RP on monopolies?

[Paulfan05]

Whats Paul's stance and preventing monopolies, could the free market do it? more phone companies are coming together, I think verizon is trying to buy alltell......anyway the liberals are complaining about it they think our "free market system" is causing this(like we really have a free market now?) they want more gov power to stop monopolies.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Monopolies are not illegal. What is illegal is the act of monopolizing.

 

[nickcoons]

Whats Paul's stance and preventing monopolies, could the free market do it? more phone companies are coming together, I think verizon is trying to buy alltell......anyway the liberals are complaining about it they think our "free market system" is causing this(like we really have a free market now?) they want more gov power to stop monopolies.

Government power doesn't stop monopolies, it creates them. With regulations that make it difficult for smaller businesses to overcome hurdles, companies are motivated to merge to decrease the effects that these regulations have on them.

In a free market, monopolies are either non-existent or good for the consumer. Any monopoly that tries to gouge consumers is short-lived because competition will be attracted to that sector and compete with the monopoly.

If you create an economic scale with socialism on one end and the free market on the other, the United States is closer to the socialism side than to the free market side. For liberals to complain about the current environment and blame it on a free market, which as you pointed out we clearly don't have, is absurd.

 

[TurtleBurger]

Big government is the ultimate monopoly. No other type of business has ever spent trillions of dollars to make sure they can kill anyone who challenges their monopoly status.

 

[Perry]

Government power doesn't stop monopolies, it creates them. With regulations that make it difficult for smaller businesses to overcome hurdles, companies are motivated to merge to decrease the effects that these regulations have on them.

In a free market, monopolies are either non-existent or good for the consumer. Any monopoly that tries to gouge consumers is short-lived because competition will be attracted to that sector and compete with the monopoly.

If you create an economic scale with socialism on one end and the free market on the other, the United States is closer to the socialism side than to the free market side. For liberals to complain about the current environment and blame it on a free market, which as you pointed out we clearly don't have, is absurd.

Unfortunately we've been conditioned to believe otherwise. The Enron scandal is a perfect example of "free market fear mongering".
The truth is there never was a free market in the energy sector but the people were led to believe that in a free market business can run rampant and price gouge at will. In reality if the oil lobby in Washington hadn't made other forms of energy so difficult to obtain people might have had other places to turn when Enron went on the attack.
So yes the answer is that for the most part monopolies in a free market are far less harmful than monopolies brought about through government regulation and subsidization.

 

[Black Dude]

In a free market, monopolies are either non-existent or good for the consumer. Any monopoly that tries to gouge consumers is short-lived because competition will be attracted to that sector and compete with the monopoly.

I agree that monopolies are created by the government for the most part. But didn't Microsoft's monopoly come about by creating software that is reliant on its operating system, and not releasing its code so that 3rd party software could be easily made for it? People had to buy a Windows operating system with their computer so that they could open office documents and other documents. If they bought something else, they wouldn't be able to open any documents that were made by everyone else that was using Windows.
Eventually they had to let 3rd parties make software, then they got hit a lot of viruses hit against them, then apple and open source became more popular... but for a little while there, Microsoft was a monopoly that wasn't in the best interest of the consumer.
It basically comes about when an innovative company gets really big before other competitors get in the market and makes its products reliant on its other products, so that once their products are widespread, people don't really have much choice except to stay with that company's products. The more their products are sold, the more people become reliant on their particular product.
But I do think that it can be taken in a case by case scenario, because what happened with Microsoft is a rarity in the market.
Or am I missing something with the Microsoft scenario?

 

[AutoDas]

Microsoft uses copyright laws, something that only exists under a government.

Other people were free to create their own operating systems. Windows was just more successful.

 

[therealjjj77]

Copyright laws are to exist only for a short period of time which is fine. What gave Microsoft the big boom of expansion was that they could borrow money cheap. That you can blame on our central bank.

On a side note, but along the lines of this topic, I had some people stop in this morning that worked for the carnival that comes to town once a year. They said that lately it's become corporate. It was bought up by some bankers apparently. I wonder, how much of corporate America is owned by bankers? That would be an interesting thing to see.

 

[chowdy]

Why is it that when the subject of monopolies is brought up, Microsoft is always mentioned? Microsoft is quite far from a monopoly.

 

[Perry]

Why is it that when the subject of monopolies is brought up, Microsoft is always mentioned? Microsoft is quite far from a monopoly.

Not a monopoly but there were many unfair rulings in microsofts favor.
Judges did not understand the software early on and ruled unfairly towards microsoft concerning browsers and the way windows function etc....
Not technically a monopoly but they definitely dominated the market and even charged unfair prices. For a time there really was no choice in OS's because all the software that the individual might use was only available on Windows. That has changed drastically and now the only quality software that is lacking on Unix based systems are games. If Unix supported all the games on the market it would be my primary OS.
Probably 8-10 more years we'll be there. Course by them I'll most likely not be a gamer anymore.

 

[nickcoons]

If Unix supported all the games on the market it would be my primary OS.

Just to clarify, though not to get too far off topic; it's not Unix/Linux that needs to support games, it's game developers that need to support Unix/Linux. Windows does not support games; game developers support Windows. Please the blame where it properly belongs .

