Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Care Lyon]

A government that governs best is a government that governs least. The USA was doing so so well before all the welfare Social Security and Medicare stuff was established. Now trillions in government mandatory spending which will bankrupt the country for generations to come. Here's a news flash for the socialists, you don't have a right to other people's money and, it's not giving hand outs to the rich when you lower the tax burden.

[North Saitama]

But in a true Libertarian society, the government will be small enough that influencing it will be meaningless as it has little power to exert.

If they don't influence the government like that, they could still simply influence the market by being very, very large.

Of course they will influence the market. Except that influencing the market is better for competition, not for building monopolies. Unlike influencing government, which allows companies to gain an unfair advantage, influencing the market means that competitors will react to what the leader is doing, either by copying, improving, etc.

[Mattopilos II]

If they don't influence the government like that, they could still simply influence the market by being very, very large.

Of course they will influence the market. Except that influencing the market is better for competition, not for building monopolies. Unlike influencing government, which allows companies to gain an unfair advantage, influencing the market means that competitors will react to what the leader is doing, either by copying, improving, etc.

Sure, copycatting and aiming to outdo the leader can occur... squashing the competition in the first place is something that tends never to be discussed because it is explained away as "not being able to occur without a strong state".

[Union of the Great Lakes (Ancient)]

Greetings.

maybe if I use my new country I just made 20 minutes ago they’ll not jump me

[Elwher]

Of course they will influence the market. Except that influencing the market is better for competition, not for building monopolies. Unlike influencing government, which allows companies to gain an unfair advantage, influencing the market means that competitors will react to what the leader is doing, either by copying, improving, etc.

Sure, copycatting and aiming to outdo the leader can occur... squashing the competition in the first place is something that tends never to be discussed because it is explained away as "not being able to occur without a strong state".

There are only two ways to squash the competition. Either one can offer better product, lower prices, or better selection, in which case the competition deserved to be squashed; or one can use government regulation to eliminate the competitors. The latter, however, requires a large enough government presence to make such regulation possible.

In the first case, the consumer is better served by the organization which squashes than they were by the one squashed and, if the squasher raises prices or lowers quality, other competitors will arise to challenge their market position. In either case, the consumer is well served which is, to me at least, the goal of the market.

[Mattopilos II]

Sure, copycatting and aiming to outdo the leader can occur... squashing the competition in the first place is something that tends never to be discussed because it is explained away as "not being able to occur without a strong state".

There are only two ways to squash the competition. Either one can offer better product, lower prices, or better selection, in which case the competition deserved to be squashed; or one can use government regulation to eliminate the competitors. The latter, however, requires a large enough government presence to make such regulation possible.

In the first case, the consumer is better served by the organization which squashes than they were by the one squashed and, if the squasher raises prices or lowers quality, other competitors will arise to challenge their market position. In either case, the consumer is well served which is, to me at least, the goal of the market.

You haven't really attacked the formation of a monopoly here, which I am sure you think is not a good thing for a consumer.

[Darussalam]

There are only two ways to squash the competition. Either one can offer better product, lower prices, or better selection, in which case the competition deserved to be squashed; or one can use government regulation to eliminate the competitors. The latter, however, requires a large enough government presence to make such regulation possible.

In the first case, the consumer is better served by the organization which squashes than they were by the one squashed and, if the squasher raises prices or lowers quality, other competitors will arise to challenge their market position. In either case, the consumer is well served which is, to me at least, the goal of the market.

You haven't really attacked the formation of a monopoly here, which I am sure you think is not a good thing for a consumer.

Depending on how said monopoly is formed, which is the point.

[Mattopilos II]

You haven't really attacked the formation of a monopoly here, which I am sure you think is not a good thing for a consumer.

Depending on how said monopoly is formed, which is the point.

Depending on how it is formed? So... when is monopoly good?

[Darussalam]

Depending on how said monopoly is formed, which is the point.

Depending on how it is formed? So... when is monopoly good?

