Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

How does monopolization work?

tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Like in the business world, how does a company monopolize, and is it fair for the government to come up and say you need to break up? I'm not sure I understand this properly, but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 10:51:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like in the business world, how does a company monopolize, and is it fair for the government to come up and say you need to break up? I'm not sure I understand this properly, but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

Say I was, idk... an oil tycoon, and I own a company... hypothetically let's call it "Standard Oil." I'm an oil tycoon, but I still have to do business with those who drill it, pump it out of the ground, put it in oil tankers, ship the raw product in tankers from the middle east to the United States, remove the oil from the tankers once it gets to the port, store it at the port before it can be be distributed to manufactories, distribute it to manufactories for processing into consumer products (like gasoline, motor oil, etc.), distribute the manufactured product to points of sale, and sell the product to consumers (individual people, and businesses).

That's a lot of different people and companies to deal with, all of whom make money that I could be making.

It's going to therefore be in my interest to buy up all the distributors, manufacturers, producers, drillers, shippers, and points of sale that I can, so that I make money off of every stage of production and distribution from the sands of Arabia to the shores of America, and beyond. To the extent that I own and control all those different stages, I have monopolized an industry.

Now, getting to the point of monopolizing an industry is tough... and you have to play dirty to make it work. Let's say I was able to acquire all local points of sale (gas stations) for local consumers except one or two holdouts, but the holdouts were in critical locations. What I might do (because antirtust laws are just never enforced... lol @ free market economics) is sell gasoline at a loss for a long enough time to drive all of my competition out of business because they couldn't keep up, then I'd sweep in and buy up their locations in bankruptcy sales.

Or let's say that I couldn't buy, like, Maersk sea lines but I wanted to bring them under the same corporate umbrella. Then, what I might do is, since they were too big for me to just hostilely take over. I might isolate them economically by throwing my wright around and not doing business with them at all; and punish severely any company who bought oil by raising prices at their point of sale. Maybe I give huge discounts to anyone who refuses to do business with them. Then, when they are at their weakest, I pounce and take over the company, and then I control shipping.

There are other tactics, and they are really fun... but that's how monopolization works. You take over every stage of production, distribution and sale to make money from all stages of getting products to the market.
Tsar of DDO
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 10:52:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:45:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Look at the USPS for one of the longest running Monopolies in the USA.

Not really, Fedex and UPS are much more popular.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 10:53:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like in the business world, how does a company monopolize, and is it fair for the government to come up and say you need to break up? I'm not sure I understand this properly, but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

Or rather, look at the USPS and you will see the things that need to be in place for a monopoly to exist. Forced barriers of entry usually legally implemented with regulations and licences and illegally implemented with things like picket lines and thugs with clubs.

Also, subsidies are usually a must, as monopolies tend to become wastefully inefficient as competition decreases; and therefore, unable to sustain a working profit, unless you have a genius CEO like Rockefeller. People will simply stop buying your product even if there is no replacement if it becomes too costly. Who would pay an arm and a leg for a finger?
Robkwoods
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 11:41:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like in the business world, how does a company monopolize, and is it fair for the government to come up and say you need to break up? I'm not sure I understand this properly, but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

The only way for a monopoly to exist is to control the supply. If the supply is not under the sole control of the one company, it will always lose out to competition. Steel tariffs prevented proper market competition; Limited drilling prevents oil competition; Patents allowed AT&Ts monopoly. All overreaching regulation.

Monopolies are also often confused with economies of scale. Just because you are a big company doesn't mean you are a monopoly.

http://fee.org...

