Answer this question for me /pol/

>>133721670
bump

>>133721670
humans. /thread

Fuck off with your stupid question thread.

greed. true capitalism requires minor protectionism

>>133722479
what is true capitalism?

>>133722548
/no true scotsman/
different for everyone

>>133721670
considering government regulations created the monopolies that cable companies have...

>>133722859
I'm asking you what you believe to be true capitalism

>>133721670
Monopolies appear in both of those scenarios, but neither are the answer as to why they appear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wstIBq2H0z8

>>133721670
Free markets.

>>133722479
Haven't you niggas seen the movie Wall Street? Greed is good you dummies. Anyone that says otherwise deserves a helicopter ride

>>133723090
>>133723126
Are there examples of monopolies in free markets we could look at?

>>133723049
I beleive that capitalism should be competition. that is the only way to assure quality produce.

>>133723171
im talking about buying up monopolies

>>133721670
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

>>133723435
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.

>>133721670
Free markets, which ironically now needs government intervention to protect the markets and allow competition again.

greed

>>133723696
Are there any examples of free market monopolies that we could look to?

>>133723795
Well most monopolies that aren't South Korean (they are backed by the gov).

>>133723997
Give one (1) example

>>133721670
>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.

>>133724402
Even if you become big on your own merits? What's the issue in honest practices becoming rewarded with success?

>>133723795
Can you give an example of truly free market?

>>133724610
I don't believe there is any market 100% free from regulations

>>133724723
Agreed, so how could there be an example when we are talking about a hypothetical?

>>133721670
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.

>>133724844
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)?

>>133725053
>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?

>>133725137
>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.

>>133721670
monopolies are the economic equivalent of entropy. they arise no matter what.

>>133725137
Limiting access to a finite natural resource with no substitute, in other words, cornering the market.

>>133724134
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.

>>133725461
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?

>>133725541
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.

>>133725670
Banking - owned by (((some people)))

File: 1474995133818.png (14KB, 600x371px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 600x371px

>>133725541
>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.

>>133725823
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.

File: IMG_0117.jpg (131KB, 800x485px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x485px

>>133725824
Called it.

>>133725750
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...

>>133725824
So, oligopoly then.

>>133726016
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.

>>133726100
>7.6% Market share is enough for oligopoly to realisticly be maintained
Nope

>>133726165
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.

>>133726284
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.

>>133721670
Walking in tall grass.

>>133722548

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."

>>133722938
This one examples proves it definitively...

Retard.

>>133725670
80-90% is effectively a monopoly.

>>133724556
>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

>>133726325
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.

>>133726607
How are the new companies suppose to compete if the existing ones are colluding? You don't need a government to exert force.

>>133726523
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.

>>133726720
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.

>>133726731
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.

>>133726541
Make it so that people can't exert force over other people then. A corrupt man with no tools is not a danger.

>>133726797
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.

>>133726913
>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.

>>133721670
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.

>>133725670
Red Beryl?

>>133721670
powerful money <gods>
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.

>>133726797
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.

>>133724556
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.

>>133726913
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.

>>133726916
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.

>>133721670
Every biological thing or institution is a reflection of the laws of nature. It is because of God.

>>133724610
>Can you give an example of truly free market?
A jungle

>>133727213
>Red Beryl
>Google Red Beryl
>Find out it can be created synthetically
So much for that.

>>133727177
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.

>>133721670
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.

>>133727290
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.

>>133727402
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).

>>133725670
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

>>133727508
So can diamonds, but the synthesized version isn't the same product in the eyes of the consumer.

>>133727538
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.

>>133727787
In lieu of any regulation, what would stop a company using violence to corner a market?

>>133727644
Public utilities are the standard example of a natural monopoly.

>>133727975
A government that protects is citizens from being forcefully acted upon, private militias and people being armed.

>>133727644
>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?

>>133728094
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.

>>133728170
I presume the government would need to put those protections into law, seems like legislative interference in the market to me.

>>133728182
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.

>>133728368
>Law that says you cant threaten people or use physical violence
>Somehow this market regulatory legislation
???

>>133728299
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.

>>133721670
free market as its the goal of each company to acive a monopoly. Competition is bad for business.

