[flagged]
They proved that the Free Market doesn't automatically provide functional competition, if you think about it, the Western-style free market is very keen on creating and maintaining monopolies, even cheating isn't going to help you here.
> The company laid down fibre because of what they saw as a potential competitor (municipal fibre).
The OP is about free market failures, not about competition. As another example, many people have pointed out that there is much more competition in China than in the US. Hope, this is enough for you to understand the difference.
The only place monopolies tend to emerge is heavily regulated areas that allow for regulatory capture (laying fiber is a great example of this).
To quote myself: "the Western-style free market is very keen on creating and maintaining monopolies"
Guess who's the highly influential investor, with strong connection to the WH who said the following:
"Competition is for losers".
This sums up pretty well what the free market is keen on.
Okay, totally meaningless, it didn’t prove anything.
No, actually laying fiber is a great example of the problem with a free market.
It's not regulations that make it hard to put down fiber, it's property rights. Without some sort of regulation or government action (such as eminent domain) it's impossible to build out modern infrastructure. There will always be some person with property right in the way of a cable line. You can beg and plead with them to let you bury a line (including pointing out that it's very temporary disruption of soil) and they can still just say no.
It isn't unusual for a phone company that's looking at a difficult land owner to say "ok, screw it, we'll just have to take a 90 mile detour because the guy that owns that 500 yard strip won't let us bury here". Imagine how much harder that is if the land owner is related to or owns stock in a competitor company.
We have been able to lay as much fiber as we have in the US because there's a bunch of regulations around right of way that ultimately grants burying rights near public roads to utilities companies like ISPs. Without those, it'd be almost impossible.
Once you get down to the level of property rights, the only alternative left is total might-makes-right anarchy.
Property rights are some of the earliest and most basic things protected by governments—indeed, to a large extent they precede governments, being protected with force by the people who wish to assert them.
Wipe out all regulations, all laws, all property rights, and try to run fiber across someone's property without their permission, and they're likely to come out with a shotgun and start shooting everyone digging. Follow the steps logically from that point, and you'll fairly quickly start reinventing governments and regulations.
That means if you are a new comer, you have to employ significant military strength to guard and defend your line going in. Otherwise, existing powers will simply stomp it out as soon as they get a whiff that someone is trying to compete with them. That, or they'll simply take your line by force.
That is probably the most difficult form of entry because it requires someone to be independently very wealthy before they could dream of putting in new infrastructure and it requires them to enforce their own property rights since there's no government doing that.
Are you an anarco-communist by chance? That's about the only group I'm aware of that would advocate for the complete elimination of property rights, but they also usually don't advocate for a "free market".
> The telecommunications industry in China is dominated by three state-run businesses: China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile.
A little slippery to bring China into the telecom free market discussion and contrast it with “Western-style” while failing to mention the structure of its telecom industry.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_industry_in...
Untrue - in the context of the OP, telecom is just an example. Look at the title.
> The telecommunications industry in China is dominated by three state-run businesses: China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile.
"More competition" doesn't mean "no monopolization". Communications are political everywhere, I'd be surprised if they were a subject of less control in China than in the US. However, even on Amazon and even with tariffs, there's more competition between Chinese sellers than between sellers of other origins.
Not true and oversimplification. Some markets tend toward monopolies, but you rarely will get one unless enforced/protected by a state. If you navigate through history, you will find almost exclusively monopolies on salt extraction, coal mining oligopolies (with the help of worker unions), silk... Curiously, the Standard Oil was accused of being a monopoly, and the proof was they were offering lower prices than anyone thanks to their scale, destroying the competence. The reward for offering low prices was disolving the company (notice that they never reached the hypothetical price hike stage).
It is also common practice for the state to declare something "public utility" or "natural monopoly", on things like snail mail distribution, telephone or TV, that were clearly not a natural monopoly and could be offered by free market. Here fall a lot of ISPs, that get a "public utility" status and only then can abuse that monopolistic position with the help of the state.
A lot of free market sectors tend to atomization: think hair or nail saloons, masonry, plumbers, carpenters... if you know someone in the sector, it seems that as soon as they get a size over 5 or 6 people, two of them always decide to split and go by themselves.
