Ask a capitalist how they would prevent monopolies forming in a true free market

>ask a capitalist how they would prevent monopolies forming in a true free market
>dead silence

Why do some people still believe in that incoherent ideology?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel#Demise
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/photographer_george_steinmetz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

dont let people form public corporations, one man one ceo one company

>dead silence

not according to my experience, the usual answer is that monopolies form due to government meddling in the free market and left on it's own, due to competition no monolithic company can exist

no thats only what ancap tards say

You don't understand the economic value of capital and secondary markets

>le ebil government

There is no REAL answer. I minimally regulated free market is just as bad as a completely regulated one. Libertarians are economical ideologues. They don't care about the facts because their sense of economics is wrapped up in their political beliefs

this guy does a great job at explaining

youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

I'm not a capitalist though.

Distributism/semi feudal economy, predominantly localised agrarian society - Fuck industry, fuck corporations, fuck big government and fuck public "education". Monarchy and church rule the roost, eat organic, slaughter your own animals, find a solid chick with good hips, form good monogamous bond ,work your ass of 3 days a week in God's country followed by lots of raw sex and procreate as much as possible, botched births and shitty medicine will sustain the population while at the same time teaching us to contront death and appreciate life, teleological natural selection will take care of the rest. Praise God and his creation, don't commit any foul degenerate shit and get your ass to heaven

in a free market, why would a monopoly be a bad thing? As a consumer, would you rather pay more for the same product?

Monopolies have a hard time forming in free markets because of increased competition, for instance in america, the monopolies on healthcare formed because of regulations about buying healthcare across interstate. It lead to every state having its own individual monopolies on healthcare because of reduced competition.

Regulated markets do not work to prevent monopolies either they generally encourage it by awarding subsidies and or government contracts which can lead to an unfair advantage, it also leads to corruption, when a government is deciding which company to award the grant/contract a company could easily pay off the people making the decisions to influence who the contract goes to, it could also be affected by people within the government who have personal stakes (such as shares) in said companies. Free markets are intended to create growth which they do, regulated markets tend to stifle growth by raising the bar to entry for small business and by interfering with supply and demand, its evident in industry such as taxi driving which is a protected industry because of the medallion system, there can only be a set number of taxi drivers at any one time and as a result, the supply of drivers is affecting, raising the price. Regulated markets offer no solutions for monopolies, they more often than not cause more harm than good by interfering.

There are some areas where regulation is good, such as with banking, loan making, and other areas.

However the economy is too intricate to micromanage, the economy is organic and should be left to self manage so it grows most naturally to meet demand and keep prices low.

>>>/karachan/

Yeah I shouldn't use the term public corp. The basic idea I had was limiting the number of strategists within a corporation in order to prevent its growth, or/and keeping the corp actions tied to its owner so they can't get away with cut throat tactics that would lead to monopoly.

not really he just say what all ancaps say: its the gov's fault and then if pressed he says free trade, in other words just make the market bigger, maybe after global monopoly he would say we should get into the alien market?

If they have a monopoly they can dictate the price because you have no choice but to buy from them.

I should also add the monopolies stay monopolies by squashing competition, which is done most often through government regulation which raises the bar to entry for businesses. Its in the interest of business leaders to have monopolies, and the easiest way to get that is through regulation.

Too hard tho.

You can't. Hence regulations are needed.

Monopolies wont form because when the number of companies decreases due to buying up competition, the companies get more expensive. There comes a point where it is no longer profitable to buy up the competition.

Government regulations, wow that was hard

In a true free market you would have maximum competition according to my microeconomics professor and textbook. Monopolies only exist because government regulation allows them to.

In a truly free market there are no patents

who is this bitch and why are her tits so big?

what about microsoft?

1. Why do you believe monopolies are inherently evil?
2. Why do you believe a temporary monopoly in a free market, without the force of law to protect it, would escape competition?

>>how they would prevent monopolies forming in a true free market
I would compete with them and enjoy the profits.

It's a retarded argument.

There are other factors that promote monopolies staying stable. Like established distribution networks, compatibility issues, production costs, deals with other companies and organizations like schools.

Your experience doing what? Being a CEO? Leading an economic think tank? Reading Ayn Rand? Shitposting on imageboards?

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly.

>oil
>steel

Patents incentive creators by awarding them a temporary monopoly over a specific product.

Patents also stop bigger companies from immediately copying yours and beating you to market.

Patents are temporary and therefore so are the monopolies

Patent rights can be shared by the patent holders for royalties.


Patents can prevent innovation because it prevents competition with the same product, however the work around for this is to create a product that does the same thing, there is also an incentive to create something that does it better than your competition so that you sell more, if you create and patent a better product that does the same thing you beat the other monopoly

patents arent an awful idea, they are one regulation I can acknowledge as good or at least useful.

and along comes a competitor and offers the same product for a cheaper price - monopoly gone

Not anymore.
It was ruled in court they did at one point.