>>133728480
Intel is us based and amd south Asian. the governments of each nation preventing the other one to take over its competitor.

>>133728299
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

>>133728595
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.

>>133725824
>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.

>>133728767
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.

>>133728777
its for country to country different as this counts as corruption in the civilized world.

>>133728866
Shit analogy tbqh, companies have no coercive power, they can't punch customers without using government police/army.

>>133728558
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.

>>133728777
But governments are also actively preventing monopolies despite the negative impacts of lobbying.

>>133726607
>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.

>>133729225
>No non government monopolies
>The diamond trade until governments stepped in to break up De Beer's monopoly.

Monopolies exist anywhere a corporation has the power to construct one, whether this is through economic coercion, governmental coercion or more underhanded tactics is simply the icing on the cake.

>>133728866
Here's a better example:
Your father is dieing of heart disease. You either choose the best cardiologist who already gets all the heart patients in the hospital to treat him, or the guy fresh out of Med school with barely any experience. Would you choose the new doctor just so you could prevent the experienced one to monopolise heart disease, or would you do anything to get the experienced doctor?

This idea that people should help the little guy who offers a worse product just because he's the little guy doesn't hold much in reality. People want the best product, regardless of who's offering it.

>>133729373
De Beers had 80-90% market share of rough diamonds. They lost this grip because they couldnt secure any exclusive rights granted by local governments.

80-90% Share isn't even a monopoly to begin with. Good thing governments didn't give them the oppurtunity to become a monopoly.

>>133729225
Drugs are often produced privately by big pharma.

You suggest schools should operate privately, so what about people who cant afford school?

>>133726915
>Make it so that people can't exert force over other people then

How? That's impossible.

>>133728545
In a truly free market, how could the state have a monopoly on the resource of violence?

>>133728480
AMD and Intel have no small competitors because making microchips is such a huge investment in R&D, factory equipment & skilled labor that it would take hundreds of billions of dollars just to attempt to enter the market, and there is no guarantee that even with hundreds of billions risked that the new company could catch up and sell a competitive product. Both companies got big on their merits, but the fact that there are two companies keeps them competing against eachother and innovating; it keeps the market a competitive market. It would be very scary if AMD fell behind and went bankrupt, because then Intel would have no competiton for at least several years until someone could attempt to create a new business to compete with them. Intel could raise their prices signifigantly or choose not to do any new R&D because they have no competition, which could severely damage economic growth overall as computers would stop doubling in speed every two years or so and/or go up signifigantly in price

>>133729346
If you have the capital, what's stopping you from starting a CPU-company? The barrier of entry is high, but not insurmountable.

>>133728595
>Competition is bad for business.

"Competition is a sin" - J. D. Rockefeller

>>133729345
My country's government forces nationalised electric power and water, telecommunications, internet providers etc. on us, needless to say we have the shittiest service in all of those as a result.

>>133728915
Well said

>>133729501
They had a 100% share on non artificial diamonds up till the early 2000s. Again a clear global monopoly, or if you want to dispute that then in the vast majority of the world, a clear local monopoly in many countries.

So yes, monopolies do and have existed, go try harder to justify where your roads will come from.

>>133729225
Anyway by public utilities I was meaning water and electricity, that require physical networks to each individual house. The company that owns the grid has a monopoly.

Roads are actually a reasonable example as well, I own a major road between too cities, over a river perhaps. It's the only nearby convenient option so I get greedy and raise price for those using it (as libertarian ideas would say I should charge for use of my privately owned road).

You come along and decide I'm overcharging and that you are going to build a road alongside (at enormous expense) but as soon as you begin (investing millions) I cut prices again ruining you before the road is finished.

>>133729732
Nationalisation is very different from managing competition. The UK's electricity market is comprised of many private companies with the government only preventing one gaining market power. You are starting a very different argument.

>>133728915
Regulating vs deregulating isnt really the issue imo, it's "regulatory capture." If the politicians who are doing the regulating or deregulating are bribed by the industry in question, they will regulate or deregulate in a way that benefits that industry ignoring the greater public interest

>>133729926
Here's another example, cell phone service providers. We have two private companies, touch and alfa. They own the entire Lebanese market. The government prevents new companies from entering the market.

