Monopoly vs. Competition
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 авг 2017
- Support the show!
Become a Patreon- www.patreon.com/user?u=5385111
One-time tip/donation: www.paypal.me/MexieYT
___
Follow - Twitter: / mexieyt
Facebook: / mexieyt
Check out my podcast (co-hosted with Marine from A Privileged Vegan): www.veganvanguardpodcast.com
___
Sources:
David Harvey (2014) Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism: www.amazon.ca/Seventeen-Contr...
Anwar Shaikh (2016) Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises: global.oup.com/academic/produ...
Anwar Shaikh Lectures 5: • Capitalism: Competitio...
6: • Capitalism: Competitio...
7: • Capitalism: Competitio...
8: • Capitalism: Competitio...
Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy (1966) Monopoly Capital: monthlyreview.org/product/mon...
John Bellamy Foster and Robert McChesney (2012) The Endless Crisis: How Monopoly Finance Capital Produces Stagnation and Upheaval from the USA to China: monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/...
Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff (1972) The Dynamics of US Capitalism: monthlyreview.org/product/dyn...
John Bellamy Foster (2016) Monopoly Capital at the Half-Century Mark: monthlyreview.org/2016/07/01/...
Joseph Stiglitz (2013) The Price of Inequality: books.wwnorton.com/books/the-p...
Joseph Schumpeter (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: cnqzu.com/library/Economics/ma...
Howard Sherman (1983) Monopoly Power and Profit Rates: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/1...
Three Books on Marxist Political Economy (2016): critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpr...
Karl Marx (1867) Capital Volume 1: www.marxists.org/archive/marx...
Karl Marx (1885) Capital Volume 2: www.marxists.org/archive/marx...
Karl Marx (1894) Capital Volume 3: www.marxists.org/archive/marx...
Where there is competition, there will be a victor. Where there is a victor, there is no more competition; it is domination.
^^
Nohb'dy 11 Which is why I never got this capitalist idea about how competition is supposed to keep monopolies in check. No matter the regulations, someone's gonna come out on top.
did you seriously just say winning is bad?
When there is a victor, it must constantly re-win and it's increasingly hard to because the bigger you are the harder it is to adjust. So inevitably, as things change and new things come in.. the market chooses new things. There's no problem with monopolies unless they can use force against competition. This is why monopolies are MAINTAINED by th state which is used by the "victor" to keep down potential alternatives.
Well there is always communism, which led to more deaths than any type of government in the history of the world. Competition can't be forced away by governments. It is a part of human nature and the commies (like you and the girl in the video) don't realize that you compete every day as well. Communism is a failure. What works is regulated capitalism aka Social Democracy. like they have in much of Europe and Canada.
I have, never understood how people pretend that monopolies aren't a product of competition. Like what, do of you think the end of competition is?
It's more that they think that another small firm will be able to rise up and compete against the monopoly after it's cornered the market, by offering lower prices or greater innovation. Of course that's incredibly naive and based on the assumption that monopolies can't adapt, when they're actually far better placed than new firms to subsidise losses and create economies of scale in order to crush any upstart competition.
Otherwise supermarket chains would have been out competed by corner shops a long time ago,
For Philosophy
What is the best way and most sure way to win a competition,not just once,but forever,to make sure the status quo stays as it is?
Remove all Competition.
How do you do that?
Make a monopoly of course,it's in the definition of the word.
For Philosophy Nice Yojouhan Shinwa Taikei pfp by the way
Why would there necessarily be an end to it?
But the Mises Institute said so
"Monopolies and cartels are creations of government, not markets"
You can look that up yourself. What more proof do you need?
And they have a point. Capitalism can not exist without government. But under perfect competition in a land made of pixie dust ... nobody ever wins
Their logic is entirely circular. Lassez faire leads to the monopoly stage of capitalism & competition leads to capital concentration but they define those inevitable outcomes of capitalism as "not real capitalism"
When we talk about monopoly capitalism we mean the Stage when massive corporations dominate. We don't mean literal state monopoly when only 1 company is allowed to exist. In modern capitalism there are multinationals that are bigger then small countries, this effectively makes them monopolistic, they control an immense share of the market and can influence policy.