Monopoly of the state on violence, for example.

Tongue-in-cheek answer aside, obviously when it gains monopoly power through competitive advantage so blatant that no sane consumer would opt for other options. Which is the only way a monopoly could form 95% of the time in unregulated market economy, which is why you have never seen monopolizing firms 99% of the time.

Of course actual monopoly might result in overall reduction of aggregate welfare, but they're far rarer than anti-trust/"pro-competition" regulations which has nothing to do with existing models of imperfect competition whatsoever and are often abused for regulatory capture.

[Mattopilos II]

Depending on how it is formed? So... when is monopoly good?

Monopoly of the state on violence, for example.

Tongue-in-cheek answer aside, obviously when it gains monopoly power through competitive advantage so blatant that no sane consumer would opt for other options. Which is the only way a monopoly could form 95% of the time in unregulated market economy, which is why you have never seen monopolizing firms 99% of the time.

Of course actual monopoly might result in overall reduction of aggregate welfare, but they're far rarer than anti-trust/"pro-competition" regulations which has nothing to do with existing models of imperfect competition whatsoever and are often abused for regulatory capture.

This sounds less like the idea it is better for the consumer, but that they have no other "rational" choice, that to choose something else than that monopoly is irrational. I hope the hole in the logic here is obvious.

And half the other terms you said in the last paragraph go over my head since the closest I have come to macroeconomics is... game theory? In other words, not close.

[Darussalam]

This sounds less like the idea it is better for the consumer, but that they have no other "rational" choice, that to choose something else than that monopoly is irrational. I hope the hole in the logic here is obvious.

No, what I said just completely flew over your head.

What I'm saying is that dominance over market share still doesn't shield a firm from competition.

Unless the firm commits itself to vertical collusion - that is, through state-enforced regulatory barrier, but that would be a mark against criticism to a laissez-faire government.

[Elwher]

There are only two ways to squash the competition. Either one can offer better product, lower prices, or better selection, in which case the competition deserved to be squashed; or one can use government regulation to eliminate the competitors. The latter, however, requires a large enough government presence to make such regulation possible.

In the first case, the consumer is better served by the organization which squashes than they were by the one squashed and, if the squasher raises prices or lowers quality, other competitors will arise to challenge their market position. In either case, the consumer is well served which is, to me at least, the goal of the market.

You haven't really attacked the formation of a monopoly here, which I am sure you think is not a good thing for a consumer.

I do not think that a monopoly is inherently good or bad for the consumer. If it is using economies of scale to reduce consumer prices, it is good for them. If it is using the buying power of a large firm to increase choice, it is good for them. If it is raising prices after absorbing the competition, it is bad for them. If it is lowering quality standards because of a lack of other options, it is bad for them.

If a monopoly forms in an actual free market system, there is probably a good reason that it did. If the market is such that the monopoly persists, that is probably for a good reason as well.

Where a monopoly exists because of government regulation or due to the elimination of the competitors by violence or threat of violence, that is bad for the consumer, I agree. That, however, lies outside of the realm of the free market.

[North Saitama]

Of course they will influence the market. Except that influencing the market is better for competition, not for building monopolies. Unlike influencing government, which allows companies to gain an unfair advantage, influencing the market means that competitors will react to what the leader is doing, either by copying, improving, etc.

Sure, copycatting and aiming to outdo the leader can occur... squashing the competition in the first place is something that tends never to be discussed because it is explained away as "not being able to occur without a strong state".

As I keep saying, though, a true monopoly is so hard to form that it isn't really a reasonable fear. Especially now, with the internet.

Even then, a true monopoly is still subject to the market, and the consumer, anyway; even on the off chance that one company is able to build a monopoly, they still need to attract customers, or they won't profit. Never mind that a monopoly can either be destroyed or be rendered worthless if change happens (which, as I have established, occurs frequently).

For example, let's say that Company X has a firmly-established monopoly on the widget market. However, Company Y, a new start-up, comes-out with a new product, rendering Company X's products obsolete. Now Company Y has become a competitor, and is also now curb-stomping Company X and their old-fashioned ways.

