👞 How are monopolies formed?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 бер 2021
- Learn Austrian Economics in a fun way!
LINKS
BLOG: econclips.com/how-are-monopol...
ANIMATIONS: toin.pl/en/
SUPPORT our project: bit.ly/2fgJR9e
Visit our website: econclips.com/
Like our Facebook page: bit.ly/1XoU4QV
Subscribe to our UA-cam channel: bit.ly/1PrEhxG
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Music on CC license:
Kevin MacLeod: Home Base Groove - na licencji Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Źródło: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Wykonawca: incompetech.com/
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
#Economics #Capitalism #Finance
#EconClips
Econ Clips is an economic blog. Our objective is teaching economics through easy to watch animated films. We talk about variety of subjects such as economy, finance, inflation, money, investing, monetary systems, financial markets, financial institutions, cental banks, wealth, financial crises and business cycles. If you want to know how the economy works and understand why it works this way - join us on econclips.com and learn Austrian Economics in a fun way!
Relevant Tags:
econ clips, econclips, austrian economics, austrian school of economics, capitalism, free market, economics, economics explained, market inflation, price index, macroeconomics, economic crisis, economic crisis 2022, 2022 economic crisis explained, finance
John lived long enough to see himself become a villain.
Towards his customers, definitely, though a comparatively mild one. Towards his employees probably not so much.
Here on TIK's recommendation.
whos that?
@@randominternetguy1499 ua-cam.com/video/O3JaxXK25qo/v-deo.html He's got all sorts of stuff, but WW2 is his main focus.
Same here
same
#Me too
I'm homeschooling my daughter, she's 11, almost 12. I'm showing her these videos in some of her economic class. I think it's important for individuals to understand these things in order to make informed decisions. They don't teach these things in public schools.
You're pathetic. Let your child be a child and socialize with other children her age daily in school instead of being isolated at home and becoming socially awkward
Excellent option!
honestly, the school systems are not up to snuff so i applaud it, make sure you celebrate hard work over results is my advice, psychologists have found that kids that were given easier and then harder tasks responded in different ways depending on whether their success or their hard work were praised with those whose success was praised wanting to go back to the easy tasks whilst those who were praised for their effort being keen to keep trying the harder tasks.
bare in mind that she will need to be up to date with the latest technology as well, many parents keep their kids away from it as to not corrupt them but they don't realise that they will need to know how it works and how to work with it, as a casus Germany is a successfull country but most companies still use fax machines, meanwhile lithuania is still developing but in accordance with Ricardo's law they are skipping straight ahead to the digital age, make sure your kid can be the one that can spot a solution nobody had thought of with the technology that people just started using
The way of the monopoly is the way to go. Keep making videos covering this topic from different niches and angles. Geographical monopolies like the only snack shop at the cinema, or no outside drinks allowed at night clubs so a $20 bottle of vodka is sold for $750 has always facilitated me.
That's not the same thing. That's a business owner saying you can't do your business on my property without my permission.
@@YashArya01 That's how all of them work.
TIK sent me. Great videos. Subscribed. Thanks TIK! 👍
Thank you for making this video! I'm sick of people who claim that 'capitalism' is the cause of monopolies when it's clear that only State regulations and 'laws' can actually create them. Will be sharing the video
cringe bruh
@@mknf5091 "cringe bruh"
When you get 177k subscribers and have to keep telling the trolls like you that free markets don't create monopolies because people have been brainwashed by the miseducation system and the lamestream media, you'll be thankful that channels like this exist. Saves me time because I can just link to these videos rather than have to create them myself.
@@TheImperatorKnight ok stick to the tanks tho
That's so stupid it's actually amazing, why does google basically have a monopoly on the search engine market? It's not due to regulations that's for sure, why does amazon and microsoft have basically again, a monopoly on hosting servers services? why does facebook and twitter have a monopoly on the social media market? Oh, that's right, because they are multi million or even billion dollar companies that can drown their competition with a snap of their fingers. What would protect small time companies and allowing them to compete? Oooh, yeah. REGULATIONS
thank you TIK for recommending this vid. It sums up how monopolies are made very well.