>Why do you believe monopolies are inherently evil?
Low quality products and prices higher than they would be with competition.

>Why do you believe a temporary monopoly in a free market, without the force of law to protect it, would escape competition?
Let's imagine company A. This company has a monopoly on train travel in a country. It owns all train tracks and only company A is allowed to run trains on it. There is no way another train company could compete with it.

Microsoft went to court over it's monopoly in the 90s. Despite that they still had market monopoly until ipods or there abouts~.

It was medieval Christendom, pre industrial revolution. Thanks to characters like Luther, Gutenberg and Descartes, the masses were coerced and given the ability to revolt. Distorted and twisted intellects were given a voice (hobbes, Marquis de Sade, Rousseau etc) God was thrown out of society and replaced by man, (predominantly Jews who were exempt from the church's usury laws and built the banking system/factories etc.) Retarded Protestants from Europe entered into America, mortified the flesh and worked 6 days a week without appreciating the beauty of life, those with the wealth saw this as an opportunity, jumped on it and fucked the world. Welcome to Satan's playground

1) No government to regulate/tax your property means its easier to start your own business and compete
2) A monopoly can perfectly exist on a free market. For example, a very small town will probably have a single shoemaker. However, should the shoemaker go mad with high prices and/or low quality, another potential shoemaker would have a great incentive to show up.

Thus the real problem is 1).

Now get on the helicopter, faggot.

unless you know, they sell at a loss and just run them out of business or/and bribe politicians to create barriers to enter the market. or if it's ancap they just have the mcdonalds mercenary subsidiary group murder the CEO

>what is Standard Oil
>what is Microsoft
>what is Monsanto

Oil and steel monopolies exist because of government interference. Look at what I mentioned about governments offering contracts and how business owners can influence politics.

If you think any market at the moment is a free market then you're wrong, there hasnt been a truly capitalist government with a free market in at least a hundred years, what most countries (especially the U.S) have now, is best describe as corporatist.

In an ancap society, one would have to literally form a state in order to implement a unjust monopoly. In a true free market, there would be no such concept as a corporation, as corporations are a purely legal construct, like a state. The only monopoly that could possibly exist would be one that the market wants anyway.

But please tell me how licking boots solves our (((problems))).

what is cola coca

by making laws that forbid forming monopolies /thread

i know it doesn't work out that well

>unless you know, they sell at a loss and just run them out of business

No complaints here, since I'll get cheaper products.

once they run them out of business they will jack the prices back up

the only reason microsoft doesnt is because they gave a bunch of money to apple in the 90s to save them from failing so Microsoft could say they had a competitor even though apple was essentially crippled and had fuck all market share until more recent years.

I'm curious how National Socialists rationalize the fact that their political ideology relies on one leader to be incorruptible to (((external))) influence, vs anarcho-capitalism, or minarchism, which divides influence equally, which makes it much harder for (((outsiders))) to corrupt.

Do you count mafias as states?

they just say the market will fix it because muh Cult of the Invisible Hand

Drive a car, fuck the train and his monopoly.

youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4

there

And once they jack the prices up, another will show up.

We're arguing in a situation where only small businesses show up though. Why should it be that way? Big companies exist, and they can perfectly set themselves up to produce different products (example Nokia)

That depends. If they had the ability to control an entire market with force, then yeah, they are very similar to a state.
This, you can still compete with a (((monopoly))).

What do you do if company A also owns all roads?

You dont prevent monopolies, you break them up when they form. Much like how you dont prevent murder, you arrest the murderer after the murder.

Suck it up and drive on A's shitty bumpy, congested roads. Oh wait, that's exactly like the state

>ask a communist how they would prevent starving for political reasons when the government is also a monopoly in all industries
>dead silence

Why do some people still believe in that incoherent ideology? (It's almost like they think they'll be able to take over it tribally and destroy the goyim or something.)

>ask a capitalist how they would prevent monopolies forming in a true free market

They can't and don't form in a free market dummy.

>Company tries to form monopoly
>Raises the shiite out of prices
>China, India, and Korea rush in products at vastly lower prices
>Monopol company quickly goes bankrupt, entire board of directors suicide.
>OP of this retarded thread suicide

I think Capitalism works because it's a little like faith. We have faith in this "Free Market", in the Invisible Hand, almost in a dogmatic way. We embrace it, even though most people can see the inherent contradiction of wanting the government to not in the way with regulations that stop the HOLY FREE MARKET, but at the same time expect it to just be perfect enough to have -just right- regulations to stop market abuses and monopolies, which form naturally -given long enough time in any economic system.

It works because we believe it to.It's like Tinker Bell.

