Monopolies and Anti-Competitive Markets: Crash Course Economics #25
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- What is a monopoly? It turns out, it's more than just a board game. It's a terrible, terrible economic practice in which giant corporations dominate markets and hurt consumers. Except when it isn't. In some industries, monopolies are the most efficient way to do business. Utilities like electricity, water, and broadband internet access are probably less efficiently delivered in competitive markets. Come along, and let us monopolize your attention for a few minutes. You might learn something. And you might land on Free Parking.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark, Eric Kitchen, Jessica Wode, Jeffrey Thompson, Steve Marshall, Moritz Schmidt, Robert Kunz, Tim Curwick, Jason A Saslow, SR Foxley, Elliot Beter, Jacob Ash, Christian, Jan Schmid, Jirat, Christy Huddleston, Daniel Baulig, Chris Peters, Anna-Ester Volozh, Ian Dundore, Caleb Weeks
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
Pure Monopoly - 1:00
Barriers to Entry - 1:10
Crony Capitalism - 2:35
Oligopoly - 2:52
Horizontal Integration - 4:25
Vertical Integration - 4:38
Usefulness of monopoly - 5:51
Natural Monopoly - 6:38
Non-Coercive Monopoly- 7:25
Price Discrimination - 8:14
Thank you! I didn't wanna go through the whole video and end up missing a question for my economics class.
Te amé
Thanks man!
you are a goat
You are an angel ty
OMGG MR. CLIFFORD!!! He got me through AP-microeconomics with a 4 on the test! His channel is dope too! Glad to see him here :)
In Pittsburgh you can pick and change your electricity provider. All the power plants are hooked to the same grid, but different plants charge different prices based on supply and demand. This keeps prices low without the government getting as involved with setting the prices.
As much as I want it to stay like that forever, prices will naturally go higher because supplies will get low and demands will rapidly rise. Of course, it's good news to the people. But once sources become very limited, that is the time when competition doesn't work and state socialism will be at its best.
So what happens if they agree to just stop competing with each other and always offer the same price? Or a company buys a bunch of power plants and shuts half of them down thus raising the price by reducing the supply. Both scenarios did happen in the past which is what sparked the anti-trust laws in the first place.
except electricity is something that can be created--by turbines or geothermal energy or whatever else. When would it become very limited, in this case? Supply would only be cut off in this case by reducing the number of people who can create it--in other words, by the other electricity providers shutting down due to poor business practices, or the government creating a monopoly...by seizing the means of production...which is socialism.
@@MultiWilliam15 You can just make more electricity... When the demand exceeds the supply of electricity its called a power outage.
One thing is sure:
There’s always money in the banana stand
Parks and Rec thought bubble! Brought a smile to my face.
Another factor in breaking up monopolies that I don't remember being directly addressed in the video: product stagnation. Not only could a monopoly potentially charge whatever they wanted but they also had no insensitive to improve their product or service. The phone company is great example, crummy and sparse telephone lines, an operator is needed to connect all your calls etc. A product that breaks a lot so have to replace it, a product that barely performs its intended function, a product that pollutes a lot but what are you going to do? All things monopolies will cause.
After watching most of this series, I've finally learned why I never see AC/DC belt buckles anywhere. Mr.Clifford owns all of them.
2:32 is that a parks and rec reference?
+Kaitlyn Gardner Yes
+Lounis Mansouri Oh man, how did I miss that. Love Parks and Rec.
1:37: McMongol's, Burger Viking, Taco Bros and those awesome animations!!!
thank you animation team, this was the best class in my life!
Cramming these videos in for my final tomorrow... I'm going to love you two forever if I end up doing well
How did it go?
Havent watched a lot of these episodes since like #5, but the dude is pronunciating WAY more and not slurring. Good for him, I like him it's good to see him do well!