Pepsi and Coke are both monopolistic. Literally this would be "Oligopoly" or a situation where a small group of massive corporations control everything. However we are speaking of the stage in capitalism where international monopolies, multinationals and cartels have taken over and the small entrepreneur is basically meaningless.
+TheFinnishBolshevik
"In modern capitalism there are multinationals that are bigger then small countries, this effectively makes them monopolistic, they control an immense share of the market and can influence policy."
This is a contrast in terms. In REAL capitalism, companies cannot influence policy. When they do it is called crony capitalism. It is better to stop crony capitalism than to try this Marxist thing again.
Shyte Talker in every REAL capitalist country in history capitalists have turned economic power into political power. Capitalism requires a state to enforce private property laws, which in itself refuted your claim that capitalists influencing politics is somehow not “real capitalism”.
Yes, capitalism always leads to monopolies. In my country, the Murdoch family controls most daily newspapers and dominates pay TV...try competing with that.
The internet is rapidly killing off daily newspapers and pay TV. Is that competition enough?
I will admit that monopolies are a problem (Comcast owning NBC Universal is particularly galling). This is where the government should be stepping in to reign in capitalism's excesses. I favor more of a Nordic model (mostly capitalist but with a large safety net).
I don't know. How much of the internet is controlled by only a handful of companies?
How much is directly or indirectly controlled by Google?
Just because a technological change displaces the old monopolies and creates momentary competition, doesn't mean it changes the overall tendency.
The old media empires have been displaced. Google and Facebook are the new monopolies.
Think about the search engine people use. RUclips.
Email providers.
Social media empires.
What about advertising? How many sites are using Google Adwords as their primary source of revenue?
In other words, they seem superficially independent, and yet their continued existence is controlled to some extent by Google.
Replacing the monopolies every so often doesn't invalidate the tendencies towards monopolies.
Nor does the existence of competition in situations where that competition is barely viable.
The existence of a corner shop doesn't make supermarkets any less influential.
You don't need an absolute monopoly to get most of the consequences of a monopoly.
Just look at Intel vs AMD.
Technically that's not a Monopoly.
Yet the power imbalance is so huge it might as well be.
And in some ways AMD has in multiple instances been kept alive when it should have failed simply so that intel can point at AMD and say 'see? We're not a monopoly! Get off our backs already!'
Yet often enough the result is nearly the same.
This lovely 'theory' capitalism rests upon depends on there being many sellers of identical products and many buyers, NONE of which (buyer OR seller) is large enough to drastically influence anything by themselves.
We see that in many cases the sellers have most of the power, and there are only a small handful of sellers. One, two. Maybe three.
Half a dozen if you're lucky.
Or, one or two sellers are so vastly larger than the others that the little ones might as well not exist.
The negative effects of a monopoly arise long before an actual, legitimate, full monopoly happens.
Google is a Monopoly, even though it technically still has lots of competitors.
Those competitors just aren't actually powerful enough to do anything.
Gtfo liberal
Capitalism does not work in any way. go read some obscure 500 page long tome written in the 19th century.
The net itself can be rapidly killed off without neutrality! Think deeper.
Jim Price well, this is where monopoly works to interfere in state politics.
Murdoch had his henchmen (the Conservative party) absolutely gut what should have been Australia’s greatest infrastructure project of the century- essentially, he made sure that we wouldn’t have good enough internet for Netflix (literally destroying opportunity for millions), because he wanted to retain his hold with Foxtel (the only pay TV company in Australia).
Now that’s a monopoly for you!
"It's all the state's fault" - Incoming ancap comments
seriously... giddyup.