>pretends all capitalism is anarcho capitalism
>lives in capitalist country

kys

The only way they can continuously run other companies out of business is through wide spread regulation which is what government regulation allows for.

In a free market, there would be low taxes allowing for a low bar to entry for small businesses, allowing lots of competition and lower prices, if the big company wants to compete and stay big it still needs to compete with the smaller companies, otherwise the small companies will grow larger and larger as they attract more of the market and soon the small outgrows the big.

In a free market big companies can freely and easily enter a new market as competition against another big company, this is called diversification, its what companies do to increase profitability but also to secure the business by not putting all their eggs in one basket, by putting all their money in one market.

You are doing the same thing milton freedman does, you saying get a bigger market. Eventually it ends at a super monopoly that controls everything, assuming the other company even risks entering the other market anyway.

They don't think hard enough about the solution because they want to have a go at creating a monopoly themselves

Except you have influence over the state and the profits are used for your benefit. At least in a democracy. You can't do fuck all against company A.

>people unironically believe this

Companies who bribed countless officials...

Drive in the dirt, or make your own road if you want pavement so badly. Then let other people use your road for less money than company A. It is really that simple.

You're dumb. Monopolies can be formed due to control of a unique product or resource, or simply like Microsoft in the 90's - due to complete market saturation and control.

People have this FAITH in the Free Market, like if people are just angels that would NEVER try to create unfair monopolies and markets, EVER!Only the Government is evil!

>Raises the shiite out of prices

That's absolutely not the only thing a monopoly can do. When a company controls such a large percentage of the market, it can, as one example, exercise dumping or predatory pricing that other smaller companies can't compete with.

>OMG Walmart is a monopoly!!!

Yeah there's only like a thousand other competitors, not to mention Amazon, not to mention other internet companies not just Target and other stores.

You're saying regulation is what causes monopolies to form, while are saying it's what hinders them from forming.

Now we are all hopefully in agreement that monopolies are a bad thing, so which one of you is right? I'm inclined to believe that it is actually seriously misguided to think that government regulations are the deciding factor in monopolies, since there are a whole lot of other more realistic causes like the ones listed by . I would also like to add high barrier to entry, which is especially evident in industries with high capital cost, such as utilities and infrastructure. This means that the solutions proposed by (that monopolies cannot form due to being out priced by a new competitor who can just march in willy nilly) are moot there, because it is simply not just that simple.

For U&I companies, since the costs are too high Joe Businessman can't just jump into the market when he notices Telephox is over charging customers because how is he going to get the money to build all those cables and data management centers? Notice that several US telecom companies have time and time again proven to be overpriced and unreliable.

For other industries where you think the classical capitalist fairy tale of the invisible hand would work, the sheer scale of present monopolies and oligopolies make this very difficult, if at all possible. If your neighbor were selling shirts at 60 moneys a piece, and you know for a fact decent profit can be made by selling at 50, you can out compete and bring down her monopoly. But if you noticed that Luxottica is selling plastic glasses for 300$, good luck having anyone buy your equally pretty 10$ metal frame gold lined spectacles which doesn't have the prestige value attached to it.

You could only build roads inbetween the road network of company A, which makes your idea pretty useless.

japan starts the business day (due to their location on the planet). go hedge against the leader

...

Monopoly isn't bad in itself.

I can build overpasses for their roads. Or underpasses if I felt like it. Could also travel and ship by boat if the magic company owns all land travel. Can't own all the rivers and oceans on earth.

If they get to big we murder them, communism is the same, but in here is the people who determine when someone has to be killed, instead of the government

Then the Company A buys your budding Startup, or undergoes unfair practices to ensure it's collapse.

Like Microsoft, EA, and so many others before it.

The Invisible Hand is a dumb idea.It's like believing in the Capitalist Fairy. If you believe enough in People's good hearts, then people will act in this magical cooperative self interest.
Fuck no. Most people see life as a zero sum game where someone must lose so I can win.

Any monopoly that engages in excessive profit-seeking will be inherently vulnerable to start-ups attacking its market. These start-ups wouldn't just be mom-and-pops - they'd be formed by investment groups that have business acumen and enough capital to sustain a protracted effort at breaking the monopoly.

The typical defense a monopoly would mount is to drop prices below what's profitable, trusting that they have the ability to survive in the red longer than the startup, and then reestablish high prices after their competitor collapses. This is far from a sure thing (as noted, their competitors are investment banks, not small business owners). And win or lose, in the meantime prices for the consumer would be abnormally low, which is a good thing for consumers.

Read Sowell's Basic Economics.

>>ask a capitalist how they would prevent monopolies forming in a true free market

You don't, monopolies are a necessary evil. If they manage to form albeit all the incoming competition due to increased profitability in that industry, then there was something wrong with the entire market to begin with, and the monopoly would unironically fix it by imposing higher prices or lower quality.