+BUB5 Thanks:)
+ACDCLeadership you're the man. thanks for making econ fun. just subbed to your other channel
Thanks. I appreciate it
In Norway we have a high-percentage alcohol retail monopoly company called "Vinmonopolet" ("The Wine Monopoly"). It's state-owned, and follows strict rules for making certain that the focus of the consumer is on quality instead of quantity. They never have discounts or deals of any kind, but their stores have large selections of different types of drinks, and their staff are very professional and helpful. Buying high-percentage alcohol in Norway always feels like you're entering a wine snob's basement (although they sell many other things than wine for all sorts of occasions, from young adult partying to old men feasts).
WAIT! Pharmatical researchers get to wear silly spacesuits??? Why was I not told???
jerry/larry/terry/gary riding lil sebastion is the best way i could have imagined learning microeconomic principles
2:35 The cast of parks and recs
and even Lil Sebastian!!!
Josh Posh that was a rly good catch
Governments create all monopolies the following five ways: 1.Regulations 2.Subsidies 3. Tariffs 4.Intellectual Property 5.Nationalization
Walter Block had a joke he originally gave to a room full of anti-trust lawyers:
First joke is that there are three prisoners in the gulag in the former Soviet Union. The three find out why each of them is there. The first said that he came late to work and was accused of cheating the State out of labor. The second guy said that he came early and was accused of trying to out-compete his comrades. The third guy said that he came to work everyday and exactly on time, and the KGB accused him of owning a Western wristwatch.
Second joke is that there are three prisoners in the U.S. They were all in jail for economic crimes of violating monopoly laws. First guy said that he charged higher prices than anyone else and the government then accused him of price gouging and profiteering. Second guy charged lower prices than anyone else and they accused him of predatory and cutthroat pricing. And the third guy said that he charged the same prices as everyone else and they accused him of collusion and price fixing.
+RonPaul Revered
Jokes aren't facts. You can't assign blame for monopolies to governments when the businesses themselves demanded those practices you listed. Monopolies are created by everyone involved who has power to intervene and does not. Including the business itself.
Danthemanwithaplan7
Because cronyism isn't a thing... Jesus Dan....
Danthemanwithaplan7 I feel like John Stewart getting yelled at by Bill O'Reilly "JOKES AREN'T FACTS" Hahaha. The demand for a monopoly and the social architecture that allow for monopolies to arise are two different things. Government has the power, therefore the keys to the kingdom to give away to business. A business person would be foolish not to at least realize the powers to be gained by government and therefore dedicate capital towards lobbying ends. This is the problem not business. Good and bad individuals aside.
+RonPaul Revered So if the government didn't regulate anything ''the free market would just fix itself'', it's funny how Libertarians (basically Classical Liberals) today still think that there's ''an invisible hand'', it's as if Capitalism tries to be a religion, thanks Locke.
1:50, I dont think people walked in the street and said to themselves "I need a food truck right now". But rather the food truck came by and then the idea sprang about. Thus what happens is the exact opposite, the food truck generates 'demand', the people follow.
5:22 Year is 2023 and Microsoft changed their ‘internet explorer’ to ‘Microsoft Edge’ and they are still trying to push users to install their browsers. LoL 😂
I want my Mc'Mongols Szechuan Sauce.
Just trying to get some Uranium and Plutonium to build a Nuclear Powerplant in my backyard, but those damn monopoly controlling govment not letting me.
The problem with the notion of a "compassionate capitalism", in which domineering monopolies are antithetical to a free market, is that it's BS. Monopolies are a product of free market competition, established when a corporation ostensibly "wins" the competition and is successful enough to eliminate all competitors. Business economics isn't a sport, they don't have seasons after which a champion takes home a trophy and we all start over on even terms next year. All the cheap tricks and dirty tactics an edified venture has access to are a natural consequence of free market economics, if they were restricted the market wouldn't be totally free. Free market capitalism sounds meritocratic on paper, and is at it's inception, but after the first winners emerge it becomes fundamentally unfair.