Can you make a video regarding Quantitative Easing and its effects on economy?
It's effectively the same as inflation.
indeed, but how does it affect on credit? There are several side effects that it ultimately bears on capital as well
@@PedroHenrique-bp8ts You should watch George Gammon's YT channel. He goes through the ramifications of the repo market and credit swaps.
@@PedroHenrique-bp8ts the entire point of QE is to have inflation. But what the federal reserve wants you to know is that it’s actually trying to pump more reserves into the American banking system. I don’t get fooled when PK’s say it’s deflationary, rather the beginning step of QE is rapid money printing.
You mean money printing?
@Prax QE IS inflation. They just invented a posh name for it to bamboozle people - as with most things finance
It's very important for libertarians to ensure that everything stays in the realm of the theoretical. Standard Oil, Amazon, or any other real world monopoly wasn't created because Amazon got exclusive license to sell goods online, or because Standard Oil had a tariff levied against oil imports. They were created by the most simple market force: the better your services are, the bigger you get. The bigger you get, the harder it is for others to compete with you, and the easier it is for you to buy up smaller competitors. It's not hard to compete with Amazon because of some government licensing program- anyone can sell stuff online- it's difficult to compete because Amazon is huge.
@[NonExistant] MolecularCandy That's a bingo. Amazon uses AWS (Amazon Web Services) to essentially subsidize many of there other bussiness sectors.
The other big factor is "economies of scale". Because amazon is both so big and profit motivated, they can take advantage of buying, and transporting, and warehousing items in bulk, which is very efficient.
Economic of scale works only with manufacturing, and many small manufacturers can be more efficient overall than one big one because they have less communication overhead in the company ranks.
Amazon wasn't profitable for a long time, but they can still cut prices because of public money (from publicly traded stocks)
The stock market behave like a ponzie scheme when the people buying the stocks buy them just because the think the stock price will raise and then they could sell at profit later, When the market run out of new buyers the price stop rising and then people start to sell, so the price drops, and so on. But until the bubble burst the company involved can generate a lot of cash flow to feed its possibly inefficient business as from the creation of the market bubble the cash flow income of the company do not relates to its performance.
This behavior is do to 'investors' that don't really understand what they are doin but still 'investing'. this behavior wont exist if the government will stop buying the market when bubble bursts, folks will start to care more about the system and less about abusing it.
Human organizations do not scale, but in the presence of illogical behavior of market players, they can became big just because people believe in it and believe they are too big to fail.
@@IceQub3 I agree with you on the levels of communication advantage small bussinesses have over big business.
Economies of scale are not just limited to manufacturing. They are very influential in the prices of: 1. Buying input resources, tools, products, and workers, 2. Logistics and transportation of any product, and 3. Customer aquisition. Its much easier to aquire a new customer when you are a household name
@@mitchells7634 i agree with you. but most of the time I found those advantages of big business apply in a "big business environment", like how socialist regimes prefer to maintain small amount of very big enterprises as these are easier to manage and keep loyal for them, big business prefer to work with less but bigger bodies of industries for the same reason. In a theoretically free market size has its benefits and i cant deny that, I just believe that today cooperation are bloated and the effective benefits we see today are way over proportions because of government regulation, intervention duo to "public financing".
Does not tackle problem of global monopolies. For example, John's main competitor buys his company and in time closes factories... And small new company still have to deal with regulatory obstacles and competitor with massive economy of scale.
Do not stop making these videos! I love them
The worst monopoly is the government's monopoly on force
@@mattcrosby2310 sure that is pure genius cloaked in a cape of ignorance. Well done you must do your overlords proud.
What is the sound betwixt your ears.
Go to Somalia, or Afganistan, there is no government monopoly of force
@@Kannot2023 also food natural resources and liberty so its a false comparision
@@mattcrosby2310 there is no need to counter. You are a government sheep who needs a shepherd i am a man of liberty who cares for myself.
