Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> which is just assuming the existence of a consolidated industry.

Well, consolidated industries currently exist, and they don't take too kindly to competition.



sort by: page size:

> Companies competing is the default

If you had no regulation, they would simply form cartels or merge to create a monopoly.


> The problem is when a company or two dominates a single market.

It would also be bad if one company dominated multiple markets. (just a nit pick on your phrasing)


> I don't think this holds in general at all.

given that all industries consolidate and end up with 2-3 major players in every field, your assumption does not seem to hold at all.


> due to lack of competition.

So let's compete! What are they selling? What prevents competitors from springing up?


>Are we really better off having competition for competitions sake rather than looking at what delivers the best outcome?

No but competition is the bedrock of the resource distribution philosophy at hand. If thats not the case then we should just let all companies consolidate in to a large monopoly because their products are superior to non existing companies.


>where are the competitors?

They are bought and integrated or killed by giants.


> they're not really competing over the same one of resources.

They compete for the same money, no?


>Competition is a good thing, so we should consolidate and have less competition

That makes very little sense.


> We need more companies in this game, not less

Unsupported assertion. There are both positive and negative aspects to more companies. Consolidation isn't just profitable because it turns an industry into a cartel, but because there are real economies of scales in some industries, especially logistics. This could go either way.

> with overcapacity, who would like to join?

No one needs to join until the overcapacity goes away, do they?


> phenomena that result in the market being oligopolistic are bad.

It seems we need a corrupt government to fairly decide who may compete and how!

If a shrinking medium sized company creates a service that competes with a fast-growing small company, what does that result in?


> There's definitely a bit of an arms race going on, and it's unfortunate.

I don't follow, how is competition bad in this case? Sounds like the opposite to me.


> A good example of this is the American auto industry.

Your example shows exactly why this idea is flawed. Three competitors is what is called an oligopoly. There is nothing healthy about that.


>> in a competitive market

Not all markets are competitive, and corporations that are operating at the state level are often effectively monopolies.


> I think those firms will likely lose their competitiveness overtime. Unless they are defacto monopoly.

I suspect that's wishful thinking that assumes a greater alignment than actually exists between what we want for society and what the market will lead us to.


> Only way to compete should be to make either a better, or a cheaper product.

I think this is a core part of the anti-competitive problem, though. Economies of scale mean that a company with a 50% market share is going to make the cheaper good, all else equal.

We would effectively need to increase competition at the cost of increasing efficiency to make that work (e.g. by banning mergers of larger players).


>It's definitely an anticompetitive practice.

yeah, but in this climate what are you gonna do? It's not like there's any kinda recourse for monopolistic behavior that has any teeth to it.


> Inevitably, if any industry is profitable, competition will arise.

An industry can be profitable for the existing market participants and still have a high enough cost of entry as to have a negative expected profit over any meaningful timeframe for a prospective new entrant.

In practice, this is likely to change due to changing external conditions (e.g., technological progress that lowers the cost of entry or creates previously-impossible substitutes) but there is no theoretical reason why this must be the case.


>an example of competition

Not when you are leveraging monopoly power to gain market share somewhere else. This kind of capitalism tends to degenerate.


> Industries where direct competition is allowable do not suffer from these problems.

No, they suffer much worse. Haven't you noticed how all goods and services go to shit over the years? This is not an accident, this is competition optimizing out any quality it can get away with removing.

next

Legal | privacy