[nitwit005]

> Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition?

If people just like their product more, what's the problem? There's no point in punishing them for being cheaper or more liked than the competition.

[tannhaeuser]

Anti-trust regulation isn't about punishment. It's about maintaining fair market access in the best interest of a civil society, and having an economical system with currencies, civil law, courts, etc. work for most people rather than just very few. In fact, if a democracy doesn't push against monopolies, it would just become a farce.

[markdown]

There may or may not be a problem, but it's still a monopoly.

One way it could be a problem is that it makes it extremely difficult for new entrants to appear. If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?

[ucaetano]

> If Coca Cola pays for all the shelf-space in all the leading supermarkets, how is society ever going to experience my super-cola made from unicorn tears and sun-drops?

Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers.

Cola is just a flavor of soda, which is just a type of drink, and can be easily interchangeable with an enormous number of drinks: water, juices, teas, etc.

As long as Coke's actions are not stopping competition in that larger market with the result of harming consumers, why should anyone care?

[Vinnl]

> Who cares? Antitrust doesn't exists to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers.

Is that not exactly what that example is about? I, as a consumer, will not be able to experience their super-cola.

[ucaetano]

Again, who cares? Consumer protection isn't about letting you taste some weird cola. It is about price.

Read the Supreme Court's definition.

[Vinnl]

But even then: if coca cola can prevent competitors from emerging, that removes downwards price pressure for them, so prices rise?

[ucaetano]

It isn't if the can, it is if they do.

And it doesn't seem like they do, there is plenty of competition in the non-alcoholic drink space.

[smt88]

> As long as Coke's actions are not stopping competition in that larger market with the result of harming consumers, why should anyone care?

This makes sense as a theory, but in practice, monopolies never exist without abuse/harm. It's likely the only way to sell a single brand to wildly varying customers with different tastes.

[ucaetano]

But that isn't a monopoly.

Imagine Coca-Cola creates a new flavor, with a taste so unique that nobody else is able to replicate it.

Is that a monopoly? Is Coca-Cola abusing its power?

No, and no.

[smt88]

As others have pointed out, you just seem to be using a different definition than the rest of us are.

A single, unreplicated product is never considered a monopoly. A monopoly implies that customers don't have an alternative.

[ucaetano]

> As others have pointed out, you just seem to be using a different definition than the rest of us are.

The Supreme Court has defined market power as "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market,"(8) and monopoly power as "the power to control prices or exclude competition."

You can use whatever definition you want, doesn't make it right or useful. HN readers talking about economics is largely like economists talking about computer science.

[dageshi]

Google has a single unique flavour of search engine, it's very popular, it's not the only one but it's the one people prefer...

How is it any different?