They are partly right, they make the mistake of believing capitalism can function without one
Is it ALL the state's fault? No. But capitalism obviously needs a state to survive, to establish monopolization, to secure landlord rights, to curb competition, to adjudicate property claims, and to access resources and markets. The ancap version of capitalism isn't capitalism; it's undoubtedly something far worse, a kind of neo-feudalism.
But wait a minute Harry, you made some very pro-communist remarks on the other thread.
And?
Zizek struggles with his sniffing, while Mexie struggles with her bangs :)
ugh, too real
At least its cute in her case though lol
Nohb'dy 11 The way he sniffs tho 😍😍😍
Even if messing with her bangs were near as distracting as Zizek's messing with his nose. We can still understand her speak. What is Zizek like in his native language? Does he still have sinus issues?
Pls do next: Monopoly Vs. Snakes and Ladders.
woulda been far more interesting
sooo, capitalism works in theory but not in practise?
unionsocialist but have you considered human nature?
Where did I heard that..?
@@Hades-ot9tl "socialism is when there is no food, and the less food there is, the more socialister it becomes"
- Karl Marx
arg, what is a matter with you people, just follow Jungian archtypes and Biblical narratives for true insight into human nature, what is so bloody difficult about that. Sometimes I wonder how humanity made it this far. and... oh yeah ... lobsters! Just observe the lobsters.
@@Hades-ot9tl hmmmmmmmmmmmmm it's not like the great depression happened or anything .
**Goes to watch Anwar Shaikh RIGHT NOW** Such a great quote: "Modern economics is a PTSD of the 19th Century"
Great video Mexie. Super dense and informative as always. It gave me lots of new food for thought. Thank you
thanks girl! YES watch Anwar Shaikh he's a golden god. so glad you're back
This channel is horrifically undersubbed
I play monopoly because it's competetive. Take that!
That game should be called oligopoly
That competitive thinking probably makes you prone to heart attack, stroke and maybe even a lousy relationship with your wife. Someone, preferably you has to win.
But in a cooperative "game" you win by helping those around you excell too. It works in business if the enterprise is owned by the employees. The better they work together, the more each employee makes in shares of profit. Further, the employees make decisions advantageous to the share holder/owners. They do not move their jobs to China and in hard times they don't lay off anyone. Perhaps everyone goes on half time or they agree to use some saved profit for hard times. But they all are in the same boat. It is better to cooperate than to sell parts of your life, labor and creativity for a wage to make someone else rich. That is why people say they would rather work for their own business and be the boss than be a wage earner. It's like renting an apartment. Everyone dreams of owning rather than renting and making the landlord rich. So cooperative apartments are invented. You own the building together, you own your share of the project and the responsibility for maintaining it together.
Try it. You will like it. Cooperation at work does not make ememies or give the boss who does not make anything all the profit.
Very thorough, lots of great information, thanks for sharing! I'm still learning all the different terms and what all this means but your vids always help :)
thanks lady :) can't wait to work on our imf/world bank one
Mexie yessss me too!
You're so smart!!! It's phenomenal to see you getting the word out. Thank you!
They start at exchange rather than production and so the system comes off as fairer than it is.
Mind
Fucking
*Blown*
Very clear and concise. thank you for making these videos!
Brilliant informative video, and now I have to read Anwar's book! Thanks for all the reading tips in the description.
Fun Fact: Monopoly (the game) was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism as you can read in this article - aeon.co/ideas/monopoly-was-invented-to-demonstrate-the-evils-of-capitalism
ah i love your videos so much. you explain everything so well and make concepts which are complicated, easy to understand. much love
thank you!
this finna be a lit series
Your videos are great, Thank you! Don't quit.
One of your best pieces. Simply savage.
great video mexie
you have really excellent content ! Very intelligent, well articulated and thought provoking
I was told when learning economics for the first time this myth of 'perfect competition'. It always smacked of falsehood to me, simply because in my proto-materialist young philosophical conception, perfect competition could never exist in a world with wealth and technological imbalances because it has too many implications that don't work out due to those two things. That essentially leaves differentiated competition (firms distinguish themselves through marketing and product diffentiation) and monopolies as working in the real world, both of which are self-evident. And both of which are deemed 'inefficient' by free market capitalism, due to their rent-seeking essentially unless the government intervenes to force them to produce without said parasitic rent-seeking.