My point is that governments can very much be the enforcers of monopolies. Doubly so in a politically corrupt environment. The only remedy to this is by stripping the regulatory power that's bestowed upon governments.

>>133728491
>Intel was and still is the far superior brand

Intel still has much more power. But I wouldn't say "superior" brand. Their monopolistic practices are disgusting, and the new AMD Ryzen CPUs are really really good and amazingly good value for money.

>>133728929
There is some data on this - the UK privatised many of their water companies starting with Thatcher, and I believe the data shows that this caused prices to go up (which is what one would expect if the water-supply market is inherently non-competitive/a natural monopoly) In theory, a public utility can operate at lower cost than a private entity in a non-competitive market, because the public utility does not/cannot pay dividends/profits to its owners

>>133721670

Natural resource limits, intellectual property and dumping.

>>133730209
Yes, a corrupt government is useless and even incites the building of monopolies but that isn't the argument.

The swede is arguing that in the absence of government and with completely free markets monopolies can't exist. Unfortunately he is wrong, certainly so when market power is discussed rather than 100% market share.

>>133730441
The swede, presumably a libertarian, would argue IP should be obsolete. (I may be wrong about that I'm not fully versed on libertarian 'thinking').

Although it's worthwhile to look for alternative to our current apparatus.

>>133729425
>This idea that people should help the little guy who offers a worse product just because he's the little guy doesn't hold much in reality. People want the best product, regardless of who's offering it.

You are correct, unfortunately, Lebanon friend. But it's a hook. You get the best and most tasty bait, eventually you (may) realize you also swallowed the hook. But then it's late.

>>133730627
He's right to mention the 100% market share though, unless you'll make your own definition of the word, a monopoly means total control over the supply of a commodity and the absence of competition. I know you're trying to round it up and say an 80% market share is effectively a monopoly, but the term itself is absolute, and as he already said, it either is or isn't a monopoly.

>>133721670
Can be both depending on circumstances. For example, say you have a duopoly. They lobby the government so that they subsidy the shit out of them. Now it's no longer possible for anyone else to enter the market. Finally, they merge, or one of them takes over the other.

But free market ENTAILS monopolies as a nash equilibrium in hedonic games. It's impossible to have an actual free market where monopolies aren't the final goal.

>>133730774
Libertarianism is somewhat on a spectrum, many people self identify as libertarian but among them, some will be more radically libertarian than others. That's to say IP laws can be a subject of discussion even among libertarians themselves. I wouldn't draw a broad stroke and colour all libertarians with the same brush.

>>133729624
>The barrier of entry is high, but not insurmountable.

Lol. "Not insurmountable". Right. Dude, if you have 10s or 100s of Billions laying around, then pls do give them to me, and I honestly promise I'll make a CPU 100 times better than today's Intel/AMD, in a couple of years. Lol. Maybe I live in a shitty neighbourhood, but I don't know anyone with that kind of money laying around.

>>133731008
Correct but it's being pedantic for the sake of the argument. Monopolistic power can come into play way earlier than 100%, even before 50% in certain circumstances, so the negative aspects of a monopoly are experienced before the literal definition of a monopoly is achieved.

Any economist would agree a firm with a huge market share acts as a monopolist, indeed it's essentially a sliding scale from perfect competition to oligopoly to monopolist, which in theory is assumed at 100% but only for ease in the theory.

>>133729624
"If you have the capital, what's stopping you from starting a CPU-company? The barrier of entry is high, but not insurmountable."
So why is no one doing it?

>>133721670
Free market isn't fair market. There will always be assholes.

>>133721670
Jews

>>133731372
You could break up the Intel monopoly by voiding intellectual property rights. Hard to tell what effect that would have on R&D

>>133731272
You don't enter a market with XXX money and just purchase your way through. These things need investments from people who think the idea might work and would generate profit. That's the risk part of entering any market or starting a business. You don't start with all the money and hope you'll come up with a successful product.

>>133731245
Agreed as with any political nuance it's better to view things in shades rather than black and white to better understand others arguments.

Personally I understand the problems libertarians see in government (I have a profound hatred for most of the Irish government, both for outright corruption or embarrassing incompetence) but I don't agree with many of their solutions.

>>133731572
Well as IP is the key incentive for R&D it's safe to say it would be pretty radical.

