|
|
|
|
|
|
by curious_fella
3704 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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