So even by neo-classical economics, in a world where free-market capitalism cannot exist, corporatism will always dominate a capitalist system, and only socialist policies can make capitalism efficient.
Great vid!
Love the Citations you provided in your info box. I will have to say that although there will be a natural progression to monopolies, you simply have to break them down as we saw during the age of Theodore Roosevelt, rinse & repeat, and continue to do so until a new economic system grows away from capitalism.
Thank you so much for this video. I am so sick of seeing Walmarts and other megastores/chains destroy local businesses and culture. We must also open our eyes to Amazon's actions which are dangerous to competition.
Yes, so right. Thank you so much for your generous donation! I really appreciate it (like REALLY) 🙏✊
Great Video Mexie! I've learned a lot from your videos
thanks Sam!
Good stuff.
Subscribed.
This is SUPERB!!!!!!!!!!
One of your best and most interesting videos. Good job. I was just stressed during all the video because of your hairs ^^
Oh my god, you explain so good.
Mexie, I am really glad to have you as comrade♥️
Great explanation, thanks for sharing
Fantastic Video comrade.
Best video yet! In my opinion at least. Good work comrade!
Excellent discussion...🙂
Came for the discussion, stayed for the flavor in my ears.
Mexie once again showing that she's the best economist on RUclips. Great video!
:)
and yet she's just blogging on youtube rather than actually managing a functioning economy. imagine the shock- leftists who couldn't run a lemonaid stand telling us what's wrong with reality and how they'd change it.
is there a single ONE of those who thumbs up these videos a trained licensed employed TRADES person, for example?
nope! the highest level they've achieved is a degree in political indoctrination or philosophy-useless feeders all.
Nice hair lady
I just saw ContraPoints posting that she would be streaming with you, so I checked out your channel. Nice video, I'm definitely gonna check out more stuff of yours and looking forward to the stream.
Great vídeo.
Very good video! Just got here from /leftypol/ and I really enjoyed it! Keep it up
I originally stayed for the face. I keep coming back for the brain. Keep up the good work.
I am profoundly disturbed.
Thanks for the video
Monopoly , the game, is actually a good analogy of what happens, and why it’s not a good idea to build a society on those principles. You eventually get a winner, and then it’s GameOver. It’s just that in reality, the economy is so big that it takes a long time, and humans are is able to always find ways to survive, even after they’ve lost everything. It’s more like the game divides into separate layers in the economy.
Nevermind Netflix decimating blockbuster and its variants.. The open source economy has totally shaken the formal capitalist market too!
This is, like, one of the *best* overview from fifty thousand feet of all this stuff that I've ever heard. You even mention monopoly's weird identical cousin, monopsony! Kudos, comrade!
great video
In the USA the ever growing distance between the experienced reality (particularly of the young people and old people) and the mythology of neoliberal economics, has contributed to a rising understanding that capitalism is an obstacle to human well being not a solution. Among the oligarchs, a two pronged strategy of consolidation and rent seeking are the overwhelming source of profit in the economy today. Not to despair though, there is hope. As we dismantle the institutional structures of the government tasked with regulating, health, education, environment, and turn those tasks over to the private sector we will create new opportunities for lower wages and higher profits. We have been living in an Escher landscape since the end of the second world war, we have the illusion of ascension but in in reality we have made no progress at all.
Hello Mexie, just gotta say that I love your content as they have been extremely helpful in deconstructing marxist concepts in an informative and engaging manner, very friendly to the lay person! You're also very funny and witty and I loved your systematic dismantling of of the neoliberal illusion. Brilliant video. looking forward to your next vid! keep it up and more power comrade!
p.s. If you don't mind me asking what happened to your Trump video, I can't seem to find it anymore and I was interested in rewatching it, thanks!
thank you so much for the compliments! really appreciate it. is the Trump video working now?
