How do you deal with monopolies ( Disney, Google, etc )

EnglishALT

    • 500
    Posts
    6
    Years
    In a effort to start a non political topic I was wondering what people thought of how to deal with current day monopolies, specifically things like Amazon, Google, and Disney. Should companies be allowed to grow to a size like Disney has and buy up failing companies like Fox to gain control of their assets, or should their be a limit, and potentially allow those companies to fail? Should a company that provides a superior product like Amazon or in the past Microsoft be allowed to dominate the market, or should their be a limit to how many products those companies sell? There is no easy answer to this and I hope to have a discussion about a topic that is impacting the real world today with out it turning into a political mud fight.
     
    If you limit a company on how much they can sell, just because they've become popular.
    The world would miss out on a lot of great products.

    Imagine if Nintendo were told to stop, after gamecube, because they'd dominated the market for decades, and are selling too much?

    We wouldn't have Wiis, WiiUs, Switches, DS' DSi's 3DS' etc etc.

    As for buying failing companies out, i fail to see the issue.
    That company is failing, and a bigger company likes their stuff enough, or sees profit in them despite past failures, and buys them, allowing them to continue.

    Buying other companies is just how things work.
     
    wanderlustmage said:
    If you limit a company on how much they can sell, just because they've become popular.
    The world would miss out on a lot of great products.

    Imagine if Nintendo were told to stop, after gamecube, because they'd dominated the market for decades, and are selling too much?

    We wouldn't have Wiis, WiiUs, Switches, DS' DSi's 3DS' etc etc.

    As for buying failing companies out, i fail to see the issue.
    That company is failing, and a bigger company likes their stuff enough, or sees profit in them despite past failures, and buys them, allowing them to continue.

    Buying other companies is just how things work.
    Click to expand...

    That is a interesting view and thank you for posting, Nintendo is a great example, as one could argue they were close to monopolizing the industry between the late 80s to early 90s, if it was not for Tom Kalinske and SEGA working to break into the market it could have remained with a 70 to 80 percent hold of the industry.

    That is a point for letting the free market take it's course, in that usually rivals will do their best to pounce if a company leaves themselves open.

    Thank you for the post.
     
    wanderlustmage said:
    Snip
    Click to expand...

    Sure, but the problem with monopolies doesn't come from buying out failing companies it comes from the negative impact it has on smaller companies that would otherwise be doing well and the subsequent impact this can have on lower classes. Somewhere along the line a line needs to be drawn, but it's tricky to say exactly where.
     
    gimmepie said:
    Sure, but the problem with monopolies doesn't come from buying out failing companies it comes from the negative impact it has on smaller companies that would otherwise be doing well and the subsequent impact this can have on lower classes. Somewhere along the line a line needs to be drawn, but it's tricky to say exactly where.
    Click to expand...

    it sounds hard, but smaller companies have to find that one product, the one idea that'll put them above the bigger companies.
    9 times out of 10 times, this isn't the case. But, that's life.

    I'd rather my own company get bought out, than continuously selling products which don't live up to what I want to achieve, tbh.
     
    wanderlustmage said:
    it sounds hard, but smaller companies have to find that one product, the one idea that'll put them above the bigger companies.
    9 times out of 10 times, this isn't the case. But, that's life.

    I'd rather my own company get bought out, than continuously selling products which don't live up to what I want to achieve, tbh.
    Click to expand...

    It's not just hard, it's nearly impossible. Smaller companies rarely have access to the resources and funds to actually find that one target. Plus, it's pretty hard to find that "one product" in industries that are heavily saturated with brandname products already or have little room for innovation. Good luck finding that one product when your business is selling fruit.

    Monopolies actually actively make it harder for small businesses to succeed and cannot sustain employing every person from every small business they have crushed under foot, they already pay criminally low wages as is. They help further perpetuate poverty and class division and god help your economy if something causes a company like that to go under unexpectedly.

    It's been said that "the more free the market, the more free the people" or something like that, but this is only true in the sense that there's not much to tether you down if you're homeless.
     
    This dates back to WAY back in the 80s when AT&T was the biggest phone company around. Folks were complaining that they had a monopoly on long-distance service, leading to the he antitrust case, United States v. AT&T in 1982. Eventually they decided, via their own initiative, to fracture itself into five companies, (Western Electric, Yellow Pages, the Bell trademark, Bell Labs, and AT&T Long Distance).

    This led to a LOT of newbie companies forming to compete with AT&T, like Spint, MCI, and Verizon. Problem was, the only pitch ANY of them really had was, "we're not that huge anti-American AT&T!" and to put it bluntly, their service stunk in comparison. I remember how MAD magazine mocked them (in verse yet) in one of their issues, claiming, if I recall:

    But seeing the mess screwing up the U.S., any idiot plainly can see,
    It was batter back then in those ancient days when,
    We were screwed JUST by AT&T!"

    Sigh... Looking back, now that everyone has mobiles, it seems funny that anyone would complain about long-distance service... Still, the same complaint seems to be everywhere.
     
    I'm sure monopolies have been an issue since before the 80s, but that's interesting history there. It doesn't really change that monopolies are unhealthy though. So what do we do about that?
    Click to expand...

    Not a clue, Pie. Although as my post suggested, problems involving them tend to go away on their own.

    IMOHO, the reason Disney survives is because THEY are smart and ignore the folks who make absurd accusations against them. And as long as they produce blockbuster movies and products the public is practically addicted too, it's not going to change.
     
    Last edited:
    Maedar said:
    Not a clue, Pie. Although as my post suggested, problems involving them tend to go away on their own.

    IMOHO, the reason Disney survives is because THEY are smart and ignore the folks who make absurd accusations against them. And as long as they produce blockbuster movies and products the public is practically addicted too, it's not going to change.
    Click to expand...

    The AT&T problem didn't go away on its own. Legal action had to be taken to make it go away.
     
    What I meant was, after over two decades, folks look back and wonder why it had ever been such a concern at all.
     
    gimmepie said:
    I'm sure monopolies have been an issue since before the 80s
    Click to expand...
    Yes. Monopolies and trusts have been an issue in the US since the late 1800s, which is around the time of the 2nd industrial revolution and when you really first started to see corporations pop up a lot in the country. 1890 was when the federal government passed one of its first anti-monopoly/anti-trust laws (the Sherman Anti-Trust Act). I don't know what other laws and stuff that has been passed since then, but obviously corporations have always been trying since then to skirt around these laws and get as close to monopolies as they can, hence why it's still a concern to this day.

    How you deal with it though, idk, economics was never something I ever really understood.
     
    Problem is that most successful businesses grow and it's entirely possible for a business to end up the only one really providing a service with no evil intent.
     
    LDSman said:
    Problem is that most successful businesses grow and it's entirely possible for a business to end up the only one really providing a service with no evil intent.
    Click to expand...

    I don't think evil intent even needs to factor in. It is in the nature of a corporation to grow and seek a profit. That doesn't necessarily mean the practice is always healthy.

    A parent who feeds their kid nothing but sweets might have the the best intentions in the world but their kid is still gong to end up unhealthy.
     
    If a business becomes incredibly successful and takes up a lot of market share then that's great; however, if they start delivering an inferior service/product and start charging more due to less competition, then that's a massive problem.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top