Redpill me on monopolies /biz/, do they overall have a positive

File: Opisfaggot.jpg (337KB, 1312x954px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1312x954px

>>1808927
Well I dunno OP. Is giving a company complete control over a market a good idea? I'd say it depends on the market. Let's look at the cock market. We all know OP is thirsting for cock and will pay whatever it takes. A monopoly cat capitalize on this can charge an extremely high price. The government can tax cock because it knows that OP will continue to buy no matter what. Thats extra revenue from taxes that wouldn't exist if cock was reasonably priced. This is bad for OP but good for the rest of society that doesn't thirst for cock like you do.

>>1808935

Same with Sweden and booze. Taxing the shit out of it so drunks pays of ahmeds flat.

>>1808935
If OP now has to devote a larger proportion of his income to buying cock (let's assume savings are untouched) then he'll have to sacrifice otehr goods and service to acquire the same amount of cock. This will hurt OP, will indirectly hurt other companies, but will serve primarily the monopoly, and the gov will get a marginally higher tax income from the monopoly; that is if the monopoly doesn't abuse its power and start tax-evading, or lobby to lower taxes, make work laws "looser", etc.

I'd say monopolies are more harmful than beneficial. That's if we don't take natural and politics-driven monopolies into account.

>>1808944
And you must also realize that high taxes on harmful products will raise their prices and make them harder to acquire, thus discouraging new cunts from getting into them.