Monopolies and Anti-Competitive Markets: Crash Course Economics #25
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Arman
1: 47 -And that's exactly how capitalism is supposed to work. People wanted more strict food options and profit seeking entrepreneurs gave them what they wanted. Incentive and competition made society better off. - This may only be true if the world in which society lived had infinite fish resources (after the sushi example from the video, harmless or not at least as polluting of a transportation system as today, boundless oil deposits, decent wage system for the food truck drivers/sellers, etc - just to name a few.
Truck food competition didn't make society better off - maybe just some of its members at best. But it certainly has nothing to say about the society in question at large.
Capitalism isn't this simple system where people get in voluntary cooperation in the pursuit of their best self-interest and in doing so, naturally, make society better off - to paraphrase Adam Smith. It's a complicated picture, so much so that even with varying but overall relatively strict government regulation the system called capitalism (whatever that really means) has pushed the world and the future of the human race to the brink of environmental catastrophe over just barely the last 50-60 years (climate, environment pollution, ecosystem degradation, etc.
Basically, when the driving force is consumerism, -lowest prices- for -the best service-, etc, a small society with infinite resources may look ugly (no one is against good food choice and so on but capitalism doesn't stop there, it makes consumerism the leading theme of life) but do pretty well; a large society just won't last long.
It's tough to say what a better alternative is - it's up to people to decide. But business as usual just can't go on another 50-60 years.
reply
1: 47 -And that's exactly how capitalism is supposed to work. People wanted more strict food options and profit seeking entrepreneurs gave them what they wanted. Incentive and competition made society better off. - This may only be true if the world in which society lived had infinite fish resources (after the sushi example from the video, harmless or not at least as polluting of a transportation system as today, boundless oil deposits, decent wage system for the food truck drivers/sellers, etc - just to name a few.
Truck food competition didn't make society better off - maybe just some of its members at best. But it certainly has nothing to say about the society in question at large.
Capitalism isn't this simple system where people get in voluntary cooperation in the pursuit of their best self-interest and in doing so, naturally, make society better off - to paraphrase Adam Smith. It's a complicated picture, so much so that even with varying but overall relatively strict government regulation the system called capitalism (whatever that really means) has pushed the world and the future of the human race to the brink of environmental catastrophe over just barely the last 50-60 years (climate, environment pollution, ecosystem degradation, etc.
Basically, when the driving force is consumerism, -lowest prices- for -the best service-, etc, a small society with infinite resources may look ugly (no one is against good food choice and so on but capitalism doesn't stop there, it makes consumerism the leading theme of life) but do pretty well; a large society just won't last long.
It's tough to say what a better alternative is - it's up to people to decide. But business as usual just can't go on another 50-60 years.
reply
Amici
In Norway we have a high-percentage alcohol retail monopoly company called -Vinmonopolet- (-The Wine Monopoly-. It's state-owned, and follows strict rules for making certain that the focus of the consumer is on quality instead of quantity. They never have discounts or deals of any kind, but their stores have large selections of different types of drinks, and their staff are very professional and helpful. Buying high-percentage alcohol in Norway always feels like you're entering a wine snob's basement (although they sell many other things than wine for all sorts of occasions, from young adult partying to old men feasts.
reply
In Norway we have a high-percentage alcohol retail monopoly company called -Vinmonopolet- (-The Wine Monopoly-. It's state-owned, and follows strict rules for making certain that the focus of the consumer is on quality instead of quantity. They never have discounts or deals of any kind, but their stores have large selections of different types of drinks, and their staff are very professional and helpful. Buying high-percentage alcohol in Norway always feels like you're entering a wine snob's basement (although they sell many other things than wine for all sorts of occasions, from young adult partying to old men feasts.
reply
SunGod97
But you proved an important point: it is through -government- intervention that monopolies are created: almost no monopolies ever occur absent govt intervention through exclusive contacts, licensing and regulation (think, who is requiring you to have a license to own food trucks? Who is giving out and limiting these licenses? Government. If the government on principle did not interfere, there would be no ability or incentive for powerful private interest to lobby. The -barriers to entry- supposedly created by monopolies are erected by the government in response to the lobby.
reply
But you proved an important point: it is through -government- intervention that monopolies are created: almost no monopolies ever occur absent govt intervention through exclusive contacts, licensing and regulation (think, who is requiring you to have a license to own food trucks? Who is giving out and limiting these licenses? Government. If the government on principle did not interfere, there would be no ability or incentive for powerful private interest to lobby. The -barriers to entry- supposedly created by monopolies are erected by the government in response to the lobby.
reply
eoghan.