I'm a big fan of you guys! I haven't missed a episode of crash course economics! Keep doing it
Thanks for the videos beautiful Adrian and tall Jacob! I'm from Nigeria where Crony capitalism abounds and unfortunately there aren't any government policies to help regulate markets. In our case, the monopolistic companies - excluding major power and water supply companies - aren't really helpful mainly because they are significantly stifling 'healthy market competition,' and are simply milking the entire nation. Barriers to entry in most industries such as telecoms are sky high...
yep, at&t tried to buy tmobile but failed... of wait its 2020 and theyre together now
a good natural monopoly: the NHS
a bad one: the energy market, they keep putting prices up despite falls in oil prices and changing suppliers is complex and not guaranteed to get you a good rate
thr nhs is not a monopoly, its a government organisation.
For a start, private healthcare still exists in the UK.
+I am Your Father Did you even watch the video? The two are not mutually exclusive.
SabreKitteh i did, its just not a monopoly. it covers something like 80% (dont quote me on that) of healthcare in the UK
I am Your Father
more like 90+%
Objection to the electricity example here. Here in Vietnam, electricity is a monopoly by state own enterprise. Being a monopoly has encouraged the company to do bad business practice, make losses, and fail to innovate in time. As such, the electricity power price keeps rising.
2:30 Parks and Recreations cast
I know, they even made Jerry the mayor! :)
I saw that too!
The only monopolies are government monopolies.
Google is free, as is its competitors.
Internet Explorer was free and there was no barrier to install Netscape at a nominal fee.
+CrashCourse *** Please add this episode to the playlist, episodes #25 and #26 are not in the "Economics" playlists, they're floating in the uploads sections. ***
Also, you make price discrimination out to be bad, but in many cases price discrimination can increase overall utility for customers. Without price discrimination, a lot of things would be more expensive.
+frencheneesz - How did they make it look bad? They did exactly what you said with the example of plane tickets. The student that buys months in advance for $200 and the businesswoman buying the day before for $800. Without discrimination everyone would've paid about $550 - $600 for their ticket, and the student would never be able to fly.
Big pharma also gets a lot of R&D from universities (we funded). And pharma spends much more on marketing than they do research (19 times more).
Also anti-trust laws from state are actually pro monopoly or/and just destructive economically.
I'm really dissapointed you didn't go into the pros and cons of deregulating government natural monopolies which often lead to corporate monopolies. Especially in Europe, this has been a major problem: GDF Suez has been screwing the Belgian government and citizens over and electricity hasn't gotten any better since the utilities were shifted to corporate hands.
you forgot to mention goverment granted monopolies for example in sweden alcoholic drinks above 3.5% by volume can only be sold by one company owned by the goverment. this is both to restrict the flow to consumers and use the profit from such a socially damaging product into the goverment.
some side benefits is that by law they must get the product the consumer wishes to buy and create and even floor for the products to compete on.
love the parks and rec thought bubble characters
If price discrimination is defined as charging different consumers different amounts for the dame product, surely bulk buying is price discrimination. Those who can afford to buy more save more.
I love the Parks and Rec reference!!
in Norway, we have vinemonopolet, "the wine monoply", who are the only ones allowed to sell wine and booze, which is owned by the government. This is to regulate alcohol. Though it makes booze expensive, it is understandable, since it makes it more dificult to be alcoholic, as well as it makes it difficult to make profit by private companies out of peoples sufferinng
+Martin Johnsrud That's called fascism. I thought you guys were on a free market Nordic model.
+Freek314 us Swedes have a similar system. Our GDP is still growing faster than the US or the UK though.
A Nordic system? I've often thought that it sounds wonderful, but that it's too good to be true.
I love studying antitrust law and love this course, thanks!
Some monopolies are good when companies make such a good job, that no one wants to buy from it's competitors. Google is an example, Standard Oil is another one. By the time Rockefeller's company was broke by the government, it had 60% of the market share and it still sold the cheapest highest quality oil derived products in the market.
+Rick Apocalypse Standard oil has many companies that people purchase from... creating competition.