The problem with assuming that free market monopolies are invincible, on the rare occasion that they do form, is that it falls for the same trap of not accounting for change, and assuming that everything will just remain the same forever, a mistake that even Karl Marx is guilty of.

[Mattopilos II]

This sounds less like the idea it is better for the consumer, but that they have no other "rational" choice, that to choose something else than that monopoly is irrational. I hope the hole in the logic here is obvious.

No, what I said just completely flew over your head.

What I'm saying is that dominance over market share still doesn't shield a firm from competition.

Unless the firm commits itself to vertical collusion - that is, through state-enforced regulatory barrier, but that would be a mark against criticism to a laissez-faire government.

I never said it shielded a firm from competition, but are there not advantages in being large on the market?

You haven't really attacked the formation of a monopoly here, which I am sure you think is not a good thing for a consumer.

I do not think that a monopoly is inherently good or bad for the consumer. If it is using economies of scale to reduce consumer prices, it is good for them. If it is using the buying power of a large firm to increase choice, it is good for them. If it is raising prices after absorbing the competition, it is bad for them. If it is lowering quality standards because of a lack of other options, it is bad for them.

If a monopoly forms in an actual free market system, there is probably a good reason that it did. If the market is such that the monopoly persists, that is probably for a good reason as well.

Where a monopoly exists because of government regulation or due to the elimination of the competitors by violence or threat of violence, that is bad for the consumer, I agree. That, however, lies outside of the realm of the free market.

Could the large size of the monopoly in question not mean they have a large control over the accumulation of resources at a lower price for their product compared to a smaller set of companies?

Sure, copycatting and aiming to outdo the leader can occur... squashing the competition in the first place is something that tends never to be discussed because it is explained away as "not being able to occur without a strong state".

As I keep saying, though, a true monopoly is so hard to form that it isn't really a reasonable fear. Especially now, with the internet.

Even then, a true monopoly is still subject to the market, and the consumer, anyway; even on the off chance that one company is able to build a monopoly, they still need to attract customers, or they won't profit. Never mind that a monopoly can either be destroyed or be rendered worthless if change happens (which, as I have established, occurs frequently).

For example, let's say that Company X has a firmly-established monopoly on the widget market. However, Company Y, a new start-up, comes-out with a new product, rendering Company X's products obsolete. Now Company Y has become a competitor, and is also now curb-stomping Company X and their old-fashioned ways.

The problem with assuming that free market monopolies are invincible, on the rare occasion that they do form, is that it falls for the same trap of not accounting for change, and assuming that everything will just remain the same forever, a mistake that even Karl Marx is guilty of.

You are mentioning ways how they can be destroyed, but like the posters above, it all seems to be relying on the fact they have competition simply destroys them (or has the ability to). Start-up products can certainly become a worthy competitor to larger companies that monopolise the market. What I am saying is that this requires a large enough capital to get to that stage in the first place, and to find a way to attract costumers away from said monopoly in such a way that the monopoly cannot respond to the shift in the market... which I imagine is pretty hard, unless the new product is super hard to top or replicate or outdo with a larger brand.

This doesn't require suggesting CAPITALIST free market monopolies are invincible, it suggests they have an advantage by being a monopoly in the first place.

[Vince Vaughn]

The story of how Henry Dow (founder of Dow Chemical) broke a German bromine monopoly is pretty fascinating.

[North Saitama]

As I keep saying, though, a true monopoly is so hard to form that it isn't really a reasonable fear. Especially now, with the internet.

Even then, a true monopoly is still subject to the market, and the consumer, anyway; even on the off chance that one company is able to build a monopoly, they still need to attract customers, or they won't profit. Never mind that a monopoly can either be destroyed or be rendered worthless if change happens (which, as I have established, occurs frequently).

