So hear me out. If there’s a company that’s willing to invest in controlling everything, and is willing and able to handle it at a reasonable cost for the consumer, then it should be allowed. It’s not like it’s any different today anyway. You have these super corporations that own the smaller corporations that handle various industries. Take Johnson & Johnson for example. They 275 subsidiaries. Meaning that J&J get money for every new product that occurs in the subsidiaries. You don’t even know some of the things they’re involved with.
And stunning number for a company is Nestlé which has around 2000 subsidiaries. So what’s the point of anti monopoly laws anymore? They found a way, so why should they be allowed to hide who they own? The everyday Joe and Jane have already figured out that things aren’t the way they appear, so I think we’re on the cusp of a full truth era where subsidiaries are going to start being involved in monopolization. These companies skirted the truth for too long, and we as individual citizens should put focus on and shut down subsidiaries
Stunning. This is definitely an unpopular opinion. Very badly reasoned, but it is an opinion.
One question, do you think monopolies foster competition and progress?
Why are you trying to argue? What’s the point?
*posts an unpopular opinion*
*won’t answer a single question*
I’m not sure this is an argument in support of monopolies as much as a demonstration of how monopolies are allowed to thrive and harm consumers in spite of existing legislation.
You allow monopolization, then the fact that they run things anyway isn’t convoluted
I mean, I don’t get a say in it. By some very minor factor one may argue that I vote with my dollar, but there are so many mitigating factors with regards to the intentionality of that vote, such as pricing and availability. Furthermore, as you pointed out, the monopolies are obfuscated. Maybe I swear to never buy a Nestlé product, but I’m unaware of every one of their subsidiaries and I don’t keep track of their acquisitions.
Perhaps monopolies would be less egregious if the companies had the public good as their ultimate goal, but that will never happen as long as we have a society built around profit seeking.
Once the monopoly is in place, what’s protecting said “reasonable cost for the consumer”, exactly?
Absolutely not please read up on what economists have to say about monopolies, they are very harmful.
More harmful than the pay for rights platform that most media companies have now?
I don’t know what you’re referring to here.
Hah!
There’s just so much blind hope in trusting a monopoly to play nice. They exist specifically not to play nice. Nestle is an evil company with ties to child labor, and has been sued for price fixing. So they’re hardly an example of a ‘good’ monopoly.
Even if monopolies magically didn’t price gouge us, they’re a terrible idea from a strategic standpoint. You’re putting all your eggs in one basket. What happens when that company completely screws up? That entire industry is broken. Look at Boeing.
There are so many real world examples of why monopolies are an extremely bad idea that you’re either trolling or extremely misinformed.
Thank you, Ronald Reagan
Lol. If that’s the first thing you think about, then you have zero contribution to progress
Natural monopolies (water, gas, electricity, rail) either state owned or tightly state controlled - yes.
Otherwise - fuck, no.
And when they do (Microsoft anyone) they should be very tightly controlled to the extent of having the same responsibilities and transparency requirements as public authorities.
I’m not talking about natural resources
Natural monopolies have nothing to do with natural resources. They exist when the barrier to entering a specific market is fundamentally high enough that it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to enter the market and compete against an established player.
A couple of good examples would be utilities and ISPs.
I’m going to assume that no education in microeconomics have gone into this post. I’ve worked for monopoly and non-monopoly companies and, even without thinking about the very basic supply/demand graphs, I can tell you, pricing of the product is very different.
Here is s hint, price-point is very different for each. One will screw you over way more than the other one. Im not trying to sound snarky but please, honestly, educate yourself on the subject. Once a company reaches a monopoly status, price for consumer is very different beast than before.
The only monopolies I am somewhat okay with are natural ones. IE You invent an entirely new business that nobody else has thought of and, naturally, you’re the only one in that market.
Becoming a monopoly through anti-competitive business practices is never a good thing.
Are you arguing that imperfect anti-trust is worse than no anti-trust?
Usually anti-trust is based on proving market concentration and abuse of market power - so to prove a monopoly you have to show impaired consumer choice, and persistent supernormal profits / price fixing.
I don’t know if that’s true for these markets you’re talking about, in my country medicines are mostly generically prescribed with govt price regulation for most common medicines. That mediates the abuse of market power.
As for food I think there are usually alternatives. I suspect there are market power abuses going on but more subtle ones in the wholesale / middle market. Most nestle type stuff that i’m aware of has readily available cheap alternatives.
Monopolies are already allowed under patent of course - so I assume you’re not talking about that. Although I think patent extensions are maybe a problem that is at odds with anti-trust.
I’d be Interested to hear what the individual citizens can do to shut down monopolies though? If it’s as simple as “don’t buy their stuff” then it’s not really a monopoly; or, it’s a luxury in which case - meh, choose another passtime.
The spokesperson for Buy N’ Large. But your argument is more for transparency it seems. So hell yeah. Show your faces, you can’t hide behind a thousand names.
Monopolies are allowed. It’s only the ones that abuse their powers and hold on to their dominance through anti-competitive practices that are not.
Who owns the said monopoly?
US Treasury?
This isn’t supposed to be a place to argue unpopular opinions
i am trying to determine if opinion is in fact unpopular.
Considering it’s a thought that only i have for myself, yes. It’s unpopular. I’m not breaking any rules. I’m saying an opinion that I have about people on the internet because most people think they’re righteous, and shouldn’t be argued with. The irony is i posted this in a community that people are going to disagree with me because it makes them question their own actions, but those who agree with me are unpopular.
Considering that you’re supposed to upvote an unpopular opinion in this community, getting downvoted means that people either agree with what I’m saying or disagree with what I’m saying. One of the responses is very overly confident and self- righteous. The other is not, and just playing by the rules. If you argue with me, you prove my point. If you don’t argue with me, you prove my point. My goal was to highlight people like you who take as a way to get called out. Should probably re-evaluate your response to people
One of the responses is very overly confident and self- righteous.
You got that right. Unfortunately, it appears to be projection.
i am not following
That’s the original point
Edited:
Completely misunderstood the post
Nah. They can’t have obvious and consistent ownership of products or services. So they purchase companies that do the service that they want. It’s still potentially a monopoly. Just has extra steps. If monopolies are legalized, we at least have a better view of where products or services are coming from
