Answer this question for me Sup Forums

What makes monopolies appear?

Government interference or free markets?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wstIBq2H0z8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

bump

humans. /thread

Fuck off with your stupid question thread.

greed. true capitalism requires minor protectionism

what is true capitalism?

/no true scotsman/
different for everyone

considering government regulations created the monopolies that cable companies have...

I'm asking you what you believe to be true capitalism

Monopolies appear in both of those scenarios, but neither are the answer as to why they appear.

youtube.com/watch?v=wstIBq2H0z8

Free markets.

Haven't you niggas seen the movie Wall Street? Greed is good you dummies. Anyone that says otherwise deserves a helicopter ride

Are there examples of monopolies in free markets we could look at?

I beleive that capitalism should be competition. that is the only way to assure quality produce.

im talking about buying up monopolies

Neither, it's owning as much of a single side of the board at one time so that every turn, at least one player will land on one of your properties. (The railroads are also pretty good to own.)

Governments are monopolistic by definition

government regulation

in a free market without patents or red tape, there would be competition

utilities and shipping require certain regulations.... since there's only so much space under the roads to lay pipe/cable and you can't exactly let everyone who wants to build a railroad start using eminent domain to run track through cities

You don't really roll dice for when you decide to purchase a product. It's not a monopoly if the customer is free to choose another alternative.

Free markets, which ironically now needs government intervention to protect the markets and allow competition again.

greed

Are there any examples of free market monopolies that we could look to?

Well most monopolies that aren't South Korean (they are backed by the gov).

Give one (1) example

>What makes monopolies appear?
>Government interference or free markets?

Both. It's not about bad big gov or bad big corps. It's about "big". Big is bad.

Even if you become big on your own merits? What's the issue in honest practices becoming rewarded with success?

Can you give an example of truly free market?

I don't believe there is any market 100% free from regulations

Agreed, so how could there be an example when we are talking about a hypothetical?

A "free market" system will eventually lead to monopolies (or more precisely oligopolies). From time to time, government intervention is necessary to restore balance and let the little guys have their shot. Like the AT&T breakup for instance which lead to increased competition in the space. This should be basic Econ 101 but libertarian/koch brothers propaganda has infected a generation of people. If anyone wants a laug, watch Sam Seder refute all libertarian talking points in debates on YouTube. Here people live in hypothetical scenarios that rarely work out that cleanly in real life. If you want another joke, just look at their pathetic answer to environmental issues and/or climate change.

Yes, claiming monopolies rise from free markets is speculative at best. There are plenty of examples of governments creating monopolies.

Claiming monopolies would sprout from a free market needs some reasoning behind it. So why would they come from free markets (if 100% free markets were to be established)?

>AT&T
>Government gives special rights to telecommunications company
>Government then realizes it fucked up

Maybe if government handn't mucked around in the first place, an intervention wouldn't have been needed?

>if 100% free markets were to be established
There is no such thing in the real world.. Useful for thought experiment maybe but that's it.

monopolies are the economic equivalent of entropy. they arise no matter what.

Limiting access to a finite natural resource with no substitute, in other words, cornering the market.

Google, nestle, unilever...

But the ultimate monopoly is still found in Bilderberg : the big goes always decide behind your back. So the answer is : a little bit of both, but they need as much freedom as possible to blossom, so I'd say free market helps, afterwards they don't care whether the government interferes or not.

This has been tried. De Beers diamond company tried to corner the market on rough diamonds but couldn't maintain a share over 80-90% due to them getting no exclusive rights from governments.

What natural resource is there that there exists so little of that a company can reasonably corner 100% of that market?

He's going to parse the definition and point out competitors like yahoo . What most everyday people mean by "monopolies" is really closer to h definition of oligopolies.

Banking - owned by (((some people)))

>Nestle is a monopoly

For a company to have a monopoly, they'd need a 100% market share AND the ability to block new actors from entering the market.

Nothing fills the above criteria except government run agencies that have monopolies on police, schools and certain drugs.

Banking is protected by government. Try starting a new currency in France and watch what happens. (((They))) will come for you with their government goons.

You're being decieved into wanting more of what's creating the monopolies you so despise.

Called it.

Yeah, in this case, monopolies are found mostly at a state level. But it would be more interesting to measure monopolies by their ability to make the rules, set the prices etc...

So, oligopoly then.

I can't help the fact that your personal definition of monopoly is "owning a big share of the market", that simply isn't a monopoly.

>7.6% Market share is enough for oligopoly to realisticly be maintained
Nope

No it is an oligopoly which can still be problematic if systems only have a few suppliers they can still be just as corrupt and collude, often secretly, with great results if there are only a few major players. Anclaps assume people are too fucking honest, or at least pretend people are.

If there's only 4-5 players with significant market share? Absolutely. They might have distribution in many more markets than their smaller, more regional competitors.

Walking in tall grass.

Capitalism used to mean "Hey you're hungry, let me get you some bread".

Now it means, "Hey we have this multi-billion dollar corporation that makes opiate addicts. Let's ask the government for help getting rid of the addicts so we can make more."

