This is not how the market likes to work. There has to be a demand and the free market forces will build a supply. Governments can help by reducing regulation and bureaucracy, reducing taxes.
Not in all cases it doesn't.
If the return on investment isn't there or if companies are unable to fulfil the demand then the market has failed. Recent example of this has been EVs where regulation needed to step in to force the market forward.
If there's no demand, there's no problem. Also there's no money to be made. If there's demand there will always be companies to supply that demand. Of course, it takes a time.
Politics shouldn't dictate to economy.
>Recent example of this has been EVs where regulation needed to step in to force the market forward
Then why should people be forced to use EVs instead of whatever they like? That is not freedom.
I want to walk around town without cameras tracking me. Can companies supply my demand?
I want PFAS and microplastics out of the evironment. Can companies supply my demand?
I want net-zero CO2 emissions in all the products I buy. Can companies supply my demand? How do I trust they are not green-washing? Do I depend on even more companies? How do I trust those companies?
Sure seems simpler to have the government enforce privacy and pollution laws.
> Politics shouldn't dictate to economy.
Which means you think William Wilberforce's most famous work was completely wrong.
> Then why should people be forced to use EVs instead of whatever they like?
You should consider how government-subsidized oil production and distribution has forced you to use fossil fuel cars instead of whatever you like.
You should consider even more how government-subsidized planning forces you to use a car in the first place, and often closed off alternative solutions like walking, bike, and mass transit.
Name a free market where there is an economy of scale and network effect, which does not tend towards monopoly or oligopoly.
More fundamentally, if (say) Germany wants to move all of its government operations off of US-based IT, should it wait until the market has provided a solution? Or should it do like all governments have always done, and change the marketplace?
Nor is this unique to governments. Some of my clients require me to agree to their ethical practices, like "no child labor." They are using their purchasing power to change the marketplace.
Why do the countries with higher taxes and government regulations and policies over health care have better overall health outcomes than those with lower taxes and regulations?
There is a demand for clean beaches. Where is the free market for pollution control?
Almost reason I can think of comes down to scaling or network effects.
I say "almost" because I've thought of a couple more:
- it's already a Microsoft shop and it's hard to change? Lock-in effect.
- you never get fired for choosing IBM, err, AWS? I don't have a name for this effect, though it seems related to scaling.
Note that "monopoly" does not mean there is only a single provider. "De Beers controlled 80% to 85% of rough diamond distribution and was considered a monopoly" during the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers
This is because I'm using the legal definition of monopoly, not the economics one. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
> In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises.
1. Invested massively. In the case of Microsoft and Google, ahead of demand.
2. Have lots of developers already familiar with their stacks, especially Microsoft via Windows and .NET which are mainstays of nearly all European non-tech businesses.
3. Indeed, have lots of "never get fired" effect; the word you're looking for is brand equity. Especially the case with non-technical execs already familiar with their consumer products, and it's often non-technical execs who make the decisions about which brand they're going with. Everyone knows MS Office and likes it, everyone knows Amazon and buys from it, everyone knows Google and searches with it. Their products work well, so their clouds must also work well. In government especially the decisions are always non technical so this matters a lot.
Monopoly does actually mean only a single provider: that's the definition and your Wikipedia link opens by stating exactly that in its first sentence. Sometimes the term is stretched or abused by governments. That happens because everyone across the political spectrum agrees to anti-trust laws in principle, and then the left can use them as a stick to beat companies with if only they can twist the definition of monopoly far enough. This so-called legal definition isn't a definition at all, it's a purely political construct which is why it includes ambiguous terms like significant, unfair, overly high etc.
Even using this non-definition though, cloud providers don't qualify. They're actually famous for not raising prices. Raising prices a lot on existing customers is a typical sign that a company has significant market power.
"Lots of developers already familiar with their stacks" is a network effect.
> Monopoly does actually mean only a single provider
Is a tomato a fruit?
I was very clear to give my definition of "monopoly", to include "oligarchy" for those who wanted to be picky, to point to how others describe De Beers as a "monopoly", consistent with my use, and to show how even the Wikipedia page on "monopoly" is not disagreeing with me.
You'll note that same Wikipedia page for "monopoly" lists De Beers and Standard Oil as monopolies, when they were not sole providers of diamonds or petroleum, respectively.
> They're actually famous for not raising prices.
Right. You are using Bork's 1970s influential re-orientation of monopoly power away from general anti-competitive behavior to focus only on "consumer welfare". I agree with Lina Khan (starting with "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox") and others, who argue that Bork's standard is too narrow.
Or, to use your terms, Bork's right-wing viewpoints twisted established law to allow abusive behavior by powerful companies, so long as consumer pricing was not affected. V.P. Vance likes Khan because he wants the right to use the stick to beat companies which don't support the right. This is only possible because all of the big tech companies already abuse their market power, because Bork gave them the freedom to do so.
> This so-called legal definition isn't a definition at all, it's a purely political construct
All laws are political constructs. What is "ownership"? Do you own the water which falls on the land you own? What is a "reasonable search"? What is "cruel and unusual punishment"?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43397653
Good law is precise and clear, so everyone knows how to follow it. The meaning of the word "ownership", to take your example, is precisely defined via legislation and case law.
Anti-trust law is neither precise nor clear which is why - and we are both in agreement on this point - that right now both left and right are happy to pick it up and use it to "beat companies" for political reasons. They can't do that with property law because property law is well defined.
The big advantage of the Bork formulation is exactly avoidance of this outcome. By requiring there to be actual evidence that harm was done, it hugely reduces the ability to abuse these laws for political ends and keeps them focused on behaviors that are actually detrimental to the market.
Like, if there are two pieces of public land, which meet at a corner, and two pieces of private land on either side of the corner, then are you trespassing on private land if you step from public land to public land across the corner?
I think all of the big IT companies deserve to be beat, broken up, and strict laws placed in future power. That's different than using the cudgel to only go after the ones which disagree with whoever is in power.
> for political reasons
My view is non-partisan. If Amazon were to become a worker-owned co-op tomorrow, infused by the spirit of Joe Hill, I would still want it broken up.
> They can't do that with property law because property law is well defined.
The US has some very big cudgels already.
The government can pass laws changing what property law means. The government has very broad power to seize land, and exercise eminent domain. The government can nationalize companies.
If the US decides to invade Canada and Microsoft turns off services to the US military, do you have any doubts that the US will nationalize Microsoft? I don't.
> evidence that harm was done
See, fundamentally we have different interpretation of market abuse. Bork's view is simple - only look at the effect on consumers.
That simplicity doesn't make it right. Antitrust laws are meant to encourage competition. The free market does not like competition.
The law is full of edge cases. That's why we have the courts.
Since there isn't a precise and clear definition of "cruel and unusual punishment", should we get rid of it?