2: 00 Surely a under a proper free market a savvy businessperson could just walk up to the mayor with a suitcase full of notes. The mayor, as a rational actor, would take the money, and bang - monopoly granted. This is of course a mutually beneficial transaction - both business owners and government officials benefit.
And 9: 58 - jokes on you, I was brushing my teeth at the same time. And it only took five minutes cause I watched double speed. Limiting opportunity costs, y'know?
reply
2: 00 Surely a under a proper free market a savvy businessperson could just walk up to the mayor with a suitcase full of notes. The mayor, as a rational actor, would take the money, and bang - monopoly granted. This is of course a mutually beneficial transaction - both business owners and government officials benefit.
And 9: 58 - jokes on you, I was brushing my teeth at the same time. And it only took five minutes cause I watched double speed. Limiting opportunity costs, y'know?
reply
JUAN
The crux of their argument is that monopolies lead to price discrimination. Pricing discrimination is possible because of industry standards. Pricing means set pricing which is a result of basing prices on predetermined industry standards which they fail to mention. Monopolies are not the problem. Industry standards are the problem.
reply
The crux of their argument is that monopolies lead to price discrimination. Pricing discrimination is possible because of industry standards. Pricing means set pricing which is a result of basing prices on predetermined industry standards which they fail to mention. Monopolies are not the problem. Industry standards are the problem.
reply
Scuba
If price discrimination is illegal why are health care providers allowed to charge people who pay out of pocket 3 - 5 times what they charge people with insurance for the same service? I don't think that the people who have no insurance have a higher willingness to pay, except that people will pay anything to save their own life.
reply
If price discrimination is illegal why are health care providers allowed to charge people who pay out of pocket 3 - 5 times what they charge people with insurance for the same service? I don't think that the people who have no insurance have a higher willingness to pay, except that people will pay anything to save their own life.
reply
Prajwol
Pure Monopoly - 1: 00
Barriers to Entry - 1: 10
Crony Capitalism - 2: 35
Oligopoly - 2: 52
Horizontal Integration - 4: 25
Vertical Integration - 4: 38
Usefulness of monopoly - 5: 51
Natural Monopoly - 6: 38
Non-Coercive Monopoly- 7: 25
Price Discrimination - 8: 14
reply
Pure Monopoly - 1: 00
Barriers to Entry - 1: 10
Crony Capitalism - 2: 35
Oligopoly - 2: 52
Horizontal Integration - 4: 25
Vertical Integration - 4: 38
Usefulness of monopoly - 5: 51
Natural Monopoly - 6: 38
Non-Coercive Monopoly- 7: 25
Price Discrimination - 8: 14
reply
talos1279
Objection to the electricity example here. Here in Vietnam, electricity is a monopoly by state own enterprise. Being a monopoly has encouraged the company to do bad business practice, make losses, and fail to innovate in time. As such, the electricity power price keeps rising.
reply
Objection to the electricity example here. Here in Vietnam, electricity is a monopoly by state own enterprise. Being a monopoly has encouraged the company to do bad business practice, make losses, and fail to innovate in time. As such, the electricity power price keeps rising.
reply
160p2GHz
Start of video: They're bad, ya koolaid drinkin' Chads.
End of video: Patents do not constitute monopolies, most examples of modern utilities in competition share hard resources (cell towers, power grids, railways, monopolies are still bad, yaaaaa koolaid drinkin' Chads
reply
Start of video: They're bad, ya koolaid drinkin' Chads.
End of video: Patents do not constitute monopolies, most examples of modern utilities in competition share hard resources (cell towers, power grids, railways, monopolies are still bad, yaaaaa koolaid drinkin' Chads
reply
First
I guess vertical integration is dangerous because if the company has too big a market share, they may only buy or sell stuff to their own subsidiaries, establishing monopolies in those markets.
reply
I guess vertical integration is dangerous because if the company has too big a market share, they may only buy or sell stuff to their own subsidiaries, establishing monopolies in those markets.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