Np!yes it is, thanks comrade!
How. did it take so long to find you. Glad I did.
General equilibrium has been disproven by almost every economist ever since its conception as a justification for unbridled corporate power, all you need to do is to apply time to the theory and it collapses, you know, a basic law of the universe. It's hard to believe a theory that's predicated on *soo* many assumptions, is still taught in economics classes.
Great thumbnail, I might use aspects from that.
Nice video
excellent video as always!
Be still, my heart.
Yet another excellent video, Comrade Mexie.
Competition always reminds me of this quote from Lenin,
"Free competition gives rise to the concentration of production, which, in turn, at a certain stage of development leads to monopoly" -Vladimir Lenin, "Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism".
thanks comrade :)
Also, on Detroit, it's having a very easily observable issue with its recovery being based in white-collar high-rent recovery rather than blue-collar working class recovery. My friend who lives there is in one of the central sections of the city (with lovely 20's and 30's skyscrapers graffitied, windows broken and boarded up) and the only real recovery has been in the insurance and government sectors, whose workforce are college educated and frequently brought in from outside Detroit. Seeing a new, expensive shopping outlet and bar just opened across from a derelict building that used to be a department store for a working class neighbourhood is most surreal and typifying.
Yes, consolidative capitalism is antithetical to healthy competition; and since the free market ideal relies on the predication of healthy competition, one could conclude that capitalism is also antithetical to free markets. Which is why many early individualists leaned toward socialism; because only through widespread ownership of capital can markets truly flourish (which is also the distributist perspective as well).
One of the best examples in my life of corporations setting the price is cell phone carriers. Most of them all used to basically give you a FREE phone for signing a 2 yr contract, in order to keep you from jumping to the cheaper provider. Then one of them decided nah, you can basically rent to own these extremely expensive phones now. We took away contracts but you're not likely to switch carriers while you're still on the hook for paying your phone lease payment every month. Rather than competing against that by keeping free upgrades, which would probably earn you a lot of new customers that can't afford an extra $30 a month to lease a phone on top of everything else, every single carrier almost instantly swapped to this lease system because it is clearly more profitable for them. It happened so quickly I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were planning it with each other privately for quite some time.
Mexie, your video here is brilliant. You basically debunk Libertarianism completely in 20 minutes. Bravo! Very well done. I learned a lot by listening to this video and you will too. Highly recommended! *****
Competition becomes transformed into monopoly...Crises of every kind - economic crises most frequently, but not only these - in their turn increase very considerably the tendency towards concentration and towards monopoly.
Lenin.
You don't have to assume that every firm is alike, when describing idealized markets. If your econ textbook did, it was to make the explanation simpler.
Normal economics has no problem with looking at reality. It's just that there are separate steps in the process: you formulate a model that's simple enough to describe fully, you figure out what happens in the model, and then you look at reality to see whether the model gives you any insight.
It's just like how you make calculations in high-school physics about falling objects with no wind resistance and no difference in gravity at different distances from the center of the Earth. If you look at objects that are massive enough and moving slowly enough that their weight is much greater than the air resistance, moving short enough vertical distances that the effect of gravity is essentially the same at different heights, then the model gives a good approximation, and you just use that. If you look at situations where air resistance matters some, then you use the no-air-resistance calculation as a limiting case to get insight, and to check that more detailed models approach it as the air resistance approaches zero.
Noting that econ-101 models don't match reality does no more to refute real economics than noting the same thing about high-school physics does to refute real physics. Real economics doesn't do anywhere near as well as real physics does, but you can't show that with an "argument" that, if it were valid, would work just as well against physics.
--
The actual theorem about how ideal markets give optimal outcomes does *not* justify inequality. It says that, for all the possible outcomes where you can't make things better for someone except by making them worse for someone else, ideal markets will give *all* of them, just starting from different initial distributions of wealth. In other words, if we're letting millions of people starve so that a billionaires yacht can be one inch bigger, the theorem says that markets can't tell the difference. If you hypothesize that the ideal markets in the theorem are a good enough approximation to provide insight into reality, then you conclude that you have to remedy the inequality first and then let the markets efficiently deliver the goods to people who would then be able to afford them.
