[otherme123]

Some people requires market to work 100% perfect, or else government regulations. For some reason, government regulations are allowed to fail miserably (e.g. 18th amendment).

The market solution doesn't have to be your desired solution. Here it seems that some people doesn't care HP practices, so market provides shitty HP practices. They have easy options (bare minimum: don't buy HP), but they actively avoid them, so the market allows and encourages it.

[louwrentius]

The incentives of capitalism are such that unless there are very strict regulations, it degenerates in what the game of monopoly tries to convey in a visceral manner. A few people will own everything at the cost of everybody else.

Because protection against monopolies is dead in USA, we see exactly this play out.

[otherme123]

Not true, and well known as not true for ages in the economic field. The primary source of monopolies are government regulations (e.g. patents, exclusive licenses, etc). In fact the words "monopoly" and "patent" started meaning "the government will allow this and only this business to do that thing, and will prosecute whoever tries to compete".

HP only have like 25% of the printer market. Realistic alternatives currently are: Brother, Epson, Kyocera, Ricoh and in some markets NEC. Anyone buying a HP today is asking for it.

[louwrentius]

> The primary source of monopolies are government regulations

This is beyond ridiculous, it's just bad-faith.

[LocalH]

The problem with the "economic field" is largely that it treats theory and practice as fungible.

[incrudible]

What monopoly? You just can buy a printer with refillable ink tanks from several competitors, but also from HP. Then you pay the real price for the printer and the printer heads that need to be replaced occasionally.