Originally Posted by tonton
OK, Lib guys... Since you haven't said a word (surprise, surprise) I've done some research, and apparently the Libs' answer to monopolies hinges on the elimination of any and all intellectual property law, and ignores things such as supply constraint, widespread collusion, and business startup costs.
Actually it doesn't.
While elimination of intellectual property would be something that would increase competition in some ways it is not a necessary precondition for preventing monopoly.
The reality is that any and all monopolies that have existed, have existed under the protection of the state.
You greatly overestimate the ability to actually achieve a monopoly ("child's play for the strongest player in any given market") and greatly underestimate the power of competition including free entry into markets as an antidote to monopoly.
It does not require
elimination of intellectual property (though that might
be even better.)
You also make a broad sweep about supply constraints and startup costs. These clearly affect different industries differently. For some startup costs would create a higher (but not impossible) barrier to entry. For others it is negligible...and there's the whole range in between.
I say this will all due respect: You truly would benefit by a more in-depth study of economics. It might open your eyes a bit more.
Some very approachable and relatively succinct, non-technical books would be:Economic Fallacies
by Frederic BastiatEconomics in One Lesson
by Henry Hazlitt
Both help provide a good starting point and help frame the thinking well. Bastiat in particular deals directly with a variety of economic fallacies that that are commonly held even today.