For example.. there is Oil that comes from the Middle East and then there is domestic Oil.. they are competitors and when the US finally started tapping its reserves... it was competing and thus driving the prices down.
How much market share must a company have before it's a monopoly?
richard343s 25% or more
I love how much more natural and organic they became. It's clear they feel more comfortable before the camera now
Mayor Gergich and Lil' Sebastian at 2:05!
In Malaysia our highways companies profit are guaranteed by the government. They can charge us for toll whatever price they like or threaten to charge the government for profit if we do no comply. The best thing is they don't even have to disclose their profit to us, they just simply say they are make a loss and the government will have to act accordingly to their contract to reimburse them
Don't forget to hit the like button. These videos need more views.
thank u this video easy to learn. I wish I could make such good videos in Spain but your English is very well understood. Thank you!!!
This was so so so helpful thank you so much! All of your market structure videos are so clear and easy to understand! :)
6:57 Building 3 different power plants isn't at all a problem, its only the distribution network that would be a waste. We already have lots of individual power plants, but still only one grid.
2 errors:
1) At 5:21 - Microsoft was not pressuring PC manufactures to pre-install IE - it bundled IE with Windows for free. Google "browser wars" for details.
2) At 7:53 - breaking large company into smaller companies is NOT an example of "deregulation".
Year 2017, and here you are helping me. Thank you
If AMD doesn't step up it's game Intel is going to be a monopoly soon.
cpu wise I would agree but they are still competitive on gpus.
+That Guy they've recently fallen behind, but their next architecture upgrade could help.
basicly all game consoles run on amd apu's soooo
Don't forget NVDA will also be a monopoly!
+That Guy Competition needed to keep Intel and NV in check
watched this 25 videos in two days, looking forward to the next one!
If a business influences government regulations for their own benefit, the answer is to get rid of the regulations. I want a completely free market capitalist system, not crony capitalism. I have no problem with free market monopolies; they can only gain such power by producing their goods/services at so low prices and high quality that no one else is able to compete. If they fall in quality or rise in prices, competitors can take customers and end the monopoly. I do have a massive problem with government-created monopolies, though. This are made into monopolies regardless of their quality and prices. As a result they often have higher prices and lower quality. Free market monopolies are actually a good thing because they can only maintain such a monopoly by being the most competitive. Government-created monopolies are horrible because they often produce the exact opposite but are propped up by government when those in the free market would fail. I have no problem with horizontal or vertical integration. I don't believe there should be patents; anyone should be able to produce a good/service so long as they don't steal the name. If the original provider wants to stay in business, they must still produce better quality and lower prices. I don't want any government-created monopoly in any public utility. These should all be left to private businesses paid by those individuals who use the utility. Cut out the government middle-man. Nike is an excellent example of how things should be: it's a near monopoly that must continue to produce high quality at low prices to maintain the monopoly.
The problem is we kinda need regulations. Regulations prohibit companies from doing things, like using cheaper, but toxic, ingredients to cut costs or dumping radioactive waste in rivers because it's a cheap solution. Heck, regulations can prevent monopolies by preventing excessively antagonistic tactics to destroy competitors. The Robber Barons were able to make monopolies in the late nineteenth century because there were no rules to stop them.
SO many Parks and Rec referencesI love this!
The claim that patents encourage innovation is debatable. There are strong arguments that they actually inhibit innovation more than they encourage it.
could you explain the few?
Source?
Substantiate your argument
The problem with monopolies becomes clear at 2:00. It are the restrictions and the government that cause these monopolies, not the free market. Once he government uses force and stops you from doing something that doesn't violate property rights, then we have no free market
+Hooya2 give an example of a total monopoly that didn't arise from some government interference. Keep in mind that violating property rights or NAP doesn't count (since that immorality would explain the rise of the monopoly).
+Hooya2 that's honestly not a problem if their reason for success is the output of the best product at the lowest price - because in that case, all parties involved will profit.