It's really helpful and informative. Thank you!
Very well explained video. Thanks.
There's more business knowledge in these 7 mins than my entire 3 yrs of univ education.
What laws did standard oil use to create their monopoly? As far as i know they controlled all the trains to choke out all other competition.
Standard oil used the other major way of forming a monopoly/oligopoly, high barriers to entry. It takes a very massive investment to start even 1 oil field or refinery. Then you would also have to deal against economies of scale that the big oil producers already have in their favor.
@@mitchells7634 Funnily enough, I believe it took Teddy Roosevelt's government intervention to break it up. Hope the same could be done for apple, google and Amazon.
customers may pay higher prices, but at least they get to keep their high paying jobs.
it's well worth it.
The corporations can lower wages since they have no competition so the higher wages you are praising might not come to fruition.
@@reaganlecroy7773 not true, because they are competing with other employers. If company did that, no body would work there. High wages == high paying office jobs making 50 - 150k per year, which is already happening. contrast this to parts of the world, making pennies per day.
@@JohnSmith-kn4zd Actually corporations lower wages all the time, they just let the government do it for them through inflation. It's called wage stagnation.
I don't think the people at amazon would say the same thing. They've gotten quite the name for underpaying workers and such.
From Australia here... all I can think of is Australian banking companies... and food distribution companies... and construction companies... etc... frighteningly well made video.
Good one! Very clearly and well explained! Thanks! :)
Very well the explanation the video, thank you very much.
Another well reasoned and laudable video.
Amazon perfectly exemplifies this.
ad4721 Amazon isnt a monopoly
@@christiansoldier77 No but they are becoming one as they continually use their money to lobby government to strangle small business with legislation to do away with competition. This is how artificial monopolies are created.
@@105rogue Yes , they are using the government to become a big company which is bad but an organic monopoly is good
@@christiansoldier77 Organic monopolies are short lived due to fair competition. Using government as a weapon to bully competition is called corporatism. This is what most people fallaciously conflate with capitalism.
@@105rogue which part of amazon is this. it isnt their online retail or distribution. it isnt their cloud computing or server infrastrucure. so what is it. if you want to buy stuff, thers an infinite number of online retailers. if you want cloud computing theres a ton of domestic and international competitors too.
I'd just like to know what market they have effectively monopolized/cartelized.
Keep them coming!
thanks for the tutorial
Before I even watch this, I'm going to make an "educated guess" and note that corporations are charters given by governments. Because of this, corporations cannot obtain monopolies without the consent of the government which SHOULD be regulating them instead, and therefore monopolies are most commonly the result of government intervention into the markets. I'll also note that monopolies can also come into being where there is NO government regulation, but that this is usually the result of ruthless competition as opposed to a government decree of fiat.
EDIT: coming back to this post after watching the video, I can see that I was overestimating the intellectual capacity of its author, which engaged in a ton of handwaving and assumptions-as-given as though it were a reasonable argument.
What do I mean as an example of handwaving here? Right off the bat, the notion that John and his fellow shoe manufacturers "automatically" get what they want merely by lobbying for it. This is how they CAN get what they want - the elimination of competitors - but the passage of such laws has never been a given. John, in pushing for regulation "just because he is lazy" (as the video presents it), is gambling that he gets what he wants. Then we have John's strategy for eliminating domestic competition. He asserts that "bad shoes are a cause of various afflictions, which is not the case for quality shoes". The problem with that is this video started off by asserting John ISN'T the one making quality shoes anymore, as compared to all of his competitors - including domestic. To get around this, we get another handwaving routine which simply asserts that John's lobbying for a rigged licensing scheme is successful. Nonetheless, at the end of the "license scheme" segment, we are told that John's competitors would have to spend years getting to his level in order to earn a license (when we were previously told they are already there).
