> All businesses rise and fall over time. The popular narrative that, unchecked by government, a business will eventually rise to absorb everything is not borne out by practice.
Interesting assertion, do you have any books/data to back that up?
Interesting assertion, do you have any books/data to back that up?
If you ever think you have found a single instance of monopoly lasting any significant length of time, look deeper - with absolute certainty there is a government gun backing it up.
Absolutely incorrect as it allows for the abusive monopoly to exist for an undetermined amount of time possibly preventing competition more than long enough to do harm. This argument is equivalent to saying all murders die eventually so there's no need to outlaw murder.
Just because something self destructs "eventually" is not sufficient reason to not regulate it and is certainly not a good argument against regulation.
edit replying to below:
> I'm curious what harm you accuse SO of. Keep in mind that SO dropped the price of kerosene by 70% and kept it down. reply
Why should I keep that in mind? Doing a good thing doesn't mean you didn't also do bad things so that's simply not a relevant fact in this discussion.
It is historical fact he used anti-competitive practices[1] to sabotage the competition, the harm caused was to those trying to compete with him and it's exactly the reason we now have anti-trust laws.
But that caveat lets the horse out of the barn, since the gains made by monopolies can purchase lobbyists and thence the government gun. Disney Studios has been around 93 years at this point.
Intellectual property is considered a monopoly assigned by the government.
My example aside, is it really so hard to believe that successful companies can influence regulation? Monopolies are exceptionally successful companies.