[fzeroracer]

The large failure of your argument is that those competitors are not more actually more efficient. This is why large companies are harmful even before they reach the distinction of monopoly; although as an aside I see people here making arguments that monopolies cannot exist.

Uber for example is not more efficient than RideAustin, the local non-profit ridesharing alternative. What they do have however, is a large amount of funding behind them which allows them to artificially lower the true cost and choke out competitors. Once they've bled the competition dry, they can raise the prices again and benefit from full control over various parts of a market.

This is the same tactic that Walmart has used in order to destroy many local towns by severely undercutting local businesses into oblivion. We should consider this to be an objectively bad thing, considering if said sole company ends up leaving the area due to profitability reasons they leave the residents with nothing [1].

This is how the 'free market' works in practice. The largest companies with the most money don't actually compete on the same level as local companies and it would be naive to think that small bookstores vanishing is solely due to inefficiency.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happene...

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> Once they've bled the competition dry, they can raise the prices again and benefit from full control over various parts of a market.

A thing that HNers have been speculating will happen for years, but which has so far failed to materialize.

[fzeroracer]

Failed to materialize would be objectively wrong. I even gave you a direct example in the tactics that Walmart pulled in order to destroy local stores.

You can also look at how dreadful the situation is for ISPs in America.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

You did not provide any evidence that Walmart raised its prices after local competition diminished. Please do not say that you did when you did not.

ISPs are often a monopoly, and often a government sanctioned one. I'd not argue against an investigation into their practices.

[fzeroracer]

Walmart's tactics are extremely well-known and well-cited but if you're unable to even glance at the Wikipedia page: [1] [2] [3] [4].

You would have to be not arguing in good faith to somehow not be aware of all of the monopolistic and anti-consumer tactics Walmart has pulled, been accused of and has had to legally dealt with over the long period of time they've been active. So if you want to make any arguments about how the free market works, I think you should start by looking deeply at how Walmart is ran.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20051027020550/http://www.newrul...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20060820080242/http://www.harper...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/business/30pharmacy.html?...

[4] https://ilsr.org/walmart-settles-predatory-pricing-charge/

[ChrisLomont]

None of your links support your claim that "Once they've bled the competition dry, they can raise the prices again and benefit from full control over various parts of a market." Every one of them support that Walmart is selling goods cheaper than competitors who then file suit.

For example, your last link specifically states Walmart was selling things cheaper than their competitors, the competitors sued, and in the agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Walmart admitted no wrong doing and was not fined whatsoever.

If you're going to post links supporting your claim that "Once they've bled the competition dry, they can raise the prices again and benefit from full control over various parts of a market." don't post links with zero support for that. It's a waste of our time.