Comment by bestouff
10 hours ago
No it doesn't, and you just proved it. You managed it because you could fake you had leverage. But without that you were slaves of theses companies, and that's the general rule.
10 hours ago
No it doesn't, and you just proved it. You managed it because you could fake you had leverage. But without that you were slaves of theses companies, and that's the general rule.
Sometimes I wonder if whoever writes these comments understands the words their using.
> No it doesn't, and you just proved it
What exactly did they prove? You didn't substantiate or explain this at all. Leverage would be relevant if they were negotiating a deal. They weren't. The company laid down fibre because of what they saw as a potential competitor (municipal fibre). The municipality didn't use the threat of fibre to come to terms with the monopolistic company. That would've been leverage. But they didn't, so it wasn't leverage. The municipality created the appearance of competition and the monopoly behaved accordingly as if there were a potential competitor.
> What exactly did they prove?
They proved that the Free Market doesn't automatically provide functional competition, if you think about it, the Western-style free market is very keen on creating and maintaining monopolies, even cheating isn't going to help you here.
> The company laid down fibre because of what they saw as a potential competitor (municipal fibre).
The OP is about free market failures, not about competition. As another example, many people have pointed out that there is much more competition in China than in the US. Hope, this is enough for you to understand the difference.
Free markets don't automatically do anything. There's nothing automatic. It's about giving individual people the opportunity to take action.
1 reply →
Markets are just a tool. This tool functions on information. OP explained how information (in this case, the rumor of a competitor laying fiber) caused action within the market.
Hmm. Seems the tool is working as expected.
The OP is about telecom. I took a look and learned [1]:
> The telecommunications industry in China is dominated by three state-run businesses: China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile.
A little slippery to bring China into the telecom free market discussion and contrast it with “Western-style” while failing to mention the structure of its telecom industry.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_industry_in...
1 reply →
Western free market doesn’t create monopolies. Where did you get that idea?
The only place monopolies tend to emerge is heavily regulated areas that allow for regulatory capture (laying fiber is a great example of this).
9 replies →
So this shows competition works, but I thought the original post was about the free market. When the two companies were asked to fill a need for the people, they refused, and the people were not otherwise about to independently provide the service based on their own funds. I feel as though if the only way of getting companies to do something without organic competition is to use underhanded methods (such as lying about another competitor), then the free market has some places for improvement, no?
Competition works up to a certain point its best for short term returns and not for long term as the time and capital investment increases the chances of monopolies forming increases. This is the reason why I think most public infrastructure should be invested in and owned by the government. Let companies compete on building, running and maintaining it.
> ...one day, one of the municipal counselors just called up a friend who worked for a fiber laying company and asked them for a favor: put out a press release saying that they were “investigating” laying an undersea fiber to power a municipal fiber network on the little island.
They called in a favor that put pressure on the company from public expectations.
Yes. What do you think happens in a competitive marketplace? Sony heard about Nintendo partnering up with Philips for the SNES CD expansion, so Sony made their own console. That's literally competition.
The details of how the "public pressure" came to be don't matter, because the monopoly didn't know about that. All they knew was there was a potential competitor, so they behaved according to that information. That's how it works.
12 replies →
Sometimes commenters all over the internet write like this because they just got incredibly jealous after reading the parent post. I've been thinking more and more about how most posts are jealous or depressed outtakes against the world, system, or other person. This fundamental human behavior won't change, and is as reflexive as a monopolistic company reacting to a press release, proving the parent correct despite their scathing response of the child.
It's worth noting that 4chan and Reddit also live here because both sites are insufferable.
This is borderline psychosis levels of logical fallacy.
They seemed like they _could_ compete, and that forced an efficient, profit motivated company to assume infrastructure and operational risk of competently deploying a higher quality product for the public good.
I don't know. I feel like "price fixing until maybe there was a hint of competition" is pretty far from frictionless sphere, supply and demand economics.
Competition was possible but was not working. A fake news brief is the supposed solution. That's not really competition actually lowering prices. That's the price fixing regime blinking for an unsubstantiated reason.
It would be a different story if the friend's fiber laying company actually saw an opportunity and pursued it, but they didn't.
This. Businesses aren't usually “competiting” in the way microeconomics think they do.
Every business owner knows that a race to the bottom with other businesses in their market is going to ruin each other's life and they don't usually engage in this kind of practice (with the notable exception of people with lots of capital to wipe the competition out of the market then do a rug pull after the fact).
The goal of a business is never to capture their competitors market share, it's to make a decent profit at the end of the year so that their shareholders (or themselves, depending on the size and ownership structure) get the revenue they expect.
This is a perfect example of competition in microeconomics. If you've only been exposed to an introductory economics, you've missed out on a lot.
This type of situation sounds like an amalgamation of a few exam questions from my first year of an econ PhD. "Cheap talk in a Bertrand market with entry costs and capacity constraints" or something. No I haven't worked it out but my intuition is that it would predict exactly what was observed: the threat of a new entrant with enough capacity risks loosing your entire business so you invest to expand your capacity to prevent that entry.
> with the notable exception of people with lots of capital to wipe the competition out of the market then do a rug pull after the fact
They used to be called robber barons.
Ironically, during the anti-trust trial of Standard Oil, Rockefeller's market share kept slipping. His competitors figured out how to compete with him.
As for Rockefeller being a "robber", the rise of Standard Oil resulted in the price of kerosene dropping 70%.
This is provably not true. You can look at computers (besides Apple), cell phones (besides Apple), TVs, any commodity item, etc
As Peter Theil literally said, "Competition is for losers."
In other words, competition works, and lack of competition leaves you vulnerable.