 

[nickcoons]

I agree that monopolies are created by the government for the most part. But didn't Microsoft's monopoly come about by creating software that is reliant on its operating system, and not releasing its code so that 3rd party software could be easily made for it? People had to buy a Windows operating system with their computer so that they could open office documents and other documents. If they bought something else, they wouldn't be able to open any documents that were made by everyone else that was using Windows.
Eventually they had to let 3rd parties make software, then they got hit a lot of viruses hit against them, then apple and open source became more popular... but for a little while there, Microsoft was a monopoly that wasn't in the best interest of the consumer.
It basically comes about when an innovative company gets really big before other competitors get in the market and makes its products reliant on its other products, so that once their products are widespread, people don't really have much choice except to stay with that company's products. The more their products are sold, the more people become reliant on their particular product.
But I do think that it can be taken in a case by case scenario, because what happened with Microsoft is a rarity in the market.
Or am I missing something with the Microsoft scenario?

Microsoft has a large (and dwindling) share of several markets, but they were never a monopoly.

As I mentioned, monopolies are either short-lived in a free market, but they can sustain if they continue to provide the best for consumers. They of course have their own interests, profit, in mind. But in order to obtain their goal in the most efficient way, they have to act in the consumer's best interest. If they don't, they will soon be outdone. We're already starting to see that as competition is cutting into Microsoft's various markets.

 

[Mini-Me]

Microsoft is somewhat of a special case, because they release a product that independent software developers need to code around. Most industries have business models that are much more open to competition than the operating systems sector.

To give an analogy:
Let's say that that Microsoft copyrighted and patented design of an electrical outlet a thousand times over. Originally, this particular electrical outlet gained market dominance because it was simply better than all of the others, and over the past couple decades, the overwhelming majority of electrical appliances have been created with plugs that interface with this outlet.

Now that Microsoft's outlet has become so ubiquitous, it has begun to overcharge for its electrical sockets. Because of government, nobody else is allowed to make a carbon copy or even to use certain methods of copying the internal design to make their own (either to sell or to use for their own purposes). Furthermore, nobody outside of Microsoft even knows how it exactly works, so it's a very difficult reverse engineering prospect (don't ask me how people wouldn't know how an outlet works - suspend your disbelief for the analogy ). However, its much cheaper and arguably better competitors are having a lot of difficulty breaking into the market, because all existing appliances are made to interface with Microsoft's outlet! Sure, appliance manufacturers could make products with both plugs, and some do, but for most, it's just not cost-effective. Consumers, on the other hand, need to start seeing more appliances that use the new socket before it's worth the cost of time, energy, etc. to switch over. In other words, the advantages to Microsoft's product are not inherent to the product itself, but rather, they're just side effects of preexisting market dominance. It's competitors are fighting an uphill battle. One has found a niche with people who just LOOOOOVE electrical sockets, and the other has found a niche with people through snob appeal. However, neither are finding much traction with the mainstream consumer, no matter how much they dislike the cost of Microsoft's outlet or how often it malfunctions. Microsoft's competitors are slowly gaining market share, but it is an uphill battle that will last for many more years.

In other words, Microsoft's near-monopoly is no longer beneficial for the consumer, but because of copyright, patents, and the relatively unique nature of their industry (the fact that other software is built around the operating system), they still hold a position of market dominance.

 

[DriftWood]

I agree that monopolies are created by the government for the most part. But didn't Microsoft's monopoly come about by creating software that is reliant on its operating system, and not releasing its code so that 3rd party software could be easily made for it? People had to buy a Windows operating system with their computer so that they could open office documents and other documents. If they bought something else, they wouldn't be able to open any documents that were made by everyone else that was using Windows.
Eventually they had to let 3rd parties make software, then they got hit a lot of viruses hit against them, then apple and open source became more popular... but for a little while there, Microsoft was a monopoly that wasn't in the best interest of the consumer.
It basically comes about when an innovative company gets really big before other competitors get in the market and makes its products reliant on its other products, so that once their products are widespread, people don't really have much choice except to stay with that company's products. The more their products are sold, the more people become reliant on their particular product.
But I do think that it can be taken in a case by case scenario, because what happened with Microsoft is a rarity in the market.
Or am I missing something with the Microsoft scenario?

There is nothing wrong with Microsofts and its "monopoly". No customer is forced to use and pay for windows or its software. Linux is giving away its platform and software for free, but most customers still voluntarily choose windows. The copetetive advantage that microsoft has, has to do with the fact that the psychological "switching costs" are high (and that Windows and its software is okay). People don't want to learn a new system, Thats why they stick with Windows and ms.

Microsoft has every right to keep is source code and platform architecture a secret, or make it hard for other companies to figure out. Just like coca-cola has the right to keeps its recipe secret. No company should be forced by the govt to help their competitors, to revel their trade secrets or to go open source. That would be a violation of property rights.

The bottom line is that. Ms owns windows, and they can do whatever they like with it.. Customers have choice.. like linux and apple..


Cheers

 

[mediahasyou]

Monopolies are not illegal. What is illegal is the act of monopolizing.

...with government intervention.