Moreover, none of this even creates a "monopoly", because John has to both walk back his ultimate goals and partner with his competitors... which the video openly admits at @6:00 by rephrasing the entire thing as being about an "oligopoly". Which, not incidentally, has its limits thanks to anti-trust legislation, demonstrating that the consumers dismissed by this video from the equation early on do in fact have some level of clout in the system. Naturally, I expect someone to say "but this is a fictional nation and not at all the United States or any allegorical reference to same" in which case my response would be "then the entire argument is a bad fanfic, complete with Gary Stus in the form of John and his cohorts".
None of the outcomes presented are givens, but this video never suggests otherwise. Do barriers to entry in a given market exist? Yes. Are they artificially created by the dominant corporations in those markets? In some cases, yes. But who needs such silly nuances when you can just pile together a bunch of allegations and assumptions that this ALWAYS happens, creating a tapestry of half-fictions which few people have the time or energy to bother unraveling?
It's not fanfic, it's a 'suppose this is true' situation. Pretty sure we all know this isn't gonna happen in reality.
Great video!
thank for video..
Fascinating, in trying to keep foreign competition out, It's hard not to hinder domestic competition in the process as well.
This is demonstratably not how most monopolies are created. They are mostly formed by mergers and acquisitions. This happens without help from the state. Once formed economies of scale and network effects prevent new competitors.
Its a combination of all these factors
I'm glad I have notifications on for this channel
About 05:00 f: _Shoe sell without the certificate would be forbidden._
This is not even necessary. You can also try to convince the customers by comparative advertising that buying shoes from a non-certified shoe producer or seller is likely to receive a bad product since only the certificate guarantees quality.
Customers usually do organize themselves though, their lobbying power varies significantly from country to country. Sometimes quality regulations are necessary, and it is self-explanatory ofc. that producers shouldn't be the only ones having a say in them and that start-Ups deserve lighter taxes.
TIK sent me.
Top notched👍🏻
The threat of a monopoly is often used by proponents of government intervention to justify a more active role of the state within the economy. This video shows in a fun and understandable way, how monopolies are not a market failure. Instead they are a direct result of the state.
@EconClips Will check it out.
Alex, this was NOT our account. This was fake account, and we have nothing to do with it. Please be careful. We do not advertise anything in the comments.
@@EconClips I know...but thanks anyway.
Well done.
Please make a video on why we need to get rid of child labor regulations. I’m sick of these kids of mine sitting around playing video games all day!
Great video
The best channel
Should be titled “How to build an artificial monopoly?”
A true monopoly is one of three things:
A vertical combination: the company owns a share of the means of production _and_ the means of distribution of a good or service. The Supreme Court ruled this to be an unfair business practice in the case of movie production companies which also owned the cinemas back in the day.
A horizontal combination: the company owns either the production or the distribution of a good or service and has little to no significant competition.
A combination combination: the company owns both the means of production _and_ the means of distribution of a good or service and has little to no significant competition in either.
When the government tries to regulate monopolies, it often results in trading true organic monopolies for forced artificial monopolies.
"Having no significant competition in the market"
The ONLY way to achieve that is artificially through government legislation. A free market will always provide sufficient competition wherever there is potential for profit. Unfortunately with American Corporatism, companies just bribe legislators to legislate their competition out of the market. They remove the threat of competition by making it illegal or extremely difficult to compete.
great video
Interested to see how to deal with these same monopolies as they push export of their favorable and subsidized positions to the same countries that they are blocking in the first place...🤔
Some tariffs are good though. For example, right now all our manufacturing is in China which will really suck when we go to war with them.
@@mattcrosby2310 Well yeah, the F/A-18 Super Hornet is a versatile aircraft which remains effective in typical aircraft combat scenarios despite its age. 😉
I would argue that even the monopoly's employees would likely have been better off in the event of a free market "forcing" them out of their jobs. With a lower overall cost of shoes, the market has greater effective purchasing power, thus presenting further opportunity for other businesses to produce goods. Those other businesses would then need more employees - a demand satisfied by the freshly laid off former employees of the shoe factory and shop.
