tptacek 17y ago
  The ActiveX control doesn't lower it's value to me. The ActiveX control makes it impossible to compete with Google. Lowering your product's value to me is not unlawful. Contracts and conspiracies in restraint of trade are. I like how you use the terms "create", "immense value, and "innovation" to support your argument, and "steal", "force", and "coerce" for mine. Clearly, you want to hash this out. =)
  - tc 17y ago
    In the real world, how likely is it that such an ActiveX tactic would go unpunished by Google's competitors and browser vendors? Microsoft would just stand idly by? There are benefits to being good that exist outside of the law (http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html). But come on, I don't want to argue your specific example -- it is clearly meant to be ridiculous. Real-world natural monopolies tend not to last very long without government support (or a strained and narrow definition of what their market is that ignores substitution), particularly if they aren't serving their customers well. The exceptions that you can think of are just that, exceptions. And even at that, I can't think of very many good counter-examples. Microsoft is perhaps the best case, but even there, by strangling the desktop they arguable accelerated the move towards innovation in the cloud (so that we could get around them). You can see this effect even as early as 1995, when PG started Viaweb as a webapp in part because he didn't want to develop for Windows. Substitution is always the death of an otherwise strong monopoly. The government didn't breakup Microsoft, but no one is worried about them these days anyway (http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html). You keep falling back on what is or is not lawful. I'm not interested in debating that. It takes an expensive discovery process and a lot of lawyers and judges to determine what is or is not lawful in a complex real-world situation. In my book, lawful does not equal moral, and unlawful does not equal immoral. I find morality more meaningful to talk about. As for the terms I use, they simply reflect my moral approach to the problem. If you can imagine a scenario in which taking the fruit of a peaceful individual's labor from him or her by force is moral and just, then you're starting from different moral axioms than I am.
    - 17y ago