Your claim holds no water because it portends the future. 'If Apple were crushed, Bill Gates would own the planet'. Very good. Except it ignores the small fact the market invents alternatives when none exist. It does this very well.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Paul-led panel considers Fed abolishment bill
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
Your claim holds no water because it portends the future. 'If Apple were crushed, Bill Gates would own the planet'. Very good. Except it ignores the small fact the market invents alternatives when none exist. It does this very well.
Quote from achilles28:
No, you didn't. Because once they squeeze the captive market with higher prices, competitors enter in force, and drive prices down. The only way a monopoly can exist is via predatory pricing (which is economically beneficially), or Government regulation (which is not, obviously).
This.
The idea that government has ever or can ever protect us from monopolies is laughable. Government is in fact the sole creator and enabler of monopolies.
Can any of you statists name a single instance of a monopoly that has existed for any substantial length of time without government support? I'll bet you cannot.
Quote from achilles28:
Competition can only be destroyed by offering a superior product or service at the lowest possible price. That's what you don't understand. Monopolies only exist, at least in the free market, because they are the best provider in the market, at the cheapest price. As soon as a competitor comes up with something cheaper, or better, which offers more value to consumers, market share weighs to the new entrant. The circumstances you allude too don't exist. They can't exist. Standard oil proves it.
I thought if you re-read your post above you would realize it contains contradictions that I couldn't imagine you really meant to write.
For example, "Monopolies only exist, at least in the free market..."
And you seem to have redefined "Monopoly" as something that one can compete against. Monopoly is the opposite of free market, isn't it? If one has a monopoly, by definition, one does not have competition. Are you suggesting that if one has an established monopoly that it can easily be lost to competition? If so, I don't think that is correct. A monopoly exists because it is able to eliminate or otherwise hold competition at bay. Usually the only way a monopoly can be broken up is via third party intervention, such as via anti-trust laws, etc.
I am having a hard time accepting your arguments because they seem to fly in the face of reality, and go counter to what is generally understood to be true..
Quote from piezoe:
I thought if you re-read your post above you would realize it contains contradictions that I couldn't imagine you really meant to write.
For example, "Monopolies only exist, at least in the free market..."
And you seem to have redefined "Monopoly" as something that one can compete against. Monopoly is the opposite of free market, isn't it? If one has a monopoly, by definition, one does not have competition. Are you suggesting that if one has an established monopoly that it can easily be lost to competition? If so, I don't think that is correct. A monopoly exists because it is able to eliminate or otherwise hold competition at bay. Usually the only way a monopoly can be broken up is via third party intervention, such as via anti-trust laws, etc.
I am having a hard time accepting your arguments because they seem to fly in the face of reality, and go counter to what is generally understood to be true..
"A monopoly exists because it is able to eliminate or otherwise hold competition at bay. " This statement is true, but it just proves his point, because in reality, the means by which monopolists "eliminate or otherwise hold competition at bay" is nearly always the government.
"Usually the only way a monopoly can be broken up is via third party intervention, such as via anti-trust laws, etc." This is not true because monopolies are broken up every day by the free market. Any new, unique product or service is a temporary monopoly for at least a little while, until the free market generates competitors, which ends the monopoly. The only reason monopolies can exist long enough to need to be broken up by third party intervention is because they're supported by some form of law or regulation (which includes patents and copyright laws) in the first place.
Quote from GoldStandard:
This.
The idea that government has ever or can ever protect us from monopolies is laughable. Government is in fact the sole creator and enabler of monopolies.
Can any of you statists name a single instance of a monopoly that has existed for any substantial length of time without government support? I'll bet you cannot.
I believe virtually all of the monopolies in the U.S. of the late 19th century and early twentieth were formed without material government protection, or interference.. Isn't that why anti-trust laws were put in place.
Today it is a different matter, however, and companies do obtain a certain level of protection from competition via government legislation that they often help draft..
Quote from GoldStandard:
This.
The idea that government has ever or can ever protect us from monopolies is laughable. Government is in fact the sole creator and enabler of monopolies.
Can any of you statists name a single instance of a monopoly that has existed for any substantial length of time without government support? I'll bet you cannot.
Oh rilly?
So, let's see, Microsoft held a monopoly over the OS and over browsers, at least for a little while, and currently holds a monopoly in spreadsheets and word processing, because of the government?
Oh infinitely wise one, please inform little ignorant me as to just how this happened. I'm all ears, figuratively speaking.
Quote from trefoil:
Oh rilly?
So, let's see, Microsoft held a monopoly over the OS and over browsers, at least for a little while, and currently holds a monopoly in spreadsheets and word processing, because of the government?
Oh infinitely wise one, please inform little ignorant me as to just how this happened. I'm all ears, figuratively speaking.
Like when they handed Gates a document and told him he must realize it was created in Word...