Plus, it's easier to form counter-monopoly groups than you think it is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel#Demise

Assuming monopolies in-and-of themselves are bad. Only a Polack could be so dumb. You do realize that patents are a form of monopoly, to protect inventors, don't you?

>Monopolies can be formed due to control of a unique product or resource, or simply like Microsoft in the 90's

>OMG some unique boutique little fucking dinky thing.

Big fucking deal, if someone can invent something that revolutionary, like the best OS or whatever they deserve a monopol, if you call it that.

Technically Ferrari has the monopoly on Ferraris, but this is a nothing argument, because there are a hundred car companies, but yes, Ferrari has a monopoly on Ferraris, and I guess Microsoft has a monopoly on Microsoft OS.

>Entire Europe
>Fucking billion people
>Can't make an OS

>faith
Oh come on /leftypol/, your gonna have to try harder than that.
Capitalism is based upon more concrete science than (((communism))) is.
Regulations allow monopolies to prosper, because they get in bed with the state, who gives them (in the case of the 1920s) police, and influence over policy. Regulating the economy has stopped blatant, outright monopolies, but it hasn't stopped the idea. Companies just have subsidiaries and parent companies that basically act like the same thing.

>The only way they can continuously run other companies out of business is through wide spread regulation which is what government regulation allows for.
I specifically said selling at a loss, that is something the government regulates against. Without a government companies would be ultra cutthroat with it.
>In a free market big companies can freely and easily enter a new market as competition against another big company, this is called diversification, its what companies do to increase profitability but also to secure the business by not putting all their eggs in one basket, by putting all their money in one market.
In theory maybe, but there is a large investment for say a cell phone company trying to enter automobile industry, if there is a monopoly on car production that would mean the cell phone company has to be a bigger company + the investment cost in factory and then it also has to compete with the market dominance ie selling at a loss/brand recognition etc. But the key thing here is that it has to be a bigger company right? Well there isn't always going to be a bigger company for one and if there is they are taking a larger risk entering a monopolized market than a non monopolized market, no?

But I don't sell to company A because they made me build the roads in the first place. Why give them my roads?

Oh, like the "super monopoly" of Blockbuster huh.

"Super monopolies" only form with state intervention. On free markets, they are ephemeral.

I've heard this argument but never really saw any proof of it. Are there confirmed cases of government meddling causing monopolies to form? There are plenty examples of governments breaking up monopolies.

An under/overpass violates theirs property.

Traveling by ship is not even remotely comparable to a road or train network. You can obviously only travel to places that are connected to a river and you will have to take huge detours. All of your competitors who use company A's road/train network will outperform you.

>implying these monopolies were formed in a free market
>me thinks you might be retarded
>sees flag

Golly I guess I was right

Because I'm smarter , and I'd buy shares and a controlling interest in your company through subsidiaries and shell companies that I indirectly control...again, like so many other modern companies do to acquire competitors in markets. A few years down the line, little companies end up being eaten by big companies.

It always happens.
There is no winning.
It's like most fast food places in the US...owned by like three big companies.

>ask a capitalist how they would prevent monopolies forming in a true free market

As von Hayek said in _The Road to Serfdom_, a market can be truly free while also having regulation intended to prevent the exploitation of monopolies. This effectively constitutes differentiation between the letter and the spirit of the law.

Here in Argentina, the head of the regulatory body that regulates the market of coffins is the owner of the single coffin-making company. I can't think of a better example.

There are only two choices:
1. Take the chance that non-violent monopolies form in the free market.
2. Create a monopoly of violence in order to dismantle non-violent monopolies.

American Internet providers have an oligopoly (and monopoly in some places) due to the government making it near impossible for anyone that isn't a massive corporation from getting in

How do you explain the examples already given in the thread like microsoft?

Man, in what MAGICAL LAND, does this 'Mythical Perfect Free Market' exist?

Dont you people get it?
IT DOESNT EXIST.
You fucking capitalists are as delusional as communists, with your magical thinking.

They don't own the sky too. My overpass isn't on their land, just over it. Your magic company A can't own everything on earth. And shipping by water is standard, are you retarded? Every major city is connected by a waterway.

Increasing diseconomies of scale, as well as(though Sup Forums is afraid of this) competition from foreign firms which curtails the price-making powers of a domestic monopoly

Actually, in some countries, you own the airspace above your land up to a certain feet in height.

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/photographer_george_steinmetz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html

In the US at least, you own a formidable amount of airspace.

Now you think I am making my company a publicly traded one? And company A owns all the land, sea, and air...kinda hard to outcompete god fellas.

>or simply like Microsoft in the 90's

Phew, it's a good thing the government broke up Microsoft and made all those laws implementing minimum quotas of different software platforms.

There's no way the free market would have fixed it.