Hooya2 If they want to destroy the reputation and wealth of their business, then let them do it. Its their oil and they can do with it whatever they want. Its not like they are responsible for giving you oil. Whats the oil worth for them if they can't sell it? Its just black goo that makes your land unusable for agriculture
I am not saying thats what did it, i said thats what would happen
One of the most curious pseudo monopolies currently in existence is worth a look at. The PC video game distribution platform called Steam, owned by Valve. Now technically here the monopoly is not on the goods themselves, Valve is not the only developer of video games in the world, but it's a quasi monopoly on the distribution of the games. Other online stores exists, some of them video game distribution specialists as well, but their share of the market is dwarfed by Steam, even if they are able to compete with prices on Steam. A few companies elect to sell their games on their own private platforms, but only those with decent established reputations are successful in doing so (Blizzard, EA and very few others) These companies are scorned by the public for electing not to sell their games on Steam, but the quality and reputation of the games themselves means they'll be sold for massive profits regardless. But tinier less reputable companies have basically no choice but to get on the store.
What's really curious about this monopoly is that it's the fault of the consumers. Like I said the other distributors offer similar, often better prices on some games, but the vast majority of people won't even bother to look at them. "If it's not on Steam, I won't buy it." is a very popular mantra. Now Valve are actually very smart people and I believe they are reason as to why this fierce loyalty arose.
Back in the day, Steam used to curate their store, only allowing games on the platform that met certain secretive arbitrarily checks. Rumors were that this was a form of quality assurance check by Valve. This meant that a game was expected to have a certain standard of quality before it could get on to the store, and thus the simple fact that it got there meant it was good (Which was not always true, mind you, but people kept thinking it was) This is likely where the "Only buy Steam" mentality arose. Since a few years ago Valve as opened the flood gates and is now allowing an absolute bonkers amount of games on the store on a regular basis, but despite having lost this "QA check", the store remains vastly popular.
Steam also provide a community hub, allowing you to find people to play your games with more easily, Steam updates all games that you have installed on your machine tied to it's library automatically and they also provide a few other side extras to further promote the use of their store and games sold on their store, such as trading cards. Tradings cards are acquired by playing many of the games bought from Steam and can be sold for usually .05 to .25 dollars each on the Steam store, which will be sent automatically to a Steam wallet. This money can only be used to buy products on the Steam store : games and trading card for games (The cards can be collected as sets to get special goodies, which is why they are valuable enough to set a price on in the first place.)
Steam built a reputation and a consumer base that became both immense and ferociously loyal, and today Valve holds a frightening amount of power in the PC market for video games. Thankfully they have so far not chose to abuse this power. I think they know if they started to raise prizes across the board they would lose a lot of their market share, so it's kinda of a monopoly, but also not a monopoly because everyone goes to Steam as long as Steam is kept in check by the threat of losing it's consumer enforced monopoly should they try to take advantage of the monopoly. It's all really odd. When it comes to distribution of video games on PC, Valve were clearly pioneers. They got there first, people started growing purchasing habits revolving around the use of Steam and now they won't stop.
Despite being fully aware of the issue, I'm guilty of being a dumb consumer myself. Whenever I decide to shop for new games, I always check Steam first, typically find something interesting, buy it without checking other distributors which are only a few clicks away and then I'm done. Happy with my purchase I install and play the game, have a good time and move on with my life. The only time I don't use Steam is when I hear about a game via other sources and can't find it on Steam, then I'll look other stores. Often these games are just not yet released or not available on PC, because these days, it's becoming VERY RARE that Steam will not have a game on their store. They are so important that everyone, including many super rich publishers will always want their games on the store, so Steam has almost everything in one place, which is another reason people don't bother to check lesser known stores. These days it's more like "If it's not on Steam, it doesn't exist?"