With the experience gained working for someone else, when a barrier to entry in a particular sector is still negligible, there's very little stopping the former employees from starting their own factory, and perhaps a retail chain, to supply shoes of comparable quality and at competitive prices to the market.
So really, the only ones who gain from a monopoly are the ones who own it. Everyone else loses. Just like a pyramid scheme or MLM.
Sir, I got a question. Let's reimagine the scenario from 0:24. Let's take that instead of getting lazy, John worked hard and kept innovating. But as John has a much bigger farm and much larger customer base, 1) he has way more resources to invest on RnD 2) a much stronger supply chain to reach customers, 3) way bigger ad budget to reach everyone's mind 4) while also keeping profit margin low, 5) and allow him much wider error margin.
Now if a new entrepreneur wants to challenge John, he either has to match his quality, his supply chain and his ad budget (which are impossible without huge fund and experience) or sell his products with even lower profit, possibly to low income customers thus turning into a niche product. Even without govt. how likely a new competitor is to overcome all these?
With govt. as his accomplice, John has a much straightforward path to monopoly. But isn't monopoly/oligopoly kinda inevitable, albeit at slower pace, even without govt.?
doesn't matter, he can win some customers with prices and fashion offer. Yea i know this shoe will not last me years but it's great for the next party or a field trip. Eventually he can invest in his company and increase quality, basically doing the same thing as John have done at the beginning.
@@Iroks OK. But with his army of fashion designers, John can invent ten more impressive fashion and sell them with lower price - as large scale production results in lower cost/unit and given John's sales volume, he doesn't need large margin anyway. He can even open a separate chip product division to specifically crush the new competitor.
But if the new competitor is that innovative, then John will just buy the new company long before it becomes anything substantial. Still no govt. and still monopoly.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 If John pleases the customer, why should he not dominate the market? It is only a monopoly that allows him to dominate without pleasing the customer. If one company is so much better than its competitors that customers overwhelmingly choose that company, that is an honest success, achieved without compulsion. But if that company slackens standards or raises prices, then customers will go to other competitors, and new competitors will arise.
That is the problem of monopolies, that they restrict consumer choice through regulations that are unresponsive to market demands.
@@shorewall If John pleases the customer? Is buying out all your competitors "pleasing the customer"? Is using your leverage in one product to drive out a quality competitor in another product qualifies as "pleasing the customer"? Tell me, is it still "pleasing the customer" when u r using superior Ad budget to make sure ur competitor gets as less media attention as possible? Or what about threatening the stores that u'll withdraw your products if they also sell your competitor's ones? How much "pleasing the customer" is that?
This last point is pretty common, so I'll choose an example. In the 90s Microsoft threatened every computer manufacturer to stop Windows support if they put Netscape and other Microsoft competitor's product. Many of these products were superior to Microsoft's own. I still remember what a piece of shit IE was compared to Navigator. Still Microsoft drove out Netscape with their OS monopoly - no govt. just by market power. Tell me how much of that was "pleasing the customer"?
Surprisingly it's the "bad old government" that stomped Microsoft for its anti-competitive behavior. Without this suppression of Microsoft, the next gen big IT businesses: Google, Amazon etc might never become this successful. Of course Google, Amazon and others are doing the same now without facing any consequence.
Good vid! Thanks, and remember "its for the kids sake!" LOL
There’s an interesting anecdote in the third book of the Hitchhikers Guide trilogy about shoe sales overwhelming a planetary economy
But what about monopolies tied to a resource, such as alcoa, debeers, or local monopolies such as a city's water supply? Isnt it possible to create natural monopolies this way, without govt interference?
If those who run them are free of corruption.
This explains why the USA does not have the the same high speed trains found in Japan and China
K, the major issue is the example, shoes. Medicine, explosives, financial instruments, poisons, vehicles on public roads, products with proven deficiencies and skilled labor have all needed regulations in large societies because the free market does not correct low occurrence or ignored anomalies, See DDT, leaded gasoline and paint for examples.or credit default swaps as examples. Your premise is somewhat correct but all simplistic thinking is.