--
Evil people on the right can be willfully stupid about economics, because they don't care about truth, and a stupidly false version of economics helps their case. But why do people on the left seem to be just as enthusiastic about the same falsehoods? When the truth is on your side, lies don't help your case.
Monopoly can be good sometimes. Everyone prefered when Netflix was monopolist and had almost everything, now there is dozen of big streaming platforms and each has some exclusive good shows.
It's absolutely true that there is no perfect competition and businesses aim to be monopolies (notice that it doesn't mean that competition automatically leads to monopoly), but that doesn't mean that capitalism has failed, it means that neo-classical economic approach has failed. Capitalism just means private ownership, price system, operation for profit and voluntary exchange. Austrian school actually says that monopolies aren't necessarily bad if they are open to competition meaning that there is no artificial barriers of entry (usually barriers come from government regulations but there could be threat of violence from competing businesses if there is no sound legal system also). Government has monopoly on violence, Wal-Mart has monopoly on retail, Google has monopoly on search engines. People are free to vote or take their money elsewhere thus keeping these actors on check, but they always don't because their needs are satisfied and they don't have need for alternatives.
Rule No.1 of Capitalism is not to make Profits, but to eliminate Competition.
Great video subbed. I'm glad there aren't endless amounts of comments saying you're pretty or something like that. If I watch a video of a girl playing guitar that's all you find. I love leftist RUclips, sometimes.
Favorite leftist on youtube. Your analysis parallels alot of the content from Sweezy's Monopoly Capitalism which if you havent read yet I recommend you check out.
thank you! yes that's one of my sources
Here for "Flava in ya ear" in the background
Thank God, I thought the libertarian right had a total monopoly (ha) over the internet! So fucking good to see some young American (sorry if you're Canadian) Marxists on the rise. Keep it up!
*Soviet anthem comes back*I'm back guys*Me gets my computer out and buys a t-34*. Meh Soviet Union is back.But anyways you earned a sub comrade.
I like that music in the background... CRAIG MACK FLAVOR IN YOUR EAR! 😎
We see with Google what happens when a company becomes a monopoly. Now we will see what happens when more competition enters the market to take a share of Google's profits. One problem with Google is an assumption that they have been helped by the government - funding and legislation being put into place to support their monopoly.
The problem of monopolies is the fear of what they do when there is no competition - where they put up prices, make inferior goods, reduce their labour and component costs. All concerns that over time allow other companies to enter the market and compete with the monopoly company.
I have the same Charmander.
Hey what is the background score to this. It's a super chill beat, I dig it.
yeah, Craig Mack ruclips.net/video/yXemkW2FQ8k/видео.html
and/or ruclips.net/video/PMbELEUfmIA/видео.html
Rad! Thanks.
2:10 "The balance between consumption and production makes price. The market settles, and alone can settle, that price. Market is the meeting and conference of the consumer and producer, when they mutually discover each other's wants." Want to guess who said that?
Edmund Burke, in 1795.
Where oh where did you download that instrumental, any links?
ruclips.net/video/J0N52BROILw/видео.html
Thanks!
Is that a TLC sample in the background?
So which country is practicing pure capitalism?
tfw Adam Smith was important to market socialism
Competition leads to Monopoly.
Also, is that Charmander in the background?
drgerke it is, I have a bunch of em back there lol. and thanks for the compliment in the other post, I am Canadian for the record :)
Comrade Mexie how would you respond to the criticism that the Marxian worldview tends to interpret all things in terms of power? Capitalism and western logocentrism are simply tools for power, but power itself is merely a means to the end of personal gain for the bourgeoisie. In this philosophical vacuum created by the Marxian critique, what end should power be used to achieve?