It's exactly how OP describes it. It's unproductive for multiple companies to maintain disconnected, parallel telephone infrastructures. The most productive use of resources is to lay more wires to more houses, not to lay more wires to places which have already been wired up for telephone service by somebody else. That creates a monopoly, and the government should step in.
With modern tech, you can mandate local-loop unbundling and fix some of this, but that wasn't possible with 1970s (and earlier) phone infrastructure.
Eventually the municipality renewed the previous contract with the same previous company, a contract that forbids other companies from entering the city center, and we went back to the worse service we were used to. Of course they were a lot of narratives: they were trying to capture the market, drive competence away and then hike the prices; they were bounded to bankrupcy at such prices; that many buses were damaging the roads, and others. But the reality was that for a brief time we had the best bus service in the modern world.
As for telephone wires, we went through some years, between copper-IDSN and fiber (the DSL bridge) that a lot of companies found a way to make it profitable to put new copper cable parallel to what it already existed. The only thing the municipality did was to make it mandatory that the first to install it must use a wider-than-needed conduct (a solution much less disruptive than giving a natural monopoly, latest shown by new small companies born everywhere), so if a company wanted to add more cable later could use the same tubing. Predictions about company A blocking their tubing showed false, as other companies could retaliate in other places. No second tubing was allowed until the first tube was full, this was the only state intervention in the issue. The same tubes have now the optic fiber.
I am not fully anti-state, but there are undeniable overreaching everywhere, and a lot of zealots of intervention that are itching to issue mandates and interfere with everything, and then fix what fails with more interventions.
Hmm. Seems the tool is working as expected.
They called in a favor that put pressure on the company from public expectations.
The details of how the "public pressure" came to be don't matter, because the monopoly didn't know about that. All they knew was there was a potential competitor, so they behaved according to that information. That's how it works.
> Sony heard about Nintendo partnering up with Philips for the SNES CD expansion, so Sony made their own console
This is completely inaccurate in every way possible. You even have the order of events backwards (Nintendo and Sony partnered first). There is in no way in which even the most charitable interpretation of this statement could bear out. Just about the only correct part is that you have some (but not all!) of the relevant parties involved.
If you're wrong about such a well documented, cut and dry matter of historical record, then what else are you wrong about? :)
Then you beg the question with a bit of a straw man fallacy thrown in.
Correct. It is extremely false. And it's an extremely well documented event, as well.
> Then you beg the question with a bit of a straw man fallacy thrown in.
I expressed my opinion. I did not misrepresent that person's argument (i didn't represent it at all). As for begging the question, well, I'm not sure what you're referring to, unless you mean the intensely cut and dry sequence of historical events? In which case... well, they're so unaligned with reality that it's comical.
Imagine how that would actually play out if you were right. (You’re not)
> one day, one of the municipal counselors just called up a friend who worked for a fiber laying company and asked them for a favor: put out a press release saying that they were “investigating” laying an undersea fiber to power a municipal fiber network on the little island.
It can be two things, anyways. You can utilize fraud to manage your competitors expectations. CEOs lie constantly about the state their products are in, in order to drum up more sales.
It has absolutely zero requirement to be beneficial to the public in order to be a competitive marketplace. They're also competing to make as much profit as possible, which has effectively zero benefit for the public.
The end result is plenty of cheap stuff for people to buy. It's why free markets have full supermarkets and socialist markets have long lines.
Take the free market in software, for example. My entire software stack on my linux box cost me $0.
That's constrained by the Law of Supply and Demand.
> "Companies optimize to make as much money as possible, which is why there is cheap stuff" does not logically follow.
Standard Oil gained great profits by reducing the price of kerosene by 70%.
Law of supply and demand works in the really free market, when providers are essentially infinitesimal and are not able to exert their will upon consumers. If a single provider is capable of significantly affecting the prices and supply of the whole market, it can bend law of supply and demand.
>Standard Oil gained great profits by reducing the price of kerosene by 70%. They (I suppose, don't know for sure) had plenty of margin for that, and as price-demand relation is not linear, increase of volume was larger than margin reduction. That is often not the case, and race to (quality) bottom and shrinkflation happens.
