[nickpp]

Goliaths were and will always be around. But as long as there is an unregulated, free market - there will always be startups competing. It’s not easy, but it’s doable through innovation and creativity. The Goliaths are always more conservative, slower and less agile.

[JohnFen]

In the absence of regulation, goliaths will inevitably become monopolies and startups have no real chance to compete. The best a startup could be is to hope to be bought by the goliath.

[nickpp]

How exactly will startups will have “no real chance to compete”? What is the mechanism that will stop them?

Unless prevented by governmental regulation or similar (like patents) startups move faster and are more innovative and creative. They are not the cheapest but competing on price is not a good idea for a startup anyway, and the monopoly cannot be the cheapest possible since that would diminish profits - then what would be the advantage to be a monopoly?

A monopolised market is ripe for disruption and VC are dying to fund startups who can claim a chunk of that market. Any startup bought out by a Goliath will fund another 10 in its stead.

I know zero cases of unbeatable monopolies in a free market. All monopolies had government support. Do you have any examples?

[JohnFen]

> How exactly will startups will have “no real chance to compete”? What is the mechanism that will stop them?

The established monopoly company will, either by strong-arming suppliers, service providers, and marketplaces into not doing business with the startup, or by just buying them.

At least, that's how it's traditionally been done.

[nickpp]

> strong-arming [...] into not doing business with the startup

Isn't that illegal already?! I don't see how extra regulation can change anything. Any company is liable to try anti-competitive behavior and that is why it's illegal, monopoly or not.

And even if the government fails to stop Goliath from doing illegal stuff, a free market will route around it. See how Microsoft/Intel - monopolies in the 90s got out-innovated and made irrelevant by pure market forces while the anti-trust government action merely delivered a slap on the wrist.

Free markets work. Unless we regulate them to discourage startups.

Example of highly regulated markets: health care, energy, transport, education, telecoms. The result? It's almost impossible to compete, prices are high and products crappy.

> or by just buying them

Thus funding 10 new startups in the field since it's now known that the Goliath is exiting newcomers. Gold rush for any VC!

[JohnFen]

> Isn't that illegal already?! I don't see how extra regulation can change anything

I'm not sure what you mean by "extra regulation" here. Yes, it is illegal, and that's an example of appropriate regulation. I had the impression you were arguing against regulation, though. I think I don't understand your stance here, so my responses may be off the mark.

> Free markets work.

They do, although they aren't a magic panacea. And a free market cannot exist in the absence of appropriate regulation.

> Unless we regulate them to discourage startups.

I agree. Appropriate regulation is not intended to discourage startups.

[nickpp]

Rule of law stays at the base of any civilized society. Contract law, antitrust, anti cartel and the like are necessary to simply establish the rules of the game. It is the government’s role to implement them, together with taxing externalities. Simple and clear. I am not contesting that. I am not an anarchist.

What I am against is crap like “don’t bundle a browser in your OS”, “you must have an USB-C port”, net neutrality, “censor your users”, “your cars must have backup cameras” and even “you’re too big so we’ll call you a monopoly and split you up” or “you’re a billionaire we should tax your wealth. These regulations (even if well intended) will always have unintended second order effects and a significant chilling effect on startups. Compliance costs add up and are much easier supported by incumbents. Startups are fragile and founders easily discouraged.

I want competition and startups and looking around us and at history it is clear to me that the less regulated (freer) a market is, the healthier it is. Just look at computing and the Cambrian explosion of hardware and software we enjoyed during the years governments were too surprised to wreck it.

Reversely, I look at heavily regulated markets (against, with good intentions, I am sure) and I see huge market failures. Take housing for example: countless rules, zonings and regulations - it takes years before you can even start building. The result? People are paying through the nose to live in places that are illegal to build today.

The free market mechanisms work and they are incredibly powerful. We should be extremely reluctant to mess with them every time we feel something is not quite right in the world and just a little regulation would fix it - the odds are we’ll do more bad than good. Free markets are after all the best wealth creation engine we know and we owe it the incredible abundance we are living in right now.

[gmerc]

That’s libertarian religious scripture that needs to be backed up by solid facts.

[seniorivn]

the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today, and the same way MS missed mobile market, Nokia failed with touchscreen smartphones, atnt and its parts failed to innovate, ibm lost and left pc/x86server etc, current giants are likely to loose. The only difference now is that the biggest competition today is from foreign companies that leads to them being able to get support of government and therefore compete not on the basis of merit, but in a political way.

[JohnFen]

> the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today

That's far from the only solid fact you need to know, though. You need to know the conditions and circumstances around it all.

[seniorivn]

well, there is an assumption, that the circumstances are a political/economical system which is the same one. But there is an argument to be made about deterioration of institutions

[NalNezumi]

And it's a huge assumption. To the level of "you can ignore friction" for middle school physics class.

You need to look no further back than the robber barons to see "tech" (yes they were tech, not in the modern sense but industrial) and how it required massive political mobilization to get rid off. It wasn't "free market" that did it, in matter of fact it perpetuated the monopolistic behavior.

We can cherry pick history all day. The point is that "only required argument is historic" is stupidity, and often requires assumptions, cherry picking and nitpicking

[nickpp]

> no further back than the robber barons

The fact that you have to dig back to the 19th century speaks volumes.

And if you knew your history, you'd know that, for example in the case of Standard Oil competition and free market already broke their monopoly before any government intervention.

And there are many other closer examples where free markets brought wealth and prosperity together with competition and innovation while turning away from them only brought poverty and authocracy.

My favorite example I actually lived through was the incredible success story of Eastern Europe after getting rid of communism. From cold and hunger to high-rises, iPhones, luxury cars and city breaks. All thanks to a minimally regulated free market.