4 ms·

If a monopoly spontaneously emerges out of a free market, whereby no violence or coercion was used against other participants, then that business was simply bet

If a monopoly spontaneously emerges out of a free market, whereby no violence or coercion was used against other participants, then that business was simply better and more efficient at giving the market what it wants. It also doubles as a price signal to others that something in their way of doing business is inefficient and wasteful (or just not as efficient as the most efficient participant). I don't have a problem with such "monopolies", because they aren't real monopolies. As long as the market is still open to new participants, then it's not really an issue. For example, if a monopolist starts raising prices and hoarding supplies in order to artificially elevate prices, then new participants can enter the market and make money off the delta between the new prices and the old prices that made sense to the market.

ende 12y ago
You touch on something important. Beyond the fact that the term monopoly gets thrown at a company without any further qualification of such a statement, there's no real thought put into how the company is using said alleged monopoly power to raise prices on consumers or create barriers to entry in the market. Amazon's prices trend downward, constantly. Amazon is also itself a market facilitator, agnostic to which products sell, so long as they sell. High quality and low prices race to the top of customer ratings. Third parties sell on Amazon as well, providing a global market for local brick and mortar shops. Further, Amazon is by far not the only website selling things on the internet. The internet is pretty great at lowering barriers to entry.