So, monopolies are a product of the State?
Yeah, just look at Lobbyists or the anti-competition.
Heck, Amazon wanted a 11$ minimum wage because that would harm their competition but wouldn’t harm them as that already was their pay.
if we use the political definition of a monopoly instead of the economic definition, that is, any instance where one business is more successful than the competitors in it's market, regardless of if there are alternative resources from different markets as opposed to a system that can artificially reduce competition, then there is one way to become a monopoly without a reliance on the state. just do what blockbuster did when the rest of the market was innovating into virtual spaces, and you'll have complete market dominance for as long as that market still exists. also, while nowhere near as effective at creating a monopoly as the first, if you innovate an entirely new market, such as Netflix did, you can gain a significant market advantage for as long as it takes before you start having to lobby the government to prevent competition from arising.
@@davidlewis6728 so... should other rental services be held back because they’re more successful than BlockBuster?
What if a person is more successful than another?
Yes if you’re the first to serve people in a better way you’ll get a audience for as long as they care.
Much more hire people who care for their work, should we punish those who do a. Good job- or those who hire people who do good jobs in favor of those who hire poorly?
Keep in mind this doesn’t prevent them from going to competition.
Should we do what the Nazis did and give everyone the debt that others have to pay?
‘Bruh you gotta support your fellow man, you gotta pay into the collective debt, it’s better than keeping yourself afloat’
If innovation is to be punishment or attacked... Can we blame the innovators if we never get any innovation?
@@silent_stalker3687 i was agreeing with you. the political definition of monopoly is what is used in the anti-Sherman laws, which create more monopolies than they bust. by that definition, any effective market tactic that disrupts the status quo is seen as monopolistic, which is exactly why politicians love it. economists define monopolies not by market dominance, but by market entry. if 100% of a market is owned by blockbuster, but blockbuster does nothing to decrease market entry, blockbuster is not a monopoly according to the economists, but it is according to the state, which loves to swoop in just before those businesses file bankruptcy in order to make it appear that the state is necessary to prevent the market from monopolizing everything. it is true that innovation can have a temporarily monopolistic effect for new markets that cost a lot to enter, but those costs would naturally go down, and there is no way to prevent that without the state. actually, the temporary monopolistic effect is one of the many incentives that give free markets the highest amount of innovative out of any known system. the costs or research or replication are their own copy-right laws, if you recall that the only reason copyright was justified initially was because people of the past were worried that not having protections over ideas would decrease innovation, which in and of itself is probably not true, but still, costs of research and replication serve the same function without the possibility of overstepping into intellectual-monopolization that has plagued the internet for too long, resulting in most, if not all of the major problems we are having with places like google, twitter, or what not, who are all monopolies in the sense that they reduce competition, but not always in the sense that they own the whole market.
Not exactly. They are more like accomplice in crime. Make some study about "concentration of capital" if u really want to understand this.
Cool! This is like PragerU. Back to Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics".
What if there is price dumping though? USA does this with food.
John's potential competitors went from thinking of starting a business, to working under john is better
Wkwkwkk
Good
Wow, deregulation ideologists are true believers. Their faith in good will is so strong they completely disregard human factor in the whole system.
What human factor? I can see only numbers.
@@kondoros1 Exactly. What about how would "deregulated" market be preserved? In reality it slides into monopoly just because strong enterpreneurs are willing to preserve their position. Only power that can stop them is a strong state regulating institution, subject to political influence of different interest groups (including big bussiness). So there is no good option.
Basically put up high barriers to entry.
Protectionism and regulations are a misnomer that allow people to fall for the state's monopolization of the economy. The old error that "the state is us."