http://fee.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:38:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
A monopoly is a company that has no serious competition to worry about. In most cases, exploitative monopolies are unsustainable, because in order for a monopoly to make it "worth it" for others to say out of their field and maintain their dominant market position, they would have to offer huge sums of money to all would-be competitors i.e., more money than the would-be competitor could make by taking over the field. However, in some markets the barriers to entry are extreme and require lots of capital. This is where the opportunity for exploitation opens up. Basically, if an exploitative monopoly were unable to lower its prices or improve its business practices, it would stand a huge risk of being undercut by someone wishing to take its spot in the market. But since monopolies can, at any point, lower their prices and improve their business practices to keep up with competition, people who would otherwise try to take over the market might not consider it worth the investment. If someone anticipates that a monopoly would respond to their attempt to undercut them by engaging in a price war (which may be economically rational for them to do anyway), then the potential benefits of entering the market as the only fair company in town are either nonexistent or offset by the costs of competing with a company desperate to hold onto its dominant position. In other words, sometimes defeating a monopoly requires self-sacrifice on the part of investors, which just isn't going to happen. It has to be financially beneficial for someone to take on a monopoly at an individual level or people won't do it. There's also the issue of the tragedy of the commons, in that people are incentivized to let others assume the costs of taking on monopolies, because they will benefit whether or not they themselves are responsible for opening up the market to competitors.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:06:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:52:34 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:45:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Look at the USPS for one of the longest running Monopolies in the USA.

Not really, Fedex and UPS are much more popular.

Usps had existed as a monopoly for a long long time, longer than anything else.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:17:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 3:06:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:52:34 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:45:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Look at the USPS for one of the longest running Monopolies in the USA.

Not really, Fedex and UPS are much more popular.

Usps had existed as a monopoly for a long long time, longer than anything else.

Well even then, the founding fathers meant for it to be in existence. It's in our constitution.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Robkwoods
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:20:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:38:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
A monopoly is a company that has no serious competition to worry about. In most cases, exploitative monopolies are unsustainable, because in order for a monopoly to make it "worth it" for others to say out of their field and maintain their dominant market position, they would have to offer huge sums of money to all would-be competitors i.e., more money than the would-be competitor could make by taking over the field. However, in some markets the barriers to entry are extreme and require lots of capital. This is where the opportunity for exploitation opens up. Basically, if an exploitative monopoly were unable to lower its prices or improve its business practices, it would stand a huge risk of being undercut by someone wishing to take its spot in the market. But since monopolies can, at any point, lower their prices and improve their business practices to keep up with competition, people who would otherwise try to take over the market might not consider it worth the investment. If someone anticipates that a monopoly would respond to their attempt to undercut them by engaging in a price war (which may be economically rational for them to do anyway), then the potential benefits of entering the market as the only fair company in town are either nonexistent or offset by the costs of competing with a company desperate to hold onto its dominant position. In other words, sometimes defeating a monopoly requires self-sacrifice on the part of investors, which just isn't going to happen. It has to be financially beneficial for someone to take on a monopoly at an individual level or people won't do it. There's also the issue of the tragedy of the commons, in that people are incentivized to let others assume the costs of taking on monopolies, because they will benefit whether or not they themselves are responsible for opening up the market to competitors.

Money doesn't make a monopoly, supply control does. You also need an inelastic demand curve. If the demand exceeds the profitable supply of the monopoly competition will emerge.
Robkwoods
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:30:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 3:17:11 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/5/2016 3:06:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:52:34 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:45:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Look at the USPS for one of the longest running Monopolies in the USA.

Not really, Fedex and UPS are much more popular.

Usps had existed as a monopoly for a long long time, longer than anything else.

Well even then, the founding fathers meant for it to be in existence. It's in our constitution.

I was under the impression that the postal clause was intended only to designate mail routes and post offices along the way. Essentially it was meant to establish infrastructure not service.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:23:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

If the company has a monopoly over an aspect of society that is critical to US security, to the point that if the company shut down due to a strike or bankruptcy somehow, then I can see how breaking up a monopoly could be justified.... A company that controls the water supply of the entire state of New York City for example would have a huge effect if the company suddenly had to shut down, making a case for why there should not be a monopoly in that case, but a company that produces 90% of paper towels or napkins in a state wouldnt have to be broken up since that company going under would only pose a minor inconvenience if it went under
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 7:55:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 5:23:31 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

If the company has a monopoly over an aspect of society that is critical to US security, to the point that if the company shut down due to a strike or bankruptcy somehow, then I can see how breaking up a monopoly could be justified.... A company that controls the water supply of the entire state of New York City for example would have a huge effect if the company suddenly had to shut down, making a case for why there should not be a monopoly in that case, but a company that produces 90% of paper towels or napkins in a state wouldnt have to be broken up since that company going under would only pose a minor inconvenience if it went under