I hear Craig Mack in the background
Thanks for the links. I have avoided a lot of this stuff for a long time because I wanted to come to my own conclusions and try to avoid confirmation bias. If I can come to the same conclusion as others without reading this material then I simply see that as more scientific. I was already leery of our system by the time I graduated HS in 85 but still went into the Army. Well I did not see any other option for me at the time. By 88 I was seeing all this. That we were being lied to. It is rather comforting to see this videos and others. I am tired of so called debating with the Right. It takes up too much time and is pointless most of the time. It feels like the endless repetition in the 90s of so called debates with Creationists over Evolution.
+Mexie Welcome back to North America! I live in the U.S., so just saying "Welcome back!" to a Canadian wouldn't really have made sense, at least not to me.
lol thanks, totally sucks being back!
Can you do a video on the greatness of luxury gay space communism?
I love that Anwar Shaikh works being picked up by RUclipsrs :)
Great video, I would love to have your thoughts on greenwashing and "green capitalism" in general :)
oh, I *so* do. this is an old video I made re: capitalism and the environment, but I'll make one on greenwashing and green capitalism, thanks for the suggestion!
ruclips.net/video/ltmd-POalpo/видео.html
PoppinKream, is that you?
I did not hear you state this during the video, but it seems to me to be a contradiction in the ideology of Perfect competition itself.
1) If there is perfect competition, then there will producers making products that are consumed, and producers that are not to be consumed.
2) The producers that make that which is not consumed will either shrink or stop being producers.
3) Since they were producers they had means to produce.
4) If they shrink, then other producers will expand by obtaining the shrunken or bankrupt producers means of production.
5) Since this is the case, the other producers will grow.
C) Therefore, it will eventually be the case that this competition will lead to monopoly through the structure of the system itself.
Am I close in this?
+ Garland41
This is correct until your take at the end. The most competitive producer will survive and eventually become a monopoly but rarely this happens.
BUT in the video she claims that all companies want a monopoly to charge excessive prices for their product thus great profits. If this happens, others will see the great profits to be had and a lot of competition will spring up in that space to get those excessive profits. Usually the original company will go bankrupt due to losing most of the market share and be crushed under their capitalization of its company.
Therefore "if" a monopoly happens (rarely without govt intervention) they have to keep their prices low to avoid others coming into their space.
Background music: Craig Mack - Flava in ya ear.
Great video btw.
Don't Tread On Me :3:
Wrong flag
Pro Gun Leftist I'm socially libertarian, not economically.
Don't Tread On Me all socialists are "socialy libertarian" lmao
I've understood Anwar Shaik's "real competition" as a direct refutation, not just of neoclassical theory but also of the monthly review school. Given that, I think you should revise your video about stagnation and finance. "Permanent stagnation" is simply not real, empirically.
Monopoly and Competition. Two terms that couldn't be more different. Having a monopoly just assumes you do NOT have competition anymore because you already dominate a niche.
Besides: Most people that argue for Free Markets assume that everyone runs their own buisness and anyone can make it, but if the great innovation under capitalism kicks in and invents a revolutionary technology, well then we got a monopoly without competition. However that's assuming there was a revolutionary technology that wasn't a government program. :')
well that's why Shaikh thinks 'real competition' is a better way to frame it, because we don't see absolute monopolies in reality but more like oligopolistic competition. but it's all very superficial when so many companies are owned or directed by so few up at the top..
Someone should really make a communist version of Monopoly boardgame and it title it 'Communopoly, set in Tsarist russia where the end goal would be to seize the means of production and each individual player would play a corresponding political faction (i.e. Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Left SR, Anarchists, Black Hundreds, Whites) and instead of 'Go to Jail' you have 'Go to Gulag'
Funny story, monopoly was originally designed by a Georgist and was intended as a critique of landlordism, before it was stolen and made less radical.
Interesting, so it basically proves that capitalism doesn't promote innovation, but rather theft, and with the right amount of depolitization and dressing, turn once revolutionary concepts into harmless fashion palatable to the status quo. Something the Situationists called 'recuperation'.
