Ownership is a useful framework for sure, but if it comes at the expense of destroying competition, I think we can agree that's not healthy for the economy and society as a whole.
Ownership is a useful framework for sure, but if it comes at the expense of destroying competition, I think we can agree that's not healthy for the economy and society as a whole.
I disagree with the concept of “monopoly” or rent seeking in a free market. And the only way a market becomes non-free is with government regulation
The world has never, ever seen a free market, and probably never will.
The idea that completely unencumbered markets would actually give good outcomes for society is a complete fantasy.
It appears to me that wherever we allow market forces to exist we get better results
If companies get large enough, you no longer have a free market. You simply have a company so dominate and powerful, they can undercut any new company or product. Not on merit or offering a better product. Purely based on size and its entrenched position.
Let's say company A is monopolizing a market. New company B finds a way to make company A's product providing exactly the same value, except half as expensive. A healthy market would reward company B and consumers both by allowing that innovation to spread, providing a return for those that invented it and a cheaper product for consumers, leading to greater prosperity for society. However, in the market you speak of, company A can simply use their orders of magnitude more wealth to undercut company B for a time until they go bust.
What incentive is there to innovate, to improve, in a market that doesn't reward it?