What are your thoughts about this CC folks? I'm curious as this seems like a rare example of consumers enforcing a monopoly, which is obviously something they shouldn't be doing. It could simply be a trend set by Valve's innovative growth in the market that's taking a very long time to erode away. Eventually competition might dilute their power away. Or it might not. People love their habits. And sorry for the long post :P
+LiwenDiamond - Pretty easy explanation. It's an incredibly new market. Back when the car was invented, there was only Ford. And when digital distribution became 'a thing', there was only Steam. It takes a while for the industry to catch up, and for new-comers to become established.
The reason why people are already so invested in Steam is because the audience Steam has, is 'tech-savvy' and young and 'on the cutting edge' with technology. So to speak.
So despite it being a 'new thing', they're going all in on it. The audience is faster than the industry is able to catch up. Which is a new(er) phenomenon in (mostly) tech fields.
Look at the Oculus for example. There's some more competition in VR now. But for years consumers were throwing all their money and the kitchen sink at the company to get development kits even.
John Rockfeller was actually a very generious man. He donated a lot of money to charity. After his death he had it set in his will to donate all his remaining money to charity.
I dont understand why history decided to picture him as a villain.
+clinton fisher because leftist
+clinton fisher - I'll start by saying that I don't know much about Rockefeller's business practices, but as far as I know, most of his charity donating was done after he retired.
And while it sure is very nice that he made massive donations to charity later in his life, that doesn't mean he couldn't have been a ruthless 'villainous' business man before.
Like I said, I don't know if he was. Just saying, he could've been.
what about dualopolies that ISPs like time warner and Comcast have in the US?
Compared to other country's, the cost is very high for the slow speeds that you get and they fail to implement new technology's such as fiber optic because it will cost them money. Especially when there's no reason to spend because of the duopoly. We just need to break them both up so we the consumer doesn't get screwed over and technology can advance.
They mentioned oligopolies
+steeler1168 Before interfering with a private company, it's important to understand why natural competition isn't occurring. Often, it's the result of regulation that's limiting market participation.
+grantcivyt Google fiber is coming in Charlotte and would you look at that, TWC raises their speeds by 600% to compete. I'm just glad one company is there to someone is there to spice things up for them. I just hope the FCC will make things easier in the future for smaller companies to join in.
+steeler1168 Competition is a beautiful thing. :)
1:35 Mulder and Scully, plus a martian from mars attack
But you proved an important point: it is through *government* intervention that monopolies are created: almost no monopolies ever occur absent govt intervention through exclusive contacts, licensing and regulation (think, who is requiring you to have a license to own food trucks? Who is giving out and limiting these licenses? Government). If the government on principle did not interfere, there would be no ability or incentive for powerful private interest to lobby. The “barriers to entry” supposedly created by monopolies are erected by the government in response to the lobby.
McMongol's, Burger Viking, and Taco Bros. That's so hilarious!
Toys R Us got in trouble for trying to have store-exclusive toys? Pretty sure that kind of thing is allowed now. I've seen Target exclusive Nerf guns and everyone knows about console exclusive games.
+QuantumSeanyGlass People in govt are getting older. they don't recognize tech monopolies sufficiently. That is why more young people should be involved in the political process or be part of bureaucracy.
+QuantumSeanyGlass - I think it's legal when they're open about it, and the toys are made to be exclusive to the store. It's illegal when they're general toys that only get supplied to Toys-R-Us through a secret deal.
I just realized that the opening shows two friends starting from a lemonade stand as children, to partners that just got a loan to make an actual business, to a nationally recognized name brand... We watch two kids achive a huge goal in life in a few seconds.
Don't forget that the state also take monopolies in Justice, Law and Violence.
+Malcolm Pagett How else would you have it? Those three do not and can not equate to economic controls and type of market.
Lol This is not the best place to spread anarchism. The monopolies you speak of are irrelevant to this topic.
It's a natural monopoly
No it doesn't. Marijuana is legal in Colorado but it's illegal in Texas. Even here, you can see that if there's a stoner in Texas and doesn't want to be prosecuted he can move away to somewhere else
the only monopolies that are bad are monopolies artificially created by *governments* (corporatism).
