Looks like they’re doing fine to me.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with them being a “monopoly”, which they aren’t and never have been. It was just an example. They are top dog, though.
Amazon found a niche and exploited it and they’re doing great, but they aren’t in Wal-Mart’s league.
Peter Thiel would argue that technology is the killer of monopolies. (Technology defined as new innovation) The way to remove Google or Microsoft from their respective positions would be to innovate… or force a Standard Oil type situation.
To start your own taxi cab company you need to buy some ridiculous medallion from the government. In NYC that costs $1 million.
One example of how big companies keep competitors out.
How about this one, guys (and it’s one we debated in College);
We can “like” (at least not DIS-like a monopoly)…and it can provide good service, and be an overall boon for the economy…from good paying jobs in maintenance and repair…to high-paid management and production…to the people running the retail stores.
Nothing but positives, right?
But it can absolutely stifle technology and innovation, where we all ultimately benefit.
We were arguing at the time the break-up of “Ma-Bell”…(and subsequently the regional “Baby Bells”…)
Or you create Uber and completely upend the world wide taxi market in the process. Hence the peter theil point about innovation.
dchis:
I made my post before you posted this!
Very true.
Do you think walmart would have implimented their curbside pickup without a competitor like amazon pushing the convenience envelope. Amazon is making walmart better. That’s my point.
New technology which the previously established barriers to entry were not structured to prevent.
Creative destruction in a nut-shell
Agreed. But you can’t have a free market AND a system to stop monopolies. They’re mutually exclusive.
With the exception of utilities and social programs, every monopoly exists because of the business.
The next 5 years or so should see a complete disruption in Entertainment delivery and content…in fact, it has already started…
There is no way in hell Millennials and their kids are going to pay 150 to upwards of 300 dollars plus/month for cable, Satellite, etc.
Who and what survives is anyone’s guess.
Very little imo. My generation doesn’t NEED ISPs to the extent the previous ones did. People should be prepared for a very large gutting of the industry. All you really need these days is high speed internet and some basic tech skills.
Not entirely true. Uber is a great example of this. Their business has been halted by local governments. Obviously, in some cases, they ignored the fines.
“in general, monopolies exist because their competitive advantage has led to a superior market share”
Uber isn’t a monopoly though. Imo unless a govt LITERALLY makes a company a monopoly (ie Utilities, etc) there’s no way to put any blame for monopolies on anyone but the company in question.
You’re smarter than this @pfury, I know you are. I didn’t say Uber had a monopoly. It’s implied that the taxi companies do. The government is limiting new technology from coming in to the market.
I don’t see how Uber can be a monopoly - no moat (barrier to entry).
Disagree that governments create monopolies, other than extremely high capital cost projects like utility infrastructure or MONEY MONEY MONEY. Oligopoly (extreme case is monopoly) is the usual result of all financial motivated ventures.
Government intervention and technology are the monopoly busters. Government perhaps not as effective when companies are allowed to feather politicians’ nests.
Except taxi companies don’t have a monopoly either. Even in the case of Uber, the regs set forth by “the govt” that are making Uber’s life harder didn’t magically stem from some politician that happened to want to lock down the industry. It came from Taxi Company spending money in politics to make it so.
My point was that the government has also acted to prevent technology from entering the market and changing the game. I highlighted the word I took issue with in my first quote of pfury, which is speaking in absolutes.
The best monopolies are the ones you don’t hear about it.
When governments prevent changes in the market, do you think it’s because the general public cares about said thing, or because the company(s) lobbied and bought enough politicians to make it so?
The govt has a hard time balancing the budget of a single point of the infrastructure, let alone consciously manipulate markets at the detriment of the consumer for no reason.
I don’t follow your point. Are you agreeing that the government does act to prevent new technology? I’m not addressing their intent or otherwise, just stating they do.
No, he just gets the FBI to spy on journalists and tries to accuse Fox News reporters of espionage … And calls Fox News destructive to America. Once again, Obama has set the precedent for Trump. The list goes on and on.
