[curious_fella]

> All businesses rise and fall over time. The popular narrative that, unchecked by government, a business will eventually rise to absorb everything is not borne out by practice.

Interesting assertion, do you have any books/data to back that up?

[abtinf]

The entire history of economics backs this up. The only instances of long-lasting monopolies are the result of government coercion. The instability of large, profitable businesses has both a solid theoretical foundation and an unending abundance of empirical data.

If you ever think you have found a single instance of monopoly lasting any significant length of time, look deeper - with absolute certainty there is a government gun backing it up.

[akkartik]

"If you ever think you have found a single instance of monopoly lasting any significant length of time, look deeper - with absolute certainty there is a government gun backing it up."

But that caveat lets the horse out of the barn, since the gains made by monopolies can purchase lobbyists and thence the government gun. Disney Studios has been around 93 years at this point.

[culturestate]

What, precisely, does Disney have a monopoly on? Last I checked there were at least several major movie studios, TV stations, and animation houses doing very well for themselves independently of the mouse.

[akkartik]

Mickey Mouse.

Intellectual property is considered a monopoly assigned by the government.

My example aside, is it really so hard to believe that successful companies can influence regulation? Monopolies are exceptionally successful companies.

[gnaritas]

Irrelevant since it's a straw-man. It doesn't matter if monopolies self destruct over enough time, the point of regulation is to avoid them to begin with because they're not good for capitalism.

[curious_fella]

It does matter. Monopolies are not "good for capitalism" if they prevent honest competition from battling the monopoly for business. If, as argued above, monopolies naturally "self-destruct" in favor of newer, more ferocious competitors, then regulation isn't necessary.

[gnaritas]

> If, as argued above, monopolies naturally "self-destruct" in favor of newer, more ferocious competitors, then regulation isn't necessary.

Absolutely incorrect as it allows for the abusive monopoly to exist for an undetermined amount of time possibly preventing competition more than long enough to do harm. This argument is equivalent to saying all murders die eventually so there's no need to outlaw murder.

Just because something self destructs "eventually" is not sufficient reason to not regulate it and is certainly not a good argument against regulation.

edit replying to below:

> I'm curious what harm you accuse SO of. Keep in mind that SO dropped the price of kerosene by 70% and kept it down. reply

Why should I keep that in mind? Doing a good thing doesn't mean you didn't also do bad things so that's simply not a relevant fact in this discussion.

It is historical fact he used anti-competitive practices[1] to sabotage the competition, the harm caused was to those trying to compete with him and it's exactly the reason we now have anti-trust laws.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#cite_ref-31

[WalterBright]

I'm curious what harm you accuse SO of. Keep in mind that SO dropped the price of kerosene by 70% and kept it down.

[neaanopri]

I think that one modern example is "The Innovator's Dilemma".