Jeez, I go to another thread for a couple hours and you guys already have two pages worth of replies.
If government regulations don't exist to restrict entry into an industry then there will always be competition, unless the monopoly just continues to serve the customer with the lowest prices and best service forever, which I can't see anyone complaining about, even if it keeps the competition at bay.
Yes, but as a larger entity, they're more capable of keeping prices low and service at high quality, especially if they outsource their actual production (and as a large entity they're more capable of doing so). The problem is that the capitalistic model falls apart when smaller entities are
unable to compete, because then the company that has the monopoly can do whatever they want and people will still buy from them because there's nowhere else to go.
Only the government creates monopolies. As long as there are little/no regulations competition with always come about.
I think you're living in a dream world. Yes, I agree that the government can create monopolies, however in an unregulated market, monopolies can still emerge by virtue of being big enough (and therefore better since they have more minds working for them) to outcompete smaller local businesses.
The myth that corporate size dominates is disproven by Wallmart being beaten by swifter, fleeter, better servicing locals
Whaaaaaaat. Where do you live? Around here, Wal-mart has beaten not just local supermarkets into the ground, but also smaller corporations.
Size creates necessary bureaucracy and middle management that drains their advantages not found in local companies,.
But it also promotes think-tanks that innovate solely for the sake of company edge over other businesses.
Corporations themselves don't pose much of a threat. It's when they buy influence in the government that they pose a threat.
I agree with this as well, but it doesn't address my original point.
Government grants corporations major advantages over small business, like extremely low tax rates, subsidies, etc.
Again, I agree with that. By "market" I meant the economy in general, in terms of things like innovation and quality of life.
Would they have had the cash to expand and squeeze out the competition?
That's actually a good point. Giant companies are still able to squeeze out competitors in a free market though.
The problem is with Corporations - they are an unfair advantage in the free-market system. Get rid of corporations, then you have no need for regulations, a free-market capitalistic system is more successful than corporatism. .
Agree, however corporations will still form in a free market economy. I think the deal is that transportation and communication is a lot cheaper and easier than it was, say, in the 1800's. Local businesses thrived back then because the lack of fast transportation and communication made the creation of giant corporations impossible.
Monopoly can only exist with government issuing it (itself being a monoply). Corporations, like individuals, seek government to deliver this power in various forms for their own benefit. It is power to use violence to crush your competitors completely ignoring the fact that competition is entirely legal and moral.
Okay, you've given your belief, but you haven't supplied any evidence or actual reasoning.
I have no problem with corporations or any other collective - as long as they are treated as such, distinguished from real people
What, you don't believe Mitt Romney's right about corporations being people?
One of the most aggravating problems people face in this regard is when they attack a law - a statute, regulation or even constitutional provision - and the courts will uphold the law on the basis that it could apply to corporations and other privileged entities.
Can you give any examples? (No, I'm not attacking you, I genuinely want to see some examples so I can understand the rest of your post).