Everyone has a Constitutional right to toilet paper.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 8:45:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 7:55:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:23:31 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

If the company has a monopoly over an aspect of society that is critical to US security, to the point that if the company shut down due to a strike or bankruptcy somehow, then I can see how breaking up a monopoly could be justified.... A company that controls the water supply of the entire state of New York City for example would have a huge effect if the company suddenly had to shut down, making a case for why there should not be a monopoly in that case, but a company that produces 90% of paper towels or napkins in a state wouldnt have to be broken up since that company going under would only pose a minor inconvenience if it went under

Everyone has a Constitutional right to toilet paper.

As established by the Supreme Court Case of Texas v Mudbutt... Im aware
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Robkwoods
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 9:03:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 7:55:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:23:31 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

If the company has a monopoly over an aspect of society that is critical to US security, to the point that if the company shut down due to a strike or bankruptcy somehow, then I can see how breaking up a monopoly could be justified.... A company that controls the water supply of the entire state of New York City for example would have a huge effect if the company suddenly had to shut down, making a case for why there should not be a monopoly in that case, but a company that produces 90% of paper towels or napkins in a state wouldnt have to be broken up since that company going under would only pose a minor inconvenience if it went under

Everyone has a Constitutional right to toilet paper.

Falls under the pursuit of happiness or life depending on your present situation.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 9:10:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 7:55:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:23:31 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

If the company has a monopoly over an aspect of society that is critical to US security, to the point that if the company shut down due to a strike or bankruptcy somehow, then I can see how breaking up a monopoly could be justified.... A company that controls the water supply of the entire state of New York City for example would have a huge effect if the company suddenly had to shut down, making a case for why there should not be a monopoly in that case, but a company that produces 90% of paper towels or napkins in a state wouldnt have to be broken up since that company going under would only pose a minor inconvenience if it went under

Everyone has a Constitutional right to toilet paper.

lol man you are so full of sh1t ,sorry couldn't resist

AT&T pre cell phones aka ma' bell was the only telephone service you could purchase, government broke up the company and everyone's rates went up, enjoy. At least that's what I remember my dad saying about it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 9:12:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:10:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 7:55:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/5/2016 5:23:31 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

If the company has a monopoly over an aspect of society that is critical to US security, to the point that if the company shut down due to a strike or bankruptcy somehow, then I can see how breaking up a monopoly could be justified.... A company that controls the water supply of the entire state of New York City for example would have a huge effect if the company suddenly had to shut down, making a case for why there should not be a monopoly in that case, but a company that produces 90% of paper towels or napkins in a state wouldnt have to be broken up since that company going under would only pose a minor inconvenience if it went under

Everyone has a Constitutional right to toilet paper.

lol man you are so full of sh1t ,sorry couldn't resist

AT&T pre cell phones aka ma' bell was the only telephone service you could purchase, government broke up the company and everyone's rates went up, enjoy. At least that's what I remember my dad saying about it.

Standard oil prices went way up too...the consumers get the shaft and the crony businessmen win. The American Dream.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 9:47:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 3:20:58 AM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:38:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
A monopoly is a company that has no serious competition to worry about. In most cases, exploitative monopolies are unsustainable, because in order for a monopoly to make it "worth it" for others to say out of their field and maintain their dominant market position, they would have to offer huge sums of money to all would-be competitors i.e., more money than the would-be competitor could make by taking over the field. However, in some markets the barriers to entry are extreme and require lots of capital. This is where the opportunity for exploitation opens up. Basically, if an exploitative monopoly were unable to lower its prices or improve its business practices, it would stand a huge risk of being undercut by someone wishing to take its spot in the market. But since monopolies can, at any point, lower their prices and improve their business practices to keep up with competition, people who would otherwise try to take over the market might not consider it worth the investment. If someone anticipates that a monopoly would respond to their attempt to undercut them by engaging in a price war (which may be economically rational for them to do anyway), then the potential benefits of entering the market as the only fair company in town are either nonexistent or offset by the costs of competing with a company desperate to hold onto its dominant position. In other words, sometimes defeating a monopoly requires self-sacrifice on the part of investors, which just isn't going to happen. It has to be financially beneficial for someone to take on a monopoly at an individual level or people won't do it. There's also the issue of the tragedy of the commons, in that people are incentivized to let others assume the costs of taking on monopolies, because they will benefit whether or not they themselves are responsible for opening up the market to competitors.

