Originally Posted by
ChickenLips
I am getting the point. Buying up the competition is dirty pool as far as the consumer is concerned. it's been going on for milenia. Look at DeBeers and their strangle hold on diamonds. Surely Walmart, Amazon and all other behemoths are dirty dealing to some degree. I don't like it, you don't like it, the consumers are either ignorant or don't like it.
We're not operating in a free market, we're pretty damn close to socialism, especially when considering 50% of your earnings goes to taxation.
Bailing out GM and other large employers is socialism and vote buying. The problem being the political cycle that moves like this make is about half of the economic cycle it takes for those bad decisions to bear rotten fruit. Enter another round of vote buying and regulation.
In ideal circumstances the markets would self correct and punish monopolies. In a truly free market, monopolies would die a natural death. In a free market if the blacksmith bought the competition, another would spring up to seize market share. The monopolist could not continue to buy out competition into perpetuity unless competition was stifled (regulation). Look at taxi's versus Uber. The regulators and regulated taxi drivers both object but for different reasons. Regulators revenue is threatened (revenue gained without adding value). Taxi drivers now having to compete with a lower cost alternative, lower cost in part via no regulations or fees. In a truly free market taxi's should die and ride share prevail unless taxi cost of doing business drops to competitive rates.
Back to my point, which is that is monopolies exist its because governments allow or encourage it to meet their own ends.
So yes I completely agree this isn't free markets, we've just taken different routes to reach the same conclusion. I choose to blame regulators, not those who take advantage of crooked and malleable regulators.