For example, let's say that Company X has a firmly-established monopoly on the widget market. However, Company Y, a new start-up, comes-out with a new product, rendering Company X's products obsolete. Now Company Y has become a competitor, and is also now curb-stomping Company X and their old-fashioned ways.

The problem with assuming that free market monopolies are invincible, on the rare occasion that they do form, is that it falls for the same trap of not accounting for change, and assuming that everything will just remain the same forever, a mistake that even Karl Marx is guilty of.

You are mentioning ways how they can be destroyed, but like the posters above, it all seems to be relying on the fact they have competition simply destroys them (or has the ability to). Start-up products can certainly become a worthy competitor to larger companies that monopolise the market. What I am saying is that this requires a large enough capital to get to that stage in the first place, and to find a way to attract costumers away from said monopoly in such a way that the monopoly cannot respond to the shift in the market... which I imagine is pretty hard, unless the new product is super hard to top or replicate or outdo with a larger brand.

This doesn't require suggesting CAPITALIST free market monopolies are invincible, it suggests they have an advantage by being a monopoly in the first place.

If you look at history, though, it is also full of examples of this, so it is not like I am even speaking purely theoretically. Look at what online shopping, for example, has done to the entire retail market. Wal-Mart has, before, been seen as an invincible main street-killer, the subject of documentaries and much criticism. Now they are fighting and actually losing a battle with Amazon; last February, they fell $31.6 billion in value, and had their worst sales performance in 35 years. And, sure, Wal-Mart is trying to react to this, but not in any way that crushes Amazon.

Furthermore, the actual disadvantages of monopoly are largely outweighed by how hard it really is to build and maintain a monopoly. From the bigger picture, a monopoly is neither inevitable nor invincible. Their ability to be harmful to the consumer and the people is, thus, limited, especially compared to how harmful out-of-control government can be (government's monopoly on power is much more secure, and an authoritarian government can go indefinitely so long as the trains run on time).

[Mattopilos II]

You are mentioning ways how they can be destroyed, but like the posters above, it all seems to be relying on the fact they have competition simply destroys them (or has the ability to). Start-up products can certainly become a worthy competitor to larger companies that monopolise the market. What I am saying is that this requires a large enough capital to get to that stage in the first place, and to find a way to attract costumers away from said monopoly in such a way that the monopoly cannot respond to the shift in the market... which I imagine is pretty hard, unless the new product is super hard to top or replicate or outdo with a larger brand.

This doesn't require suggesting CAPITALIST free market monopolies are invincible, it suggests they have an advantage by being a monopoly in the first place.

If you look at history, though, it is also full of examples of this, so it is not like I am even speaking purely theoretically. Look at what online shopping, for example, has done to the entire retail market. Wal-Mart has, before, been seen as an invincible main street-killer, the subject of documentaries and much criticism. Now they are fighting and actually losing a battle with Amazon; last February, they fell $31.6 billion in value, and had their worst sales performance in 35 years. And, sure, Wal-Mart is trying to react to this, but not in any way that crushes Amazon.

Furthermore, the actual disadvantages of monopoly are largely outweighed by how hard it really is to build and maintain a monopoly. From the bigger picture, a monopoly is neither inevitable nor invincible. Their ability to be harmful to the consumer and the people is, thus, limited, especially compared to how harmful out-of-control government can be (government's monopoly on power is much more secure, and an authoritarian government can go indefinitely so long as the trains run on time).

Okay, so then we have to look into this example a bit closer.
- Was Wal-mart's monopoly formed prior to the internet shopping boom? What about Amazon?
- How large was the monopoly Wal-mart has ever had, versus that of Amazon?
- Why is the reaction to Amazon's rise, as a largely internet entity by what was largely a on-internet entity, been such a struggle?