Otherwise, the free market sorts out what companies stand where.
Fascinating they didn't point out that the government is an example of a monopoly
with every citizen as a shareholder
+Canadian Apistevist
Seeing this comment gives me .0001% more faith in humanity
+Canadian Apistevist
Well yes, as having a privatised tax, military or court wouldn't work.
The US prison system as an example of what happens when you privatise something the state should provide.
So I posted a fact. I didn't pick a side: I'm neither a statist nor an anarchist. Don't love me or get offended.
+Rob The Fandom Menace So called "private prisons" get their funding and their prisoners from the government. In practice, they're public prisons with private shareholders. That's not the same thing as a hypothetical free market prison system.
I have never heard of price discrimination before. The examples of discounts for seniors and stuff are interesting examples.
I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on price discrimination by gender? I wonder how it compares with an earning gap?
+Silentsam7532 What earning gap?
+Ростислав Несисюк the earning gap is the difference is choice made by men and women.
I am not saying pay gap as the gap isn't for the same position and work. It is due to different career choices and having different jobs.
Breaking up monopolies = deregulation?? So using laws (i.e. regulations) to break up monopolies is called deregulation (i.e. reducing the number of laws!). If that's actually the case, whoever tried to tie the word deregulation to anti-monopolies regulation was very Orwellian.
Not quite. AT&T was a monopoly due to regulation. When the market was deregulated, they were broken up by market forces.
+Xenogene Gray Furthermore most monopolies are given monopoly status by law, usually as a trade with the government for over price and quantity control, so when breaks up a monopoly its getting rid of the law and freeing up the market.
+Xenogene Gray Exactly. Even when companies are granted monopoly status by governments in the first place, the governments usually break them apart by force when they "deregulate" them, not just remove the monopoly status. It's a system with government regulation on both ends. No true deregulation to be found.
+Xenogene Gray - I think you misunderstood. It's breaking up *natural monopolies*. Meaning a monopoly that was in place because of regulation. The example used was electricity/power suppliers. They have a monopoly because the industry and their prices are *regulated by the government*. If the government decides it's no longer necessary to hold a monopoly on electricity, they *de-regulate*, and free the market back up.
TheMrVengeance but that does not mean that all monopolies are caused by regulation right?
In the UK we have privatised water... But you only ever have one supplier to choose from, and water.... Isn't exactly optional.
Monopolies are created and propped up against market forces by governments, which themselves are self enforcing, territorial monopolies on law.
+Elijah Decker ... except when they're not. See: Gilded Age
Len Arends
Oh you mean that era of American history when quality of life improved dramatically, working days became shorter, and the prices of goods fell dramatically due to market competition?
Or are you talking about the fictionalized version of the Gilded Age where Standard Oil didn't have a dozen competitors when it was charged under antitrust laws?
Vast economic growth can occur in tandem with exploitative behavior. Care to explain China, otherwise?
Len Arends
China's economy is a mess. The Chinese government has done things to increase their Gross Domestic Product like funding the construction of cities that nobody lives in and building bridges out of cement covered garbage. I wouldn't consider that to be "vast economic growth." Many US businesses are also leaving China in a hurry.
Elijah Decker Compare China 1980 with China now. That can't be described as anything other than "vast economic growth." Is it precarious? Certainly. So was the US robber baron period. There were evermore violent market "corrections" in every generation after the Civil War, ending with the worst. We only climbed out of that hole because of massive wartime spending *by the government*.
While watching I wanted to hug you both! Thank you for your gorgeous explanations
UA-cam needs to have its monopoly regulated.
You didnt mention the use of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against Unions to protect the robber barons.
This is the soaring cost of healthcare/pharmaceutical drugs in a nutshell.
But what this doesn't mention is the fact that many monopolies that were broken up actually resulted in lower prices. For example, the ALCOA case that almost resulted in the break up of a monopoly actually would've broken up a company that had actually resulted in dramatically lower prices for aluminum.
Better just read Human Action.