2:38 About import tariffs... or even import bans... It's not always simply about "job saving" or "unfair competitive advantage". What about foreign countries that use slavery to manufacture the goods they're selling us? What about foreign countries that want to and can harm our country, by, for example, putting backdoors inside the computers they're selling us? Banning imports from these countries limits the free market and competition, but there are some things in life that are more important. Of course, the best would be if consumers could decide by themselves to not buy products made from slavery and not buy products that can harm them. But sadly, consumers tend to buy the cheapest products without caring to get informed about how it was made or what's in it. Do you disagree?
We agree. Some things are more important than efficiency in economy, but it was not the case in our video example:)
@@EconClips
Fair enough. x)
Thank you for the reply. :)
How do Apple fit in this ?
Do not expect someone to prove his monopoly theory by something else then fictional company in fictional country.
It doesn't. This example is very limited in real world application. Most monopolies form through economics of scale. By crushing and buying out competition.
Why does this shoe company sound exactly like OpenAI?
why you don't discuss Standard oil monopoly. That one wasn't encouraged by the US government.
Well, monopolies wouldn't exist without the driving force of maximizing your profits. Because behind every monopoly there is a capitalist who is just maximizing its profits in the most efficient way for him (not for society). And that my friends is capitalism 101.
"Well monopolies wouldn't exist without human nature"
Fixed it for you
TiK sent me here
When are you going to upload a video on free market healthcare?
TIK recommend watching this video, so here I am to watch and subscribe
I am sorry, but I'm not satified with the way you presented this topic.
First, pleas provide citations. I'd love to now, where you got your infaormation from to be able to asess myself if your claims are solid.
Second the way you described is surely not the only way monopolys can form. E.g. I can't find a way to apply the shown logic to the cases of the Standard Oil Company, Microsoft or De Beers (diamonds, trading and production).
To elaborate my point further:
Standard oil managed to propel itself into monopoly through economics of scale as well as combining logistics and production in one company to price competitors out of the market and where they achieved that, they jacked up the prices.
Microsoft produced one! (for it's time) verry sucessful operating system, wich, as well as it's sucessors are fundamentaly incompatabile to other operating systems. Thus making it economically viable, for all other software producers to support the most popular OS and none other. And no, Apple is not a viable counter argument, as they didn't compete with microsoft in the same market. One is selling software and the other one is selling a complete digital service.
And the owner of De Beers had some capital, bought his way to a majority and then again leveraged economics of scale, to push all competitors out of the market.
All there three have in comon, that it took state intervention to brak that monopoly or in the case of microsoft, due to existing and looming legislation prevent a total exploitation of said monopoly.
Third, please clearly label theies as such and provide ideas on how to falsify them.
Fourth, I find the title misleading. The title suggests, that you'll talk about how monopolies form, implying, that you'll either talk about the basics/abstract form of the concept or at least how natural monopolies forn. Instead you talk about a specific case of unnatural monopoly. Wich in turn makes you more susceptable to being critizied of having an anti legislative agenda.
I'd love to read your counter arguments!
PS: here on TIKs recommendation btw.
If you want to understand the groundwork beyond the abundance of common sense in this video, read up on your Austrian economics. AE is basically the only econ school that doesn't run on wishful thinking and politics instead of science.
Isn't this more of a union? I thought a monopoly was more of a control of all aspects of production.
Funny how school doesnt mention any of this
Ok that is nice story. How are they actually created? Capitalist gets a hold of a specific asset that has properties that make it easy to become a monopoly, either because its a unequally distributed natural resource, rare asset such as specific geographic location itself. This is just an example. Then suggesting that all monopolies are create by government regulation. When its the government that makes capitalism even possible, not to mention that you are slightly suggesting that license for health protection are all fake and poisons don't exists.
Harley-Davidson comes to mind
And then the government breaks him apart and half of his business is bought by Vanguard
Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, ABC....all banking...the EU etc etc. Once you see it you cannot deny it.