This one examples proves it definitively...

Retard.

80-90% is effectively a monopoly.

>Even if you become big on your own merits? What's the issue in honest practices becoming rewarded with success?


Yes. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am all for honest effort to be rewarded, but history has shown, and it's human nature, that eventually when you are strong enough to do whatever you want, eventually, you do it. Morality and honesty don't survive above a certain (strength) size. Sad but true. Human nature.

JEWS
E
W
S

Companies are free to collude together to try and raise prices. However the oligopoly can't succeed without a way from barring new competitors from entering the market, which is done by government granting patents, rights or hurting smaller companies in some way.

Like with monopolies, no oligopolies can be maintained without ties to the government that let's them exert force over people.

How are the new companies suppose to compete if the existing ones are colluding? You don't need a government to exert force.

No, what's stopping you from buying from competitors? Monopoly doesn't exist on a spectrum, either it is a monopoly or it isn't.

If the company doesn't have 100% and prevents new actors from entering, it's not a monopoly, and frankly isn't harmful.

You can bake break even if big companies own 90% of the bread market. If the government grants exclusive bread rights to certain companies, then you have a problem.

Same goes for any product.

OPEC don't own all the oil (not even close) yet still have control over the prices.

Once a company or companies colluding have control over most of the market they can act much like a monopoly.

Your anal definition of a monopoly doesn't change the effective outcome. If the small competitor starts growing substantially the 'monopolist' can targets it's markets and crush the competitor if it so wishes.

Make it so that people can't exert force over other people then. A corrupt man with no tools is not a danger.

Lets say I am a mining conglomerate and there are only 4 areas in my country that have a given resource and I have 4 companies that produce minerals. Why would you want these companies to be allowed to collude? Not every market is as open, not every supply chain as easy to enter as you describe.

>OPEC
OPEC is literally run by government actors. The very same governments who use their military might to grant the company exclusive rights over oil in the respective countries.

Every time I ask for an example of a company that supposedly has a monopoly, I'm always answered with a company that has government ties to get an unfair advantage.

There is no monopolies without government intervention.

It depends, there are markets and industries which are naturally predisposed to monopoly or oligopolies.
Generally the more the company is bigger the more you have access to cost economies, range economies (better retailing), R&D economies and so on.

Red Beryl?

powerful money
lobby to make everything illegal except to a chosen few, thereby shutting down the spread of knowledge and advancement

ex: big pharma condones access to free natural medicine all whilst studying said medicine and finding ways to make synthetic toxic versions they can patent and make a killing off of.

All well and good being allowed to bake bread but if the large companies are enjoying enormous economies of scale you'll never compete beyond perhaps the very local area. (Bread isn't a good example for my argument however).

Barriers to entry are critical, if they are high a natural monopoly can form and requires government interceding to stop prices spiralling. Google natural monopoly if you want to learn more.

Have you heard of anti-competitive practices or monopoly pricing?

Even if a company becomes big on their own through merit, that will likely give them enough power to enforce their monopoly through unfair practices. Think Google removing potential competitors from their search results, or a succesful businessman hiring the mafia to remove his competition.

The OPEC fucked up and couldn't take out the shale oil industry in the United States.
Oil prices have plummeted in the effort to make them go bankrupt, but obviously it didn't work.

The issue lies not in companies colluding. If these four companies raise their metal prices, you go buy copper elsewhere. It only becomes a problem when government makes it more difficult for other actors to sell you this metal. Now you suddenly have to buy the overpriced metal in question with no options at your disposal.

Every biological thing or institution is a reflection of the laws of nature. It is because of God.

>Can you give an example of truly free market?
A jungle

>Red Beryl
>Google Red Beryl
>Find out it can be created synthetically
So much for that.

Yes but as countries in a global market place they act very close to firms in a market place (albeit collusion isn't legal in most markets - however still doesn't prevent it).

Anyway look up natural monopolies and perhaps you'll understand, remember it's difficult to give you examples as every advanced economy actively prevents monopolies through regulation. Therefore your expectation of a 100% monopoly will remain unsatisfied.

Greed , but in free market competition arrives and monopoly can only be sustained if it is truly the BEST offer. With government interference making small men adapt to mechanism that big companies have/can afford is what makes even the BAD monopoly sustainable which is bad for the customer. Basics of economic education in school.

Only if the barrier of entry is impossible to surmount for a new company can a monopoly be formed. And the barrier of entry only becomes impossible to surmount with a big government placing bans or giving exclusive rights, every real world example points to this.

Yeah it appears their 'monopoly' power is being broken, particularly given the unrest between and within member states (Saudi Vs Qatar and Iran, Venezuela being a shit show etc).

De Beers suceeded - diamonds are much cheaper and more plentiful than prices indicate. They have vast warehouses of the things and pay people not to mine them to keep the price up

So can diamonds, but the synthesized version isn't the same product in the eyes of the consumer.

They don't act close to firms. Governments use violence to corner a market, regular firms or companies without government ties have to survive on merit alone.

