Economics: What a monopoly isn't.

[Fife]

Your fallacy today is called the red herring.

With regard to free internet, free insulin, free bags, free EBT, or something else? Be specific. Suicide bombers aren't very swift on the uptake, you know.

Give me the red herring and I'll pitch it on a spike. No touchee the fish.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your fallacy today is called the red herring.

With regard to free internet, free insulin, free bags, free EBT, or something else? Be specific. Suicide bombers aren't very swift on the uptake, you know.

Give me the red herring and I'll pitch it on a spike. No touchee the fish.

With regards to the fundamental question of what a monopoly is. Finding examples of the federal government fucking everything up is as easy as picking up a street whore in Hollywood. That has nothing to do with "what a monopoly isn't" or whether we need regulations therein.

[Fife]

Oh, that's where you're wrong.

Sorry, but the google search definition of "monopoly" you're living off of is spoon fed to you by the FTC. Not only do those "monopolies" not exist, the companies that get called "monopolies" by the gangsters don't get any penalties in 99.9% of cases. They are paying off the state to enjoy the state's monopoly power. Sweet deal, if you have the bags.

Read the piece I put up about the gangsters running the insulin market and you'll see what monopoly is all about.

[Speaker to Animals]

The Google search definition? Are you fucking being serious right now? I am using the common economics definition thereof. If you wish to promote an alternate definition (likely some condition nearly impossible to meet, right? ), then by all means promote it.

But do not pretend like your fringe idea is the default. It's fringe. A monopoly is determined by market share. A company that controls the overwhelming marketshare for something is a monopoly.

If all you want to do is disabuse people of the notion that Amazon is a monopoly, then you need only point out that Amazon does not enjoy the vast majority of marketshare for anything except perhaps e-books.

[Ex-California]

The Google search definition? Are you fucking being serious right now? I am using the common economics definition thereof. If you wish to promote an alternate definition (likely some condition nearly impossible to meet, right? ), then by all means promote it.

But do not pretend like your fringe idea is the default. It's fringe. A monopoly is determined by market share. A company that controls the overwhelming marketshare for something is a monopoly.

If all you want to do is disabuse people of the notion that Amazon is a monopoly, then you need only point out that Amazon does not enjoy the vast majority of marketshare for anything except perhaps e-books.

That is not true. A monopoly has to control the WHOLE marketshare with zero competition.

Remember when everyone thought Wal-Mart was a monopoly, despite the existence of Target and everything else? Look at what Amazon has done to them now

[Fife]

The Google search definition? Are you fucking being serious right now? I am using the common economics definition thereof. If you wish to promote an alternate definition (likely some condition nearly impossible to meet, right? ), then by all means promote it.

But do not pretend like your fringe idea is the default. It's fringe. A monopoly is determined by market share. A company that controls the overwhelming marketshare for something is a monopoly.

If all you want to do is disabuse people of the notion that Amazon is a monopoly, then you need only point out that Amazon does not enjoy the vast majority of marketshare for anything except perhaps e-books.

Well, we agree that Amazon doesn't have any natural monopoly power, outside of the guns and courts of the state.

But, are you wanting an undergraduate textbook definition (because "the common economic definition thereof" is a mystery to me)? Here's the first one that google produced:

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Econo ... 00UN5LAPG/



My econ textbooks are in a box somewhere, but the power to prevent entry into a market by competitors pretty much covers it. "Market share" is just federal gobbledy-gook about what magic number a preferred corporate client is willing to tolerate. It's not economic, it's political.

[Speaker to Animals]

The Google search definition? Are you fucking being serious right now? I am using the common economics definition thereof. If you wish to promote an alternate definition (likely some condition nearly impossible to meet, right? ), then by all means promote it.

But do not pretend like your fringe idea is the default. It's fringe. A monopoly is determined by market share. A company that controls the overwhelming marketshare for something is a monopoly.

If all you want to do is disabuse people of the notion that Amazon is a monopoly, then you need only point out that Amazon does not enjoy the vast majority of marketshare for anything except perhaps e-books.

That is not true. A monopoly has to control the WHOLE marketshare with zero competition.

Remember when everyone thought Wal-Mart was a monopoly, despite the existence of Target and everything else? Look at what Amazon has done to them now

Yeah, it is true. The idea that a monopoly has to control 100% of the market is absurd. A monopoly would then need only allow some back alley competitor somewhere to exist while exploiting monopolistic powers to create barriers to entry for everybody else.

What a monopoly actually is has to do with whether the company can use monopolistic powers. Monopolistic powers derive from market share. Not 100% market share, but most. The old metal and oil monopolies did not have 100% market share and yet they could use monopolistic powers to create barriers to entry.

The question of whether Amazon is a monopoly comes down to whether they actually enjoy monopolistic powers, which can only come from there controlling the vast majority of some market. The monopolistic power people often point to is the condition where a monopoly will actually sell at a loss to artificially lower prices until their remaining competitors go bankrupt. Then they raise prices above the efficient price point when there exists little competition out there to matter.

But Amazon's lower prices, I would argue, have nothing to do with monopolistic powers. They have to do with corruption and corporate welfare. Amazon, by itself, is not a profitable company at all. Their profitability derives from massive amounts of welfare and subsidies. They essentially rob the tax payers through tax breaks, subsidies (including tax payer subsidized shipping), and a subsidized labor force. That's their secret, not a monopoly. You can easily see Amazon is not a monopoly by the fact that they don't control a majority of the market share for really anything other than perhaps e-books. If Amazon prices are higher than Walmart, I go to Walmart. People are buying shit from lots of places, not just Amazon.

The only thing that matters to the economist is the market share of a seller. The only thing that matters to government regulators is whether a company actually uses monopolistic powers. You can have a monopoly in America. It's not illegal. What triggers trust busting is when a monopoly uses that status to create barriers to entry, artificially low prices to wipe out competition, etc.

[heydaralon]

This thread is a monopoly because it would be impossible to make another one with the same topic. Therefore, the govt needs to break it into 2 threads, each giving the forum users the choice to post on whichever ones meet their own personal preferences.

[Kath]

Lol - so much confusion about such a simple concept.

Amazon isn't a monopoly. I know this because I order from numerous companies who ship me product.
FB isn't a monopoly. I know this because I have accounts on other social sites.

Is there competition? Not a monopoly.
Is there literally only one choice and nobody new can enter the market due to government created circumstances? Monopoly.

So easy.

[nmoore63]

Government is by far the biggest monopoly creator in the world today.

The fact that Myspace temporarily had market share dominance doesn't mean jack shit.