1:36 gentrification of food truck industry
Also, they are impossible.
Love your videos CrashCourse! Would be even nicer if you could leave some readings in the description for further studies!
The Disney/ Fox deal brought me here
1:52 Sushi a Go Go - you mean Diarrhea a Go Go.
Government, the biggest monopoly of all.
+TheHarkonnen1 Eh, sorta. Though the government (in good cases) acts as a very weird company, because they usually run a deficit on providing services. Econo mics is always weird and full of but-s when it comes to governments. And full of Butts when it comespto people in said govenrment.
+1234kalmar only difference being the government uses money extorted from the people against their will
Andrew Mabon LOL :D Yeah, people should be allowed not to pay taxes. Then, banned from using roads and other infrastructure built by the government, the police should be forbidden from protecting them or answering their calls, beause that's tax funded too, same goes for fire fighters. They should also lose their voting rights (No representation without contribution), and could hold no govenrment office. They should also not be issued ID cards, marriage licenses, or be entitled to have a lawyer assinged to them if they can't afford one, that being tax funded too. Enlisting in the military would also be out of the question. EDIT: forgot public schools, and education for their children. That's also tax funded.
1234kalmar
Try reading Nock, Spooner, Rothbard, David Friedman, etc. Educate yourself and maybe you won't sound so ignorant
Freek314 I dislike propaganda but thanks for the recommednation.
Stan give this a guy a raise so he can buy more belt buckles!!!
BYE BYE LI'L SEBASTIAN
The problem with monopolies is that stagnate. How do you put someone out of business? Offer a better product at a lower price, but if there is no one to put out of business, why make a better product? Why sell it at a lower price?
Progress comes from innovation, innovation comes from competition.
A monopoly has no competition therefore there is no incentive to innovate.
Monopolies can't exist in free markets! Value of capital doesn't disappear over time.
Using electricity companies as an example was rather terrible from a British perspective. We have a National Grid and power companies can buy and sell electricity to supply to producers from numerous different generators.
Small companies are popping up more frequently over here. They're often able to offer better prices than the oligopoly suppliers because they have lower embedded costs than the huge companies, that dominate the market.
Anything that's a natural monopoly should be nationalized and run for the public good.
Also, the train incident was not price discrimination! That's the basic economic idea of buying in bulk.
did he say andrew carNEGY?
That's actually the correct pronunciation.
you guys are awesome & my econ teacher couldn't make me understand any of these terms like you guys could. I'm 20-Something episodes in now! I'm going to donate (:
Google isn't a monopoly, you're completely free to use duckduckgo or bing.
+Kim André Moen Bjørkede - Which is exactly what the episode said, they don't have a monopoly. They just have such a massive part of the market share that they can *act* like a monopoly.
TheMrVengeance How can they? If they do something retarded, I'd just switch to duckduckgo.
Kim André Moen Bjørkede - It's basic economics, I can't explain it any better than they did in the episode.
They can act like it because people prefer Google, that's why it has 90% of the market. It is considered a non-coercive monopoly
Dope AC/DC belt buckle!
Oh thank God, I thought you guys let Cenk from TYT into the video. Turns out it's just a guy that looks like him.
What about the WWE when Vice McMahon bought WCW is the WWE consider a monopoly?
Patents stifle innovation. The length of time for a software or technology patent is far too long given the increasing rate of invention. And looking at pharmaceutical companies is a poor example - their business model encourages looking for treatments over cures. Something that runs counter to what would be good for society
As a free market capitalist, I expected to watch this and hear nothing but anti-capitalism, "Monopolies bad, government good" rhetoric. Pleasantly surprised by the balanced and unbiased approach. Competition is key. Subscribed.
Under 301 views club!!
+GracefulGlaceon I am in the under 577 views club!
+GracefulGlaceon thats from Playstation Access
+GracefulGlaceon OVER 9000 views!!!
I'd say most monopolies we have today, and there are many that weren't mentioned, are caused by barriers of entry.