Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[pErvinalia]

The subtle goalpost shit from "monopoly" to "monopolistic behaviour" is noted..

[Forty Two]

It's not a monopoly because it's neither an exclusive market participant (only 80% share) nor behaving monopolistically. Being dominant in a market is not being a monopoly, per se.

[Svartalf]

and white is the new black, double plus ungood.

[Forty Two]

42 seems to think that pure capitalism is a fair deal when it further from the truth. In pure capitalism it is dog eats dog which leads to monopolies which leads to high prices and exploitation of the work force or is that too advanced thinking?

This is not accurate. In the real world, free market capitalism defeats monopolies, it doesn't create them.

Absolute nonsense.

have to agree with pErvin, in an unrestricted market, powerful operator will pull their weight and work to maximise their market shares, leading ultimately to mono or at best oligo polies, and once a powerful actor is entrenched, no natural market force short of total obsolescence of its product/business model (like happened to kodak and argentic photography) will destroy that dominant position.

Every market participant uses their weight to maximize their market shares. That's what it means to be in a competitive market.

Having a dominant market participant is not the same as a monopoly.

[Forty Two]

and white is the new black, double plus ungood.

What are you talking about? Please explain what you're disagreeing with.

I was taken to task on any suggestion that anyone is, gasp, arguing against the merits of capitalism.... so, what are you arguing against?

[Svartalf]

It's not a monopoly because it's neither an exclusive market participant (only 80% share) nor behaving monopolistically. Being dominant in a market is not being a monopoly, per se.

Holding durably to 80% of a huge market IS monopolistic behavior, your either completely deluded, mendacious, or moving the goalposts.

[pErvinalia]

and white is the new black, double plus ungood.

Yeah. 80% isn't massive dominance. And nevermind the fact that it was specifically broken up by the EU for being monopolistic.

[Hermit]

In the real world, free market capitalism defeats monopolies, it doesn't create them.

On the contrary, capitalism concentrates manufacturing into ever diminishing numbers. You can't just start up a new production facility to compete with banks, cars, central processing units or whatever and hope to become a serious competitor. Plenty attempts have been made. None have succeeded. And don't bother citing Musk's Tesla. The massive amount of publicity does not hide the fact that there's no cattle to back up the hat. With their humongous financial resources Toyota, Ford and Volkswagen will pull the rug out from under Tesla's feet the moment it even hints at becoming a player, and with their crossholdings in stocks they only barely maintain the illusion that they compete against each other. Admittedly, their pantomime is a bit more convincing than that of the clowns playing for World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

[Scot Dutchy]

and white is the new black, double plus ungood.

Yeah. 80% isn't massive dominance. And nevermind the fact that it was specifically broken up by the EU for being monopolistic.

Which company would not give its high teeth to have 80% of the market? 42 does not even understand capitalism.

[rainbow]

It's not a monopoly because it's neither an exclusive market participant (only 80% share) nor behaving monopolistically. Being dominant in a market is not being a monopoly, per se.

Yes, so what?

It would be an oligopoly. It is still an unfree market, since the consumer choices are limited.

Do we have to explain everything to you?

[rainbow]

You're very difficult to talk to when you constantly spew nonsense like "do you actually believe the drivel you post?" I post complete thoughts, with support from leading economists, defining my terms and explaining what I'm talking about. You post quips and blurbs, making declarations and pretending to have established a point.

I'm simply concise. To the point. No pretense.

One cannot know from the observation that Microsoft has an 80 percent market share whether Microsoft is acting monopolistically or competitively, and it is altogether understandable that those who accuse Microsoft of being a monopolist also accuse it of being “brutally competitive.”

Do your pretend strawman opponents say this?
Gosh!

Most consumers that have MS, don't do so because the product is better, or cheaper in a competitive market. They buy it because they have to.
Not a free market by any stretch of the imagination.

[Scot Dutchy]

Once you buy into one major operating system you are caught. You cant say tomorrow I am going to change unless you buy another machine and that is not monopolistic? Apple in fact is even worse. You have no choice of make of machine. The same is true of Amazon. And these are not monopolies? They are in their niche. In a proper world you would be able to buy any machine fitted with a universal operating system. So where is the free market? Which is why I use Firefox as my browser as it is an open system. Linux would be an obvious choice but it is still to much work for me these days. I did live off the Microsoft tit when I was a programmer so I owe it something.

[Alan B]

Agreed, Rainbow. But MS is a poor example, 42.

I have just loaded the latest version of LibreOffice. It will not handle Excel Macros so I'm constrained to using MS.

[Alan B]

Yep, Scott. But I do have an Apple Mac (somewhere in the house!) running dual OS - Apple & Windoze. I'm not sure if you can do that with a PC.

[JimC]

Apple, eh Alan...

Welcome to the dark side!