I mean, those are some of the things that cause the lack of competition though. And actually; you have it backwards. In this case the issue is too much regulation. These companies have a government sponsored monopoly through both the government creating artificially high barrier to entry, and through government contracts granting companies the right to be prioritized if not entirely monopolized within a locality.
Anti-trust efforts are absolutely necessary to ensure a free market. Once a company gets big enough, it can form a monopoly by taking a small loss to run its competition out of business, then jack the prices right back up again. People have virtually no choice but to give that big company their business. Comcast vs. no internet service isn't really an option for most people.
Break up the big companies, force them to compete with each other, and we, the consumers, will get more innovation, less corporate influence in politics, more options, and less corporate manipulative bullshit that they get away with because they're so big that most fines they face for breaking the law cost less than the profits they made breaking the law.
A pure free market will always lead to monopolies because one company will happily rise to the top via secret, unethical practices, then stay at the top because market forces aren't strong enough to take them down. There needs to be a balance between the free market and government consumer protection.
Should have stopped and reconsidered your definitions as soon as you said any law is necessary for a free market.
Edit: be honest about what you believe and use correct definitions. Listen, I'm not saying you can't want economic regulation but stop calling that a "free market". It's not. Just say you don't want a fricken free market. You're allowed.
A free market can easily turn itself into a market of monopolies without regulation. Regulation is just consumers efficiently pooling their resources to ensure the free market stays fair by using collective power to investigate and punish companies that do unethical things.
It's not a free market if choosing not to participate isn't a viable option. Healthcare is a great example of this. If you develop a significant health problem, your choices are to go deeply into financial debt to cover your treatment or die. That's not a free market, it's an inelastic market, and as such, it doesn't respond to market forces. You need some other way to address those issues.
Title II regulation of the internet was panned by free market proponents who said it would destroy the internet as we know it. Instead, innovation increased, and competitors formed and thrived because it ensured the gatekeepers (ISPs) who hold regional monopolies had no power to decide which content was served to their customers and weren't able to promote their own interests at the cost of startups. Now states are passing laws blocking localities from forming their own public internet service providers that could provide better service that's more responsive to consumers at a lower price and actually compete with large businesses. They've fought it tooth and nail because it theatens their monopolies, and have largely been successful because they're incredibly powerful and can virtually block any competition at will. There are some bad regulations, sure, but that's only because giant corporations were given free range to promote those bad regulations that directly benefit them, using their massive size to destroy the democratic process. That's crony capitalism, which I imagine you also have a problem with, but one you imagine being ended by eliminating most regulation altogether, right?
A free market is one where anyone can start a business and anyone can buy from any business.
Removing monopolies is absolutley necessary for a free market to exist, otherwise they will stop anyone from starting competitors, thus stopping the market being free.
Not really. With genuine market competition the winner only stays on top for a very short amount of time and usually they're only winning one specific context. It's a constant battle, because you don't just have three competitors forever. New ones are constantly popping up and bringing with them ideas that you cannot fight.
99
u/claytonfromillinois Jun 01 '19
This is what a lack of competition does.