> race to (quality) bottom
When people aren't willing to pay for quality, there's no point in increasing the costs for more quality.
10 people are willing to pay $2
5 people are willing to pay $3
1 person is willing to pay $4
and no one is able or willing to pay more than $4
So this would be the demand curve.
Now, let's do the supply curve. Keep it simple and assume a constant cost of production equal to $1 per unit.
The question is, if you are a greedy corporation, then how much should you charge to maximize your profits?
You should charge $2.
At that price, you will make $10 selling to the poors, $5 selling to the middle, and $1 selling to the rich. $16 bucks in profit for the greedy corporation.
If you charged $3, you would make $10 in profit selling to the middle, and $2 in profit selling to the rich, for only $12 in profit.
12 < 16. The greedy monopoly prefers $16 in profit to $12 in profit. That's why it lowers prices.
If you charged $4, you would make only $3 in profit.
3 < 16
In other words, it is profit maximization + law of demand + law of one price that drives down prices in the face of a demand curve.
People get this all wrong, they think that it requires perfect competition or some set of unobtainable market assumptions to make stuff affordable, it does not. It's just the law of demand (charge more and you get fewer customers) plus the law of one price (everyone pays the same amount).
This is why things like government subsidies to the poor to help them buy stuff actually drives prices up. It's why businesses wage an eternal war to be able to price discriminate. Health care, for example, would be much more affordable if hospitals had to post their prices and could not charge different rates to different people based on what they could squeeze from their insurance or based on how much money they had. It's why programs to help the poor by giving them more cash to buy stuff end up making things unaffordable for everyone else. It's why section 8 rental subsidies drive up rents. It's why during the covid subsidies, the new car price index went up from 147 to 188, but after the imposition of tariffs, it didn't change at all. So much of the world is explained just by some simple math, the law of one price, and the law of demand.
Because the companies are already charging the most to maximize their profits. They are not charities. Whenever a business says "if I have to pay this extra tax, it will just drive up prices", then ask them "Are you a charity? If you could charge more, then why aren't you charging more now? If you can't charge more now, why do you think you will be able to charge more tomorrow?"
Now, I'm not saying that there is no relationship between costs and prices, and that everything is set purely by demand and the law of one price. To get supply in there, you need more assumptions about the type of competition and the cost curve. But in general, supply only enters into the picture in that if you raise a firm's costs, then some firms go out of business because they can't pay the higher costs, and for the firms that are left, there is less competition, and it is this reduced competition that allows (some) of the increase costs to be passed on to consumers.
Always remember -- firms are already charging the most they can possibly charge in order to maximize total profits. That's the normal state of affairs, and it is what drives prices lower. Whether you are modeling a monopoly, or monopolistic competition, or an oligopoly, or perfect competition, it does not matter. They always charge the most they can possibly charge, and the law of demand, working with the law of one price, drives prices down.
There are countless companies working with excellent profit margins.
So instead of trying to think of complications, you need to first understand the argument, and then you can see it everywhere once you understand it.
You, I think, are tying it into a larger discussion about monopolies, but I’m not sure that makes sense because if you’re a monopoly, you don’t have competitors to beat on price, so you again would not charge the least amount possible. That makes no sense.
This is a non-sequitur. Please read the post and reply to what I wrote (or don't reply) - not to whatever ghosts are dancing in your head. I think the combination of you not understanding what I wrote, yet somehow getting triggered by it, and then launching on a debate with a interlocutor that exists only in your mind is the reason why you are objecting to things I said by providing examples that solidify my case.
I really just didn't care much about most of what you had to say, because it was based entirely on an incorrect premise. I skipped like 80% of it.
In deficit economy, economic agents aren't really interested in people's money, and competition is between consumers - who'll bid higher and offer something of real interest to provider. So providers hoard stuff and there are long lines.
Benefit for public is not a boolean, it's a spectrum. Lots of cheap poor stuff readily availible is better than having to compete for stuff, but less good than having choice between cheap poor stuff and more expensive better stuff, for example. For the latter, you need non-nominal competition and providers having to compete whithin the market, not outside of it, and also each individual provider having infinitesimal effect on whole market.
It's worth noting that 4chan and Reddit also live here because both sites are insufferable.