Money doesn't make a monopoly, supply control does. You also need an inelastic demand curve. If the demand exceeds the profitable supply of the monopoly competition will emerge.

The point is that supply is restricted when a monopoly makes it unprofitable for others to compete. For instance, say you want to compete with Comcast, which consistently ranks as having one of the worst customer service records of any company in the country. You would need to invest billions of dollars to even have the chance of making a profit, and at the end of all of it there's no reason to think Comcast won't respond by lowering its prices in order to stay competitive or drive you out of the market altogether (they have far more invested in their position than you do, so they can run at a loss for longer and outlast you in a price war). Moreover, once you open up the market to competitors, you have to worry about all the other companies that will inevitably crop up as a result. Unless it's clear that you will end up in a good position, taking on a monopoly might be more trouble than it's worth.
Robkwoods
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:55:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:47:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/5/2016 3:20:58 AM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:38:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
A monopoly is a company that has no serious competition to worry about. In most cases, exploitative monopolies are unsustainable, because in order for a monopoly to make it "worth it" for others to say out of their field and maintain their dominant market position, they would have to offer huge sums of money to all would-be competitors i.e., more money than the would-be competitor could make by taking over the field. However, in some markets the barriers to entry are extreme and require lots of capital. This is where the opportunity for exploitation opens up. Basically, if an exploitative monopoly were unable to lower its prices or improve its business practices, it would stand a huge risk of being undercut by someone wishing to take its spot in the market. But since monopolies can, at any point, lower their prices and improve their business practices to keep up with competition, people who would otherwise try to take over the market might not consider it worth the investment. If someone anticipates that a monopoly would respond to their attempt to undercut them by engaging in a price war (which may be economically rational for them to do anyway), then the potential benefits of entering the market as the only fair company in town are either nonexistent or offset by the costs of competing with a company desperate to hold onto its dominant position. In other words, sometimes defeating a monopoly requires self-sacrifice on the part of investors, which just isn't going to happen. It has to be financially beneficial for someone to take on a monopoly at an individual level or people won't do it. There's also the issue of the tragedy of the commons, in that people are incentivized to let others assume the costs of taking on monopolies, because they will benefit whether or not they themselves are responsible for opening up the market to competitors.

Money doesn't make a monopoly, supply control does. You also need an inelastic demand curve. If the demand exceeds the profitable supply of the monopoly competition will emerge.

The point is that supply is restricted when a monopoly makes it unprofitable for others to compete. For instance, say you want to compete with Comcast, which consistently ranks as having one of the worst customer service records of any company in the country. You would need to invest billions of dollars to even have the chance of making a profit, and at the end of all of it there's no reason to think Comcast won't respond by lowering its prices in order to stay competitive or drive you out of the market altogether (they have far more invested in their position than you do, so they can run at a loss for longer and outlast you in a price war). Moreover, once you open up the market to competitors, you have to worry about all the other companies that will inevitably crop up as a result. Unless it's clear that you will end up in a good position, taking on a monopoly might be more trouble than it's worth.

The only reason Comcast and other telecommunication companies persist is because of government protection. I believe private monopoly is the term. Comcast doesn't have control of the supply they have protected control over the supply. Notice how when netflix, hulu, etc came about comcast didn't lower it's prices to compete, they used law to do so. They also allegedly throttled internet service for those utilizing the entertainment sites. It is the same thing as ride share companies and Taxi monopolies. Taxi's are neither lowering their price nor improving their services, they are pushing for sanctions against the competitors.

