Yes, yes they do. I listed three examples of what a government granted monopoly looks like. Copyright, trademark and patents don’t exist naturally, and they’re unenforceable without the Rule of Law.
> What are you referring to?
Most recently (that I can think of): the suit the Feds filed against Facebook that was tossed out of court.
No. I said that there is no such thing as a monopoly except legally-created monopolies.
Those are, in effect, government created. I am totally against that. I am totally against government passing laws to favor certain people over others, treating people unequally.
Exactly. I have never had anyone show me an example of a monopoly that didn't have a supporting government framework. Even in a patent-filled world, nobody is getting to a monopoly state, because nimble entrepreneurs will find a way around.
I also find it very odd that people develop a government-monopoly blindspot- Microsoft monopoly = bad and evil, Government monopoly =benign and good. Both are just groups of people, and subject to the same capture by good or bad intentions.
As to the examples, every cable-service monopoly in the US has govt backing. The postal service monopoly has govt backing. Intel uses patents (read govt backing) to limit the number of x86 producers. The old AT&T's long distance monopoly had govt backing, lost it, and then sprint and others started.
Standard Oil almost made it without govt backing, but we'll never know if they could have held.
Only two categories of monopoly exist - businesses that use the government to maintain their position, and businesses that earn their position.
Examples:
* AT&T enjoyed a monopoly provided by the government; Alcoa did not.
* Aesthetic questions of instruction set aside, Intel is similar to Alcoa in that they earned their spot through execution (and knowing what's important; it's only obvious in hindsight that having the newest and biggest fabs anywhere trumps design in this industry.)
* Apple with iPod+iTunes. (Good)
* Google with Gmail. (Good)
* The United States Postal Service (Bad)
* Rail service through government-run Amtrak (Bad)
How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject? How can you say there is a monopoly when you could be in county prison, state prison, or federal prison? Those are competing forces subject to different constituencies.
My point quite simply is the false dichotomy that is presented that companies are fundamentally better and more innovative because they alone are subject to competition is a false dichotomy. Governments are less affected by competition but it does exist through intergovernmental divisions of power and overlapping jurisdiction. Governments also have a monopoly on granting the right to operate a business. They can and do limit ability to operate (try to be a lawyer with out government regulated credentials). So you’re basically saying when government confers this right to operate on a C Corp that is competition but when it confers the right to a sherif and police force and immigration agency to detain people that’s not competition. Agencies absolutely complete for resources, public praise, and employee recruitment; and they worry that their effectiveness and policies will harm them just the same.
Further, this false dichotomy is used to distract from the real important insight that government is uniquely positioned to address problems no company or market force could address. One, of many clear examples is the longer time horizon and risk taking the government can take for basic research. Companies have been able to innovate on top of many government funded projects like the internet, gps, interstate highways, self driving cars (remember those crazy darpa funded competitions with $5M prize for a team that got a Humvee to drive its self in the desert?). No company could invest for decades at network scale like governments can and yet we applaud their innovative ability and demonize governments by ignoring the foundation it provides for innovation in the first place.
Silicon Valley itself only exists because nasa brought a ton of scientists to the Bay Area and a critical mass of tech oriented families happened to be in an area. Well guess what their kids ended up being hacker friends in garages building products.
Oh and by the way “all the tea in China” is an Interesting quote given that the British East India company, a literal private corporation, was granted a monopoly on the use of force and acted as a quasi government all while being an extremely “innovative” (And horribly brutal/evil company)
No. They don't. It is impossible to have a monopoly in a market segment and under the law, it is perfectly acceptable for a business to control a small portion of the marketplace.
You argued that consumer hostile monopoly’s don’t exist without government. When presented with direct evidence that they do exist you when back to theory.
Look, theory that does not apply in the real world is meaningless. And in the real world monopoly’s exist without government backing, making your argument invalid. That’s perfectly ok, but now it’s time for you to realize you made a false argument and think of some new idea of how things operate.
Sure, but the examples you gave were not examples of this. Just because they are in different markets doesn't mean monopoly; only when they have overwhelming influence on a certain market would they qualify as such. Of which you rightly point out they most likely do in certain cases.
Yes, but consider this: you have a government-protected monopoly on your home when you own it. Imagine if anyone could compete for your home simply by occupying it. That would be economically ruinous.
Intellectual property is also a government-protected monopoly, created for the advancement of society.
Basically I'm saying that monopoly can be good or bad depending on the specifics. So competition can be very destructive in some cases.
You’re missing the point. If a monopoly is created because of government regulation and no competition can thrive because of government policy. There is no monopoly abuse. It’s just how it is because the government screwed up.
> What are you referring to?
Most recently (that I can think of): the suit the Feds filed against Facebook that was tossed out of court.
reply