And I don't see how the implausibility itself is something that outweighs a disadvantage, especially since it isn't THAT implausible. It occurs quite often, but just happens to be overshadowed by a new monopoly, then another, then another, then another. The internet, as shown with Amazon, might simply mean the monopoly can be spread further - it has a larger platform than simply a physical storefront. And the implausibility (that isn't that implausible) still needs to be weighed against the magnitude. And also, you have to focus on more than just the consumer, but also the worker and the provider. They do kinda exist in this framework, yes?
While the stability of a monopoly is shakier than that of a government, it can still certainly be large and influential. Take the government out of the picture and I don't see why this suddenly lessens the dangers monopolies can pose. companies influence people outside the government, after all, in most of our everyday life.

[Darussalam]

Okay, so then we have to look into this example a bit closer.
- Was Wal-mart's monopoly formed prior to the internet shopping boom? What about Amazon?
- How large was the monopoly Wal-mart has ever had, versus that of Amazon?
- Why is the reaction to Amazon's rise, as a largely internet entity by what was largely a on-internet entity, been such a struggle?

And I don't see how the implausibility itself is something that outweighs a disadvantage, especially since it isn't THAT implausible. It occurs quite often, but just happens to be overshadowed by a new monopoly, then another, then another, then another. The internet, as shown with Amazon, might simply mean the monopoly can be spread further - it has a larger platform than simply a physical storefront. And the implausibility (that isn't that implausible) still needs to be weighed against the magnitude. And also, you have to focus on more than just the consumer, but also the worker and the provider. They do kinda exist in this framework, yes?
While the stability of a monopoly is shakier than that of a government, it can still certainly be large and influential. Take the government out of the picture and I don't see why this suddenly lessens the dangers monopolies can pose. companies influence people outside the government, after all, in most of our everyday life.

This is why we shouldn't have ignorant people writing op-eds and telling uninformed people wrong definition of words and unsubstantiated claims.

Amazon (and by extension Wal-mart) is a monopsony, and this is not just a pedantic clarification - the effect of monopsony and monopoly insofar as understood are basically polar opposites.

[Mattopilos II]

Okay, so then we have to look into this example a bit closer.
- Was Wal-mart's monopoly formed prior to the internet shopping boom? What about Amazon?
- How large was the monopoly Wal-mart has ever had, versus that of Amazon?
- Why is the reaction to Amazon's rise, as a largely internet entity by what was largely a on-internet entity, been such a struggle?

And I don't see how the implausibility itself is something that outweighs a disadvantage, especially since it isn't THAT implausible. It occurs quite often, but just happens to be overshadowed by a new monopoly, then another, then another, then another. The internet, as shown with Amazon, might simply mean the monopoly can be spread further - it has a larger platform than simply a physical storefront. And the implausibility (that isn't that implausible) still needs to be weighed against the magnitude. And also, you have to focus on more than just the consumer, but also the worker and the provider. They do kinda exist in this framework, yes?
While the stability of a monopoly is shakier than that of a government, it can still certainly be large and influential. Take the government out of the picture and I don't see why this suddenly lessens the dangers monopolies can pose. companies influence people outside the government, after all, in most of our everyday life.

This is why we shouldn't have ignorant people writing op-eds and telling uninformed people wrong definition of words and unsubstantiated claims.

Amazon (and by extension Wal-mart) is a monopsony, and this is not just a pedantic clarification - the effect of monopsony and monopoly insofar as understood are basically polar opposites.

The first post you have there has nothing to do with what we are talking about, so funny. The most I can conclude from this post is:
1. a person made poor assumptions on the economics of Nazi Germany; and
2. Privatisation in Germany was... affected by the government, sometimes?

The second post is interesting, but doesn't really go against what I said.

First, monopsony and monopoly tend to have contrasting or opposite effects. To the extent Amazon is a monopsony, that leads to higher output and lower prices.

Which is looking at only the view of the consumer, and says nothing about market share and influence on the market.

Second, if Amazon is knocking out incumbents that may very well be good for consumers. Consumers want to see companies that are hard for others to compete with. Otherwise, they are just getting more of the same.

I.e. they want a monopoly. Or monopsony. Maybe both.

