I wonder what empirical and theoretical substance there is to the idea that the cost of living is due to lack of competition (in zero-to-one markets), and that competition is the solution to much of this.
On that basis, the 'free market' should be called the 'free, competitive market' - without competition, it has little value. Businesses should be required to compete and to opeerate in competitive markets. Anything anti-competitive should be treated harshly.
Even without outright collusion, a market without at least seven viable suppliers is not really competitive. Current "monopoly" policy is corrupt.
(Seven has been experimentally determined, but I can't recall where.)
I was curious, so I looked this up: Section 5.3 of the 2010 U.S. merger-guideline explicitly classified markets with a Herfindahl–Hirschman Index below 1,500 as “unconcentrated.”
I can't quote the formula here, but HHI is, apparently, the sum of squared percentage market shares. Six equal-sized suppliers give an HHI of approximately 1,667, while seven give approximately 1,429—on opposite sides of the 2010 threshold.
Is that where you got the number?
U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care (August 1996) is also a good read page 44.
> In assembling information to be collectively provided to purchasers, providers need to be aware of the potential antitrust consequences of information exchanges among competitors.
> the collection is managed by a third party (e.g., a purchaser, government agency, health care consultant, academic institution, or trade association);
> although current fee-related information may be provided to purchasers, any information that is shared among or is available to the competing providers furnishing the data must be more than three months old; and
> for any information that is available to the providers furnishing data, there are at least five providers reporting data upon which each disseminated statistic is based, no individual provider's data may represent more than 25 percent on a weighted basis of that statistic, and any information disseminated must be sufficiently aggregated such that it would not allow recipients to identify the prices charged by any individual provider.
> The conditions that must be met for an information exchange among providers to fall within the antitrust safety zone are intended to ensure that an exchange of price or cost data is not used by competing providers for discussion or coordination of provider prices or costs.
Damn. From 1996!
>> Businesses should be required to compete and to opeerate in competitive markets.
I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this? Are you suggesting that a new product cannot enter a market without a number of simultaneous competitors?
If I want to roll out fibre to an area that doesn't have it, can I? If I want to build a fresh-produce store in a town that doesn't have one, then I need to find someone else to compete with?
Lots and lots of businesses operate as quasi-monopolies if you look hard enough. Especially in smaller and rural environments. Lots and lots of places have one gas station, one mechanic, one vet, one doctor, one diner and so on.
Your use of the word "require" seems difficult to implement. What if no-one wants to compete with me? If Apple stops making Macs, does MS have to stop making Windows?
I agree that those are challenges. Maintaining competition in markets is well-studied; I wonder what has been found - what can be done, how can the scope be limited without failing on the outcomes, etc.
I am seeing a funny skit where the city is busting some bougie coop for having way too high of prices.