Monopolies can't exist without help from the government.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:50:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:55:42 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/5/2016 9:47:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/5/2016 3:20:58 AM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:38:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
A monopoly is a company that has no serious competition to worry about. In most cases, exploitative monopolies are unsustainable, because in order for a monopoly to make it "worth it" for others to say out of their field and maintain their dominant market position, they would have to offer huge sums of money to all would-be competitors i.e., more money than the would-be competitor could make by taking over the field. However, in some markets the barriers to entry are extreme and require lots of capital. This is where the opportunity for exploitation opens up. Basically, if an exploitative monopoly were unable to lower its prices or improve its business practices, it would stand a huge risk of being undercut by someone wishing to take its spot in the market. But since monopolies can, at any point, lower their prices and improve their business practices to keep up with competition, people who would otherwise try to take over the market might not consider it worth the investment. If someone anticipates that a monopoly would respond to their attempt to undercut them by engaging in a price war (which may be economically rational for them to do anyway), then the potential benefits of entering the market as the only fair company in town are either nonexistent or offset by the costs of competing with a company desperate to hold onto its dominant position. In other words, sometimes defeating a monopoly requires self-sacrifice on the part of investors, which just isn't going to happen. It has to be financially beneficial for someone to take on a monopoly at an individual level or people won't do it. There's also the issue of the tragedy of the commons, in that people are incentivized to let others assume the costs of taking on monopolies, because they will benefit whether or not they themselves are responsible for opening up the market to competitors.

Money doesn't make a monopoly, supply control does. You also need an inelastic demand curve. If the demand exceeds the profitable supply of the monopoly competition will emerge.

The point is that supply is restricted when a monopoly makes it unprofitable for others to compete. For instance, say you want to compete with Comcast, which consistently ranks as having one of the worst customer service records of any company in the country. You would need to invest billions of dollars to even have the chance of making a profit, and at the end of all of it there's no reason to think Comcast won't respond by lowering its prices in order to stay competitive or drive you out of the market altogether (they have far more invested in their position than you do, so they can run at a loss for longer and outlast you in a price war). Moreover, once you open up the market to competitors, you have to worry about all the other companies that will inevitably crop up as a result. Unless it's clear that you will end up in a good position, taking on a monopoly might be more trouble than it's worth.

The only reason Comcast and other telecommunication companies persist is because of government protection. I believe private monopoly is the term. Comcast doesn't have control of the supply they have protected control over the supply. Notice how when netflix, hulu, etc came about comcast didn't lower it's prices to compete, they used law to do so. They also allegedly throttled internet service for those utilizing the entertainment sites. It is the same thing as ride share companies and Taxi monopolies. Taxi's are neither lowering their price nor improving their services, they are pushing for sanctions against the competitors.

Monopolies can't exist without help from the government.

That's probably part of it. Governmental favoritism can help companies maintain their monopoly by giving them special advantages over competitors.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:06:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like in the business world, how does a company monopolize, and is it fair for the government to come up and say you need to break up? I'm not sure I understand this properly, but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?

Monopolization occurs by corporations lobbying politicians to create regulations that their competitors can't afford to keep up with, thus pushing their competitors out of business. it is fair for a government to break them up. They're our enemy
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 3:38:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:26:20 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
Like in the business world, how does a company monopolize
If you take economics, there's a section called 'sources of monopoly'. It's one of those easy sections because you just memorise everything and Bob's your uncle, you'll get all the marks if it comes up in the exam.

Anyway, there can be many reasons why companies monopolise. Sometimes it's because the government is providing the service, or it operates under a government franchise. Sometimes it's because of intellectual property rights - for example, a performer might monopolise the market for a particular composer who only grants rights to him. Sometimes it's because of horizontal integration or collusion in an oligopoly. Sometimes it emerges naturally because the firm enjoys economies of scale - i.e. increasing the scale of production lowers the long-run average cost. Sometimes it's simply impractical to have two firms because the market is so small or because there is too much infrastructure involved - imagine having two companies supplying water or electricity.
I'm not sure I understand this properly, but if a company competes against another, and they drive the other company out of business, is it fair for the government to break the company up?
That would surely depend on your politico-economic ideology. But antitrust laws may cover the techniques they used to drive the other company out of business. Such techniques often constitute abuse of market power.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...