Perfect competition is just theoretical assumptions to help explain supply and demand graphically. Supply and demand doesn't make those assumption outside of the graphical representation of supply and demand. Also, capitalism is just the private ownership of the means of production. Monopolies are a consequence of regulation where the large businesses can afford the expensive regulation controls that their smaller competitors cannot. This is why big corporations lobby government. Government regulation and capitalism are not the same thing but you will represent them as being the same for your straw man argument.
Ancaps and sargon response vids in 3..2.. 1.. : REEEEEEEEE : Monopoly vs Capitalism Rebuttal
So, as I said in a previous viseo of yours, I'm here to learn about a different School of thought. Correct me if I'm wrong. My view is that capitalism works (and by "works" I would use the evidence of the fact that we Westerners have an excess of material needs and wants) precisely because it plays to our selfish nature as humans, yet ironically, this selfishness us also the downfall of capitalism. Do I have your views correct so far? For context, I was only 1:36 into your video at the writing g of this comment.
Edit: so the ancap view is that all evil comes from the monopoly on force that the State has, and I'm inclined to agree with them insofar that evil (defined as knowing what is good and using that knowledge to take advantage of people) *does* in fact come from monopolies on force, yet at the end of competion, the winning firm is now the one with the monopoly. Therefore, there needs to be gov't policies to keep a bakance between these two. Am I right in assessing your views?
1. There are also a lot of small businesses and a lot of alternative options available. You don't have to buy or work for the top companies.
2. Most of the time, the top companies stocks are open to the public, meaning that literally anyone can buy their stock and become an owner, millions of people own each of those companies.
3. Why don't you start your own business and manage it the way you think is good for society. I'm sure all people that share your values would prefer buying from you than buying from 'big conglomerates' right ?
@KLJF Yes you can work in a kitchen, hotel, schools or farm, and also own stocks at the same time.
@KLJF The best democracy is buying from and investing in the companies that you love.
No buyers and no investors, no company.
@KLJF Not a very convincing argument.. Do you wish for more or less business owners? I'm saying yes I wish there was more! from the workers you mentioned, to retired people, etc. Everyone can be, I don't understand what is wrong with that, more business owners are better than just a few owning everything.
@KLJF Yes and you seem to think that business owners don't work. But you can own your own shop and work in it. Or you can work for someone else and start buying stock from another company you think has good values to start building your passive income.
@KLJF I do have a job and I work since many years.
The concept of perfect competition is intended to be a boundary condition that some markets get near, but most don't. The monopoly model and the perfect competition model describe the edges of a spectrum. Most real world markets are obviously in the middle. Anyone who tried to explain the real world as being mostly like the perfect competition model is an idiot, and any competent mainstream economist would say as much.
I really wish "heterodox" economists would be less prone to straw man arguments.
That's not what she is saying. The point is that perfect competition is treated as the default, natural state of capitalist markets, yet this is contradicted by empirical evidence.
Did I not say that anyone treating perfect competition as the default, natural state is an idiot?
Actual economists (not ideologues) would never make such a silly claim. That's why its a straw man.
"Did I not say that anyone treating perfect competition as the default, natural state is an idiot?"
No, you said, "Anyone who tried to explain the real world as being mostly like the perfect competition model is an idiot." Those are two distinctive claims and now I am not sure which one you are declaring a strawman. From everything I've read neo-liberal economists argue that state intervention is primarily responsible for imperfect competition.
I mean there is literally someone in the comments who is saying that
To clarify: the straw man is the claim that mainstream economists think that perfect competition is pretty close to a description of the real world. No actual economist would claim that. Now there are *some* economists who might claim that a lot of deviations from perfect competition are the product of state intervention, but that is a minority and none of them would claim that this is always true.
As for people in the comments, keep in mind that internet libertarians are not the same thing as actual economists. There is, in fact, usually very little overlap. Remember, the Austrian school is *also* heterodox economics.