Hacker News Reader

Comment by nanny | Hacker News Reader

Are you trying to say that because a company can disappear overnight, it isn't currently a monopoly? Because I don't think that makes any sense.

View on HN

The danger of a monopoly is supposed to be that it can crush all competition, and stay a monopoly forever.

If monopolies can routinely be outcompeted, then what is there to be concerned about with them?

The danger of a monopoly lies in its ability to exploit a market, not in its longevity.

Markets can change in ways that destroy monopolies. For example, if in 1900 you had a monopoly on horse-drawn carriages, that wouldn't have prevented you from being put out of business by the advent of the automobile.

You know that's a good point. Thanks!

I think the distinction is between a monopoly disappearing because the market it owns disappears, or because it gets outcompeted in it.

I'm saying that its true that some are monopolies, but none really stay that way for long, and so its completely overrated to worry about. It's a similar talking point to how we are in an "AI bubble", good for clicks on an article.

Look at FB stock, it just dropped from 220 -> ~130, they saw almost half of their market cap wiped away in a few weeks. The monopoly idea is a narrative invented to stoke fear, outrage, and page clicks. It's a talking point for psuedo educated people.

Monopolies, whether ephemeral or eternal, are bad. Disappearance of a monopoly does not mean the data collected disappears nor does it repair the torn social fabric.

I entirely disagree. Monopolies discourage innovation and creativity. American companies do not operate in some bubble; we have to remain competitive with the outside world, with countries that would seek to erode our competitive advantage. Internal competition is a great way to ensure that we do not fall behind others.

I also don't think bringing up FB's stock price is relevant, not sure what your point is getting at there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com