Third, if you consider markets product line by product line, there are very few sectors where Amazon would appear to have much market power, or a very large share of the overall market for that good or service.

That's if you look at it from product line to product line. But given the meaning of monopsony:

In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (mónos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnía) "purchase") is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers. In the microeconomic theory of monopsony, a single entity is assumed to have market power over sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service, much in the same manner that a monopolist can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers.

It has to do with buying a large amount of the goods that go onto the market for themselves to sell, they don't NEED to have market power on every single sector to a high degree - they just need to have lots of buying power as to diminish the ability of other people they rely on buying the goods on the market to have a large influence on the market.

Fourth, Amazon is relatively strong in the book market. Yet if a book is $28 in a regular store, you probably can buy it for $17 on Amazon, or for cheaper yet used, through Amazon.

In other words, they have a large grip on the buying of books as a good, so they can sell them cheaper. Shocking.

Fifth, Amazon takes market share from many incumbents (nationwide) but it does not in general “knock out” the labor market infrastructure in most regions. That means Amazon hire labor by paying it more or otherwise offering better working conditions, however much you might wish to complain about them.

I don't know enough about this and would have to look into work conditions under Amazon to do so. I am not going to pretend I have that much effort on a post, for a political forum.

Sixth, if you adjust for the nature of intangible capital, and the difference between economic and accounting profit, it is not clear corporate profits have been so remarkably high as of late.

To talk about that, is a post that is indirectly linked by said person.
http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2 ... foreignpm/

To be clear, the current profit margin is still elevated, but it’s not as wildly elevated as the CPATAX/GDP and CPATAX/GNP charts suggest. It currently sits 48.7% above its average from 1947 to 2013, and 54.7% above its average from 1947 to 2002. Importantly, it’s roughly in line with the highs of the 1940s and 1960s, rather than 25% above them, as in the earlier charts.

So it is, just not "as much as some people say it has".

Seventh, if Amazon “extracts” lower taxes and an improved Metro system from the DC area, in return for coming here, that is a net Pareto improvement or in any case at least not obviously objectionable.

See point 5.

Eighth, I did not see the word “ecosystem” in that comment, but Amazon has done a good deal to improve logistics and also cloud computing, to the benefit of many other producers and ultimately consumers. Book authors will just have to live with the new world Amazon has created for them.

I.e. "Get over it, this is just how the market is now".

A more interesting criticism of Amazon, which you hardly ever hear, is the notion that they are sufficiently dominant in cloud computing that a collapse/sabotage of their presence in that market could be a national security issue. Still, it is not clear what other arrangement could be safer.

Ah, capitalists going "it's the best we got" never gets old.

[North Saitama]

If you look at history, though, it is also full of examples of this, so it is not like I am even speaking purely theoretically. Look at what online shopping, for example, has done to the entire retail market. Wal-Mart has, before, been seen as an invincible main street-killer, the subject of documentaries and much criticism. Now they are fighting and actually losing a battle with Amazon; last February, they fell $31.6 billion in value, and had their worst sales performance in 35 years. And, sure, Wal-Mart is trying to react to this, but not in any way that crushes Amazon.

Furthermore, the actual disadvantages of monopoly are largely outweighed by how hard it really is to build and maintain a monopoly. From the bigger picture, a monopoly is neither inevitable nor invincible. Their ability to be harmful to the consumer and the people is, thus, limited, especially compared to how harmful out-of-control government can be (government's monopoly on power is much more secure, and an authoritarian government can go indefinitely so long as the trains run on time).

1. Okay, so then we have to look into this example a bit closer.
A. - Was Wal-mart's monopoly formed prior to the internet shopping boom? a. What about Amazon?
B. - How large was the monopoly Wal-mart has ever had, versus that of Amazon?
C. - Why is the reaction to Amazon's rise, as a largely internet entity by what was largely a on-internet entity, been such a struggle?

2. And I don't see how the implausibility itself is something that outweighs a disadvantage, especially since it isn't THAT implausible. It occurs quite often, but just happens to be overshadowed by a new monopoly, then another, then another, then another.

