Anyone think overaggressive monopoly laws can sometimes harm innovation? For example when Intel was way ahead of AMD by natural instinct it should've wanted to push ahead and "finish off" the company. But perhaps because it feared being labeled a monopoly it took the foot off the pedal and expanded elsewhere instead, harming x86 innovation. However, that's not to say monopolies are ok. I think regulators should do more to stymie their powers but it's difficult for sure.
Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
31–40 of 175 posts
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#32It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…
> What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly.
No, they're saying a company can have too much economic power without being a full monopoly.
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No. Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? > If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No. Err, yes. > Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, wi…
> Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? If people just like their product more, what's the problem? There's no point in punishing them for being cheaper or more liked than the competition.
There may or may not be a problem, but it's still a monopoly.
One way it could be a problem is that it makes it extremely difficult for new entrants to appear. If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#34Anyone think overaggressive monopoly laws can sometimes harm innovation? For example when Intel was way ahead of AMD by natural instinct it should've wanted to push ahead and "finish off" the company. But perhaps because it feared being labeled a monopoly it took the foot off the pedal and expanded elsewhere instead, harming x86 innovation. However, that's not to say monopolies are ok. I think regulators should do mo…
I don't think you've thought that through.
How would Intel destroying AMD be good for innovation?
Once AMD was gone, they'd have no more incentive to innovate at all.
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#35It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…
Markets only work if they are competitive. Governments do not need to obey market rules, and shouldn't if it helps society.
It's odd that you would be fine with a corporate monopoly exerting dominant power over its market (to extract more profit) but are distrustful of government exerting power to limit that from happening.
Monopoly definition is political -- the idea that governments cannot and should not step in to police markets is a novel idea.
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? If people just like their product more, what's the problem? There's no point in punishing them for being cheaper or more liked than the competition.
There may or may not be a problem, but it's still a monopoly. One way it could be a problem is that it makes it extremely difficult for new entrants to appear. If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?
> If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?
Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers.
Cola is just a flavor of soda, which is just a type of drink, and can be easily interchangeable with an enormous number of drinks: water, juices, teas, etc.
As long as Coke's actions are not stopping competition in that larger market with the result of harming consumers, why should anyone care?
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#37It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…
> The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No. Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? > If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No. Err, yes. > Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, wi…
>Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition?
Part of the reason might be that Coca-Cola depends on decocainized coca leaf for its characteristic flavor, but regulations make it (effectively) impossible for upstarts to access this particular herb. Coca-Cola was grandfathered in from a time when coca leaves were legal.
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#38It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…
Markets only work if they are competitive. Governments do not need to obey market rules, and shouldn't if it helps society. It's odd that you would be fine with a corporate monopoly exerting dominant power over its market (to extract more profit) but are distrustful of government exerting power to limit that from happening. Monopoly definition is political -- the idea that governments cannot and should not step in to…
> It's odd that you would be fine with a corporate monopoly exerting dominant power over its market (to extract more profit)
Where did you get that idea from? I'm not.
> Monopoly definition is political
Nope, it is economics.
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#39In my view, unfair competition practices begin when investors make a huge pile of money to "out-money" any competition. For example, how is it fair that a bunch of investors make a pile of money so big that it puts small bookstores out of business?
Nobody owed small bookstores a living. If Amazon can give people more choice at the same or better prices, why should the small bookstores survive? They're less efficient and therefore wasting resources. (Yes, I know, small bookstores provide a whole different experience than shopping on Amazon. The thing is, nobody cares . Or at least too few people care to make the small bookstores into viable businesses.) How did…
> Nobody owed small bookstores a living.
By saying that you're basically throwing the whole concept of "fairness" out of the window, so that's no argument.
In my view, Amazon does provide a more complete service than smaller bookstores, but they achieved this with external money; money obtained from outside the book-selling business.
A similar thing is happening to restaurant owners. Companies like Uber Eats (started through enormous investments) build a portal where people can order food. Suddenly, restaurant owners have to pay a sum of money to these companies to stay in business. This is totally unfair, in my view.
Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not a particularly convincing argument - it’s like saying that Sony has a monopoly in the PlayStation market - possibly true, but not that useful!
Exactly: you can absolutely always define a market here a company has a close-to-100% market share. That's why, to actually talk about a monopoly, you need to very precisely define the market. Take Facebook: Facebook has a monopoly in online, blue-themed social networks owned by Harvard dropouts. It doesn't have a monopoly on social networks, on communication, on online networks, on online ads, on online ads in socia…
But being blue isn't a defining feature of Facebook (or any other social market), so it's not useful for defining the market that it operates in.