>>133730431
If it's inherently non-competitive then an actual natural monopoly would have formed. That is to say, all but one, or even all water companies would have become unprofitable and ultimately been purchased at bargain-basement rates by a single entity, forming what amounts to a "public utility" with less government meddling/oversight.

>>133721670
monopolies appear becouse the government makes a barrier for the smaller once.
the problem with monopolies is that they suck. they cannot survive, because at some point they get cocky, and people choose smaller alternatives. If you kill smaller alternatives, you end up with a monopoly.

>>133731773
>this is what potatoniggers actually believe

>>133721670

Markets in a capitalist economy follow 4 steps:
Growth/Maturity/Concentration/Decline
Concentration occur after maturity.
At this point, profits promised by the market are already almost completed.
Profit per unit is then extremely low.
Innovation is useless, as it would cost more than potential profit.
The only way to make more profit: to buy competitors.
On the extreme, markets end fatally in monopolies.

Factually, some competitors may organize themselves to build fake monopolies before maturity/decline. Useless as a market always end in decline.

States may also organize monopolies for precise markets: energy, transportation... as they believe free markets, on those precise markets, has no interests for consumers.

>>133727388
These are canards. If people are sufficiently dissatisfied with Google that they're looking for an alternative, they'll find it without needing to Google for it. People know about Yahoo and DuckDuckGo, but people also know Google has a better product. So this monopoly arises from the free market.

On the second point, if you can get away with racketeering then you have significantly deeper social problems. This monopoly arose, apparently, due to lack of government intervention in the area of law enforcement.

>>133730167
But then how do you prevent (or minimize) bribery?

>>133732023
Nice argument

File: potatofamine.jpg (46KB, 501x684px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 501x684px

>>133732168

>>133721670
This isn't a mutually exclusive question, especially since free markets can't exist without government enforcement of contracts.

>>133731355
No one's arguing against that, it's logical that a larger market share will mean a stronger influence on the market. The point is that market influence isn't always a bad thing when the supplier is making a worthwhile product, and if not, that remaining share in the market provides space for any potential competitor to offer a better product.

>>133721670
Huge government funds
>Stupid goyim think these Jewish cucks are genius entrepreneurs when in reality they get yuuuuuuge funding from ((people))
>Jew has to create idea which will control white people
>If powerful Jews agree they will donate BILLIONS and push this ((product/program))

>>133732162
Make it so government can't place regulations. Effectively removing the incentive to bribe politicians.

Ironically, the monopoly law.
The monopoly law states that a corporation above a certain threshold of profit MUST have a board.
It also says that the CEO MUST act in the best interests of the stockholders.
What does that mean?
Well lets look at Microsoft for example.
Not one strike in any law but european for antitrust, and we all know that they should of been shut down.

So why didn't they get shut down for antitrust?
Because they simply cited the monopoly law.
Bill Gates simply repeated to the jury and judge every single time "I was just acting in the best interests of my company".

So why do monpolys occur?
Because, like EA Games and every game company they swallowed, if you refuse to merge, you are liable against the monpoly law for not acting in the best interests of your company.


But because NOBODY ACTUALLY FUCKING READS THE LAWS, AND NOBODY SPEAKS UP ABOUT IT, THIS IS STILL OCCURING TODAY.

>>133721670
Monopolies are a form of socialism.
Several joint powers controlling all production and inevitably have power over the government, the two are virtually indistinguishable.
Free market is the ability for the consumer to choose which company they wanna use, which is the opposite of socialism and monopolized markets.
It is the role of a government that wishes to have a free market system to break up monopolies and joint-monopolies

>>133725357
AT&T was created after the government split Bell South. We used to have a government that fucked monopolies... NOW WE SERVE THEM!

>>133721670
Monopolies are not really our problem, its oligopolies. Most of our markets are oligopolistic food, tech, medicine, I could never start a pharma company, when it was relatively simple if you had the funds to create a lab. Now there are many barriers to entry, created by lawmakers through motivation by the oligopolistic corporations donating to their reelection campaigns.

>>133723176
Standard oil from Rockafeller

>>133732341
I'm Protestant and Northern Irish.

But an American probably won't understand the difference anyway.