3. The internet, as shown with Amazon, might simply mean the monopoly can be spread further - it has a larger platform than simply a physical storefront. And the implausibility (that isn't that implausible) still needs to be weighed against the magnitude. And also, you have to focus on more than just the consumer, but also the worker and the provider. They do kinda exist in this framework, yes?

4. While the stability of a monopoly is shakier than that of a government, it can still certainly be large and influential. Take the government out of the picture and I don't see why this suddenly lessens the dangers monopolies can pose. companies influence people outside the government, after all, in most of our everyday life.

1. A. Yes, it was. Wal-Mart has been on the scene for a long time, and has had market dominance since the late '90s and through the '00s.
B. Nationwide.
C. Wal-Mart's online presence was never as developed, compared to their brick-and-mortar business.

Besides, even if neither could be considered "true" monopolies, the principles can still be seen, that free markets aren't actually monopoly-friendly, and that monopolies are still subject to the market, and to the consumer.

2. So you are saying that I should worry about being crushed by a meteor? The reason why it is nothing to fear is because it isn't a rational fear, especially compared to government. With monopolies, there are many unfixable ways they can fail, that make the dangers and disadvantages of a monopoly limited, while also making even the chance of a real monopoly miniscule.

3. Except that the internet also makes it easier for others to go into business, themselves. Unlike a physical store front, an internet business can be run for cheap, allowing basically any Joe Schmoe to go into business.

As for the magnitude, you also ignore that other industries either spring-up or otherwise benefit from a big player, anyway. In the case of Amazon, the impact is beneficial to small providers, who can sell their wares to a much wider audience; a quilt-maker in rural Pennsylvania, for example, can sell their quilts to someone in Saitama.

As for workers, it is irrelevant, as a monopoly in one industry doesn't mean a total monopoly on hiring. Especially when you consider jobs created to support a large company.

4. It is because it is much, much harder for monopolies to do anything super-harmful, especially in comparison to what government can do. There are too many inherently unfixable ways that an attempted monopoly can be thwarted, that I wouldn't even call it a rational fear, especially not today.

[Great Minarchistan]

Can't see amazon being a monopoly -- 50% of ecommerce and 5% of total retail don't really qualify -- lest a harmful one (as per data on institutional trust where Amazon is placed in ~3rd place out of 20)

[The South Falls]

Can't see amazon being a monopoly -- 50% of ecommerce and 5% of total retail don't really qualify -- lest a harmful one (as per data on institutional trust where Amazon is placed in ~3rd place out of 20)

Amazon can't monopolize. Low prices and deals keep them around.

[Mattopilos II]

Can't see amazon being a monopoly -- 50% of ecommerce and 5% of total retail don't really qualify -- lest a harmful one (as per data on institutional trust where Amazon is placed in ~3rd place out of 20)

Monopsony is the term for what they are, apparently.

[Great Minarchistan]

Yet further proof on the damage that socialist policies cause on the economy (c.f. know-how growth and on how it only skyrocketed with the abandoning of socialist policies and by kickstarting market/Dengist reforms):


Given the constant/falling growth rates of capital and labor factors after Mao's tenure, it's logical to deduce that China only became a powerhouse thanks to Deng and the market liberalization performed by him.

not that it wasn't obvious before, but now there's data proving it, eagerly waiting tor's take on this ;')

[Mattopilos II]

Yet further proof on the damage that socialist policies cause on the economy (c.f. know-how growth and on how it only skyrocketed with the abandoning of socialist policies and by kickstarting market/Dengist reforms):
(Image)

Given the constant/falling growth rates of capital and labor factors after Mao's tenure, it's logical to deduce that China only became a powerhouse thanks to Deng and the market liberalization performed by him.

not that it wasn't obvious before, but now there's data proving it, eagerly waiting tor's take on this ;')

All I really see here is a more consistent growth. The growth is still trending upwards before those policies.