Some things missing. One important one, is that big businesses can arrange tax breaks to “bring jobs” into local, state, and national areas. They can do this separately for headquarters, production facilities, and distribution facilities. Additionally, they can lobby for overpriced government contracts to fill government needs in various areas. Another important monopoly feature is pursuing exclusivity. This is approached by obtaining ownership of infrastructure(railways) or purchasing the ability to have merch sold in supermarkets/stores. Another is to buy out competition through purchasing businesses and/or intellectual property rights(patents). The last but not least method, invoking temporary drops in prices resulting in a profit deficit in order to seize market shares from competition who don’t have the funds to accept profit deficits.
And that's how Al Bundy's biggest dream looks like. Thanks for the film.
Sounds like Amazon
I finally get it. Now, what to do with this information mwahaha
Tik sent me here..
You forgot the corporations "Oligarchs" moving to 3rd world nations, where they don't have the cost of minimum wages, health and safety codes, child labor laws, environmental restraints or excessive work hour restraints. You forgot their last move that did hurt the American work force. Not all tariffs are bad, if the free market is to work on an even playing field. Free trade works both ways..
So it's always thanks to the state then..
Plot twist
After killing off his competitors John won. John is Jeff Bezos
The other losers are the potential employees of the competition companies that don't get jobs that can't be created. The unseen. It also destroys initiatives for employees in monopoly companies to leave and start their own companies.
John is a manlet
Stick to tanks. But is this really the case?
this video does not describe monoplies at least in the modern sense, this video is describing trade protectionism, he talks about a "quality product", no monoply is concerned with quality, also modern monopolies rely on foriegn products & their labour....they just dont want to pay anything for them, so they are anti tariffs.
the world of monopolies has moved on...this video would have been correct fro the 1960's, now it's outdated claptrap for those with low iq, monoplies now are what we call "globalisation", like one ring to rule them all, to quote a famous book ;)
so how captlisam becomes comnisam
Physicians, hair dressers, attorneys.....
The common good lobbying method is so toxic. God i cant stand arrogant ceo's and weak politicians.
All this presumes that somehow in a democracy where you can buy off politicians this can be prevented. The fact is that monopolies are a natural consquence of capitalism in a democracy. Only extremely vigorous political action can counter this which almost never occurs. Sorry to disapoint the Libertarians.
Mafia-poly!
Free market exists. In your dreams.
Nowadays you don't need a logical reason to pass new legislation, money solves more problems for you than reason.
It's a dog-eat-dog world...
Actually this kind of monopoly happens in socialist countries, where the government have the maximum power these things happens.
Workers lose as well. No competition means, no incentive to keep experienced workers. No incentive to pay better. Higher prices lower volume, which leads to..firing DUH! if you're not moving as much volume you don't need all those experienced expensive workers. you fire them and keep less experienced people. Its not like you customers can go elsewhere. Even if your quality drops significantly, you wont lose customers.
so..quality drops. competition? what competition? You buy shares in you associates business, making money from their shales as well. At some point you consolidate. You and your associates form a corporation, pick an employ as the CEO and you retire. You are not responsible for the running of the business anymore, just as long as your dividends don't fall..you don't care what happens.
Congratulations! You crated a soulless exploitative mechanism that, puts out substandard products , pays less than market value for work at inhumane conditions, while its in bed with the government. Your business ,is part of the "public sector"now. Unofficially of course but, all those rules and regulations that ensure your monopoly.. you do what the government wants or ..they can go away.
Congats ! You're in politics now. Politicians call the tune, you dance like a good little puppet.
I know, doesn't seem that way to you, does it? Lets try an experiment. You support something the government doesn't like. say..fund a politician that talks about justice and free markets. Send a couple of hundred thousand their way. See what happens, puppet.
Poor little puppet! Suddenly.. your political friends go away, the press is all in your private life..your stock takes a dive. Sorry puppet i feel for you but, it was your choice.
Freedom, includes the freedom to fuck up millions of lives for decades. But, you never had freedom puppet, just some liberties.
Was it all worth it?
The Ontario marijuana cabal
W
Came from TIK
TIK sent me
Short answer: the government
amogus
Sus! 😳
Since my high school day's I've had the unpopular notion that monopolies can only exist by force--almost always by government force.