The presence of government is a net gain in monopolies created, as can be seen with schools, police, courts, drugs etc.

It happens when a company is so good at what they do that no other compares. Eventually their competition can no longer vaibley stay In business and folds. Amazon seems to be going that direction. I predict that they will draw the fire of some Politicians that get a contibution from a lobbying firm to hit Amazon with Anti-Trust and break it up.

In lieu of any regulation, what would stop a company using violence to corner a market?

Public utilities are the standard example of a natural monopoly.

A government that protects is citizens from being forcefully acted upon, private militias and people being armed.

>Only if the barrier of entry is impossible to surmount for a new company can a monopoly be formed.

Why are there only two microchip companies, AMD and Intel? Would things be better if Intel was allowed to purchase AMD, and why?

Skip the word natural.

There is no monopolies that have manifested without government interference, that is my point. You can call them "natural" all you want, it's still government created.

I presume the government would need to put those protections into law, seems like legislative interference in the market to me.

I'm not sure about the situation with AMD and Intel. But as long as there's no legislation stopping others from making chips if they want, or any other form of government interference, they must've become so large on good merits.

Again I don't know the circumstances under which these companies operate, you'd have to clarify for me.

Intel damn near put AMD out of buisness. They were facing being declared a Monopoly so they gave AMD their technology to keep them competitive and save themselves. Intel was and still is the far superior brand.

>Law that says you cant threaten people or use physical violence
>Somehow this market regulatory legislation
???

But it's not, if public utilities weren't regulated they would be monopolized and everyone would be fucked over by their market power.

The fixed costs of creating a network for electricity for example are so huge that noone would enter to compete.

Also you have ignored the reason no monopolies can be pointed to is because current governments don't allow them.

If you are an ancap or extreme libertarian trying to prove your beliefs I'd also like to point out the problems with such ideas go beyond their economics.

free market as its the goal of each company to acive a monopoly. Competition is bad for business.

Intel is us based and amd south Asian. the governments of each nation preventing the other one to take over its competitor.

An example of a natural monopoly are the water pipes or electrical grid that goes to your house. It is not realistic to imagine that multiple companies will build multiple sets of pipes or multiple sets of power lines to the same houses in an attempt to compete, and it would be very wasteful if they did so

Exactly, which is why the big companies pay big politicians for beneficial treatment.

If we make it so government can't play favorites with companies like they do now, there will be no monopolies.

>For a company to have a monopoly, they'd need a 100% market share

No. This is wrong. Let me give you a metaphor. A 5 yo boy boxing against the world champion of boxing. The 5 yo can still punch too, so it's not 100%, but make a wild guess and guess who will win the match :-) It's about coercive power, not about an absolute 100%.

We currently live in a heavily regulated society, where despite 90% of the goods you consume on a daily basis are controlled by entities so akin to monopolies they are virtually indistinguishable from the entities who took Sherman's Hammer to the face due to anti-trust laws.

Most of which, spend vast amounts of resources lobbying politicians to further regulate their markets to raise the barrier of entry for potential competitors.

Given this, you would need to be in the late stages of a degenerative brain disease to argue that heavily regulated markets prevent monopolies or monopoly like entities from forming.

The only real solution is a free market with a low barrier of entry for entrepreneurs capable of destroy monopolies organically by making them obsolete.

Think about it as Chinese vs Americans in the Olympics throughout history.

You have America, a decently sized population but with the best facilities, training and technology available for their athletes vs China an overwhelming population size with sub par training and facilities (compared to the other top 10 countries in the Olympics) out performing the US in many cases, due to them having a significantly larger pool of potential top athletes to choose from.

Likewise, in business I personally believe that a lower barrier to entry and freedom of innovation by deregulating the market significantly increases the likelihood of those capable of groundbreaking, technological innovations will get into business and naturally remove existing monopoly like entities that have been in place for over 10 decades.

Maybe not to a single house, but in larger markets, such competition is realistic. A fraternal society of thousands of people can voluntarily agree to which company they will use, they know their needs better than the government does.

its for country to country different as this counts as corruption in the civilized world.

Shit analogy tbqh, companies have no coercive power, they can't punch customers without using government police/army.

Nothing points to public utilities like schools or roads would monopolized without the state.

>the reason no monopolies can be pointed to
Monopolies CAN be pointed to (schools, police, drugs all created by government). There are no non-government influenced monopolies because they can never be established.

The government has you tricked, it is both the cause of monopolies and the salesman of the cure to monopolies, all so that you will be content with how they act.

But governments are also actively preventing monopolies despite the negative impacts of lobbying.

>However the oligopoly can't succeed without a way from barring new competitors from entering the market, which is done by government granting patents


No. We are not talking about the "selling lemon juice" market. We are talking, for example, about the "make a modern CPU" market. Sure dude, if you have a few tens of Billions, you can build a new foundry and hire the rare/best/expensive dudes you need. Then you MAY have a chance. (Still you don't, cause there are already established long term business relations and no one will risk losing Intel over who-the-fuck-are-you newcomer.) The concept "barriers to entry", wasn't invented yesterday.