And they Don't last a long time in free market .Let's say a monopoly is created in the free market for a particular good. As a result, the producer earns higher profits than producers selling ordinary goods. Since this good generates higher profits, new entrepreneurs will enter the market to produce it, and investors will allocate more capital towards its production. Consequently, supply will increase, prices will decrease, and competition will intensify. This is why monopolies cannot last for long in a free market.Furthermore, if a producer establishes a monopoly through superior production methods, lower prices, and better quality that other producers cannot initially match, that monopoly will probably meet the same fate, as competing producers will quickly adopt those production methods.However, as long as such a monopoly exists, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Consumers are not suffering from the problems that monopolies are generally criticized for in the first place.
>>546143160I sure hope you're just pretending to be this retarded
>>546143160What do you know about monopolies? You work on a rice farm and in a call center
>>546143288I don't work
>>546143288His macroeconomics PhD dissertation defense was winning a game of monopoly.
>>546143160I think it's at least theoretically possible for monopolies to exist absent government protection but otherwise I agree.
Also, I support government protectionism for Peter Thiel (read Future Philosopher King),I am ready to make an exception for thiel. It would be really good if he were the delegate of a Yarvinite patch.> Peter Thiel is a deep reader of Strauss and Schmitt and studied under Girard.> Alex Karp earned a PhD in neoclassical social theory from Goethe University Frankfurt.
>>546143765wtf,my id changed for no reason.
>>546143362no it's not. a monopoly cannot exist without government destroying free market.or in other words: in a free market a monopoly cannot exist, it is impossible.
>>546143160>>546143819not true, network and bandwagon effect state the opposite>>546143315you dont know shit, eitherhonestly, quite impressive for a muzzie-jeet
>>546143819What if a particular natural resource exists only on land owned by a single person?
lol didn't read any of this but,>
>>546143859>not true, network and bandwagon effect state the oppositeyou can use this line of argument to force e.g. social media to open upfrom facebook, over to twitter, over to steamwhich is why theyd rather you not know and/or think about itbut it would be in the interests of the consumer, definitely
>>546143967>steamfor example, that you could use epic/ea/ubisoft gaming clients to talk to steam friends and vice-versaor force them to work together, i.e. make steam games be playable from ubisoft client or vice-versa, at no extra cost for the consumersorry gabenyou must know you cant keep getting away with itits been 20 years
>>546144058and thus creating actual competition among gaming clients/distributors, without them being able to rely on monopoly-promoting effects like the >>546143859>network and bandwagon effectits up to you, alternatives providers and gamerssteam would prefer to silence this debate straight from the get-go
>>546143859No.First of all, that effect just works as a factor, not the main reason. Most phenomena are the result of many factors. Just like if many forces work at the same point, the resultant force is the result of all of them, not just one. The network and bandwagon effects work as factors, not necessarily the most dominant factors. And they don't even apply to all goods, only to a few of them.Anyway, when something starts becoming popular and mass used, it mostly becomes that way because it offers more utility to consumers than other alternatives. But, again, it is the quality and particular features of the product that made it popular and mass used in the first place. And most of the time, it can't maintain its superiority over a long period of time, other producers start delivering it better. History shows us this, and that's how it usually happens in the long run.And again, anything becoming dominant in a sector due to these effects doesn't actually demonstrate anything inherently bad about it, which is what we started discussing monopolies for in the first place. People voluntarily choosing something over others when alternatives exist because it is more popular and used by many others isn't the same as people having no choice but to buy a good from a single producer.
bump
