Economics: What a monopoly isn't.

[jediuser598]

We disagree on the definition of monopoly.

If your definition of monopoly is "own all of one resource or service" then you make monopoly an impossible bar to reach (except initial monopolies from new products or ideas.) Even the government, by that definition, does not own a monopoly on violence.

That’s not how I define monopoly, but you disagree that if I control 100% of the iron on Earth that I have a monopoly on iron?

That’s weird.

I don't believe I ever said that.

Where did I say that?

Ah, nm I see it. I mean sure, people or social institutions could own 100% of a resource. Governments certainly can help them maintain that monopoly. At least until other people or institutions figure it out.

And monopolies aren't always bad. If I create something like Game of Thrones, the government ensures that at least for a while I have a monopoly on all of that fiction.

[DBTrek]

Selling at a loss, until the competition goes out of business.

That’s neither sustainable, nor a monopoly. It may work for one competitor, but it won’t work on all of them. You can only lose money for so long before you have none.

This is enabled by an initial surge from innovation, allowing them to grow dominant, then government subsidies at the local, state, and federal level, because they're seen as "job creators".

If the government subsidizes you to crush your competitors, then that’s government creating a monopoly.

Now we wind up with a bloated, inefficient, debt-riddled monstrosity standing over the corpses of ma'n'pa shops across the country. Walmart, McDonalds, Monsanto, etc.

Well ... what actually kills ma and pa is the fact that a dollar buys far more at WalMart than it does at their shop. Want Walmart to collapse? Everybody stop shopping there. Want McDonalds to collapse? Everyone stop buying there. But we vote with our dollars, and people prefer places that give them the most for their dollars. Walmart and McDonalds happen to be two places that do that for consumer.

We always have the option to shop where our dollars buy less, but for some reason people generally choose not to. Even the corporate hating, rich despising, anti-capitalist people.

Strange, that.

[jediuser598]

Selling at a loss, until the competition goes out of business.

That’s neither sustainable, nor a monopoly. It may work for one competitor, but it won’t work on all of them. You can only lose money for so long before you have none.

This is enabled by an initial surge from innovation, allowing them to grow dominant, then government subsidies at the local, state, and federal level, because they're seen as "job creators".

If the government subsidizes you to crush your competitors, then that’s government creating a monopoly.

Now we wind up with a bloated, inefficient, debt-riddled monstrosity standing over the corpses of ma'n'pa shops across the country. Walmart, McDonalds, Monsanto, etc.

Well ... what actually kills ma and pa is the fact that a dollar buys far more at WalMart than it does at their shop. Want Walmart to collapse? Everybody stop shopping there. Want McDonalds to collapse? Everyone stop buying there. But we vote with our dollars, and people prefer places that give them the most for their dollars. Walmart and McDonalds happen to be two places that do that for consumer.

We always have the option to shop where our dollars buy less, but for some reason people generally choose not to. Even the corporate hating, rich despising, anti-capitalist people.

Strange, that.

They only have to last until the other companies are out of business. Then they will raise prices further than they used to be to recoup costs.

How can you, as a business compete, when your competition is selling at a loss?

[DBTrek]

They only have to last until the other companies are out of business. Then they will raise prices further than they used to be to recoup costs.

Those elevated prices (to recoup losses) are going to attract a fresh batch of competitors who can do the same thing for less.
Now what?

Another sustained campaign of losing money?

[nmoore63]

Once they raise prices, new competitors come right back.

[jediuser598]

You guys going to enter a market you know that you are going to lose? Doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the big predator has a territory, you stay out of that territory.

[DBTrek]

You guys going to enter a market you know that you are going to lose? Doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the big predator has a territory, you stay out of that territory.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that a big predator gets smaller every time it starves itself. You could even enter the market as a competitor armed with this knowledge and prepared to make them starve themselves out of existence.

[jediuser598]

You guys going to enter a market you know that you are going to lose? Doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the big predator has a territory, you stay out of that territory.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that a big predator gets smaller every time it starves itself. You could even enter the market as a competitor armed with this knowledge and prepared to make them starve themselves out of existence.

Walmart could crush you a million times over. So your logic is, "well Wal-Mart only has 999,999 times left!" Winning.

[DBTrek]

If Wal-Mart is all-powerful how did little startup a few years back called Amazon wind up crushing them?

[jediuser598]

If Wal-Mart is all-powerful how did little startup a few years back called Amazon wind up crushing them?

America does have anti-trust laws.