Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on July 01, 2014, 12:26:10 PM

Quote from: nextgencoin on June 30, 2014, 11:14:19 PM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on June 30, 2014, 08:32:02 PM

Quote from: cosmicapex on June 30, 2014, 07:16:24 PM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on June 30, 2014, 07:05:39 PM

Quote from: kerafym on June 29, 2014, 02:17:49 AM

Quote from: cbeast on June 15, 2014, 11:14:34 PM

Quote from: leezay on June 15, 2014, 09:02:22 PM

Quote from: cbeast on June 15, 2014, 05:54:00 PM

Quote from: Justine on June 15, 2014, 05:45:08 PM

Quote from: cbeast on June 15, 2014, 12:04:25 PM

That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.

Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty.

Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you.

Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall.

Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that.

Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service.

Well the main problem lies with the fact that when there is an actual monopoly the incentive to continue to provide an efficient and superior service fades away. You can't exactly have superior service if there's no longer anything else to compare it to. And since there is no longer an alternative efficiency becomes irrelevant for the monopoly.

When there's no longer an efficient monopoly, more efficient players should enter the market.

The problem comes when the monopoly takes steps to block or create barriers to entry that make entering the market difficult.

Then it wouldn't be a free market would it. And who is able to make barriers of entry other than regulating governments.

if people would understand one thing is that inequality comes from the thing that pretends to alter it, government and regulation.

I don't think governments are the only one who could make barriers to entry. Sometimes something as simple as controlling the supply of a commodity is enough to create an insurmountable barrier to entry.

A market with no regulation is more likely to cease to be a free market in the long run than one that is regulated properly with the intention of keeping it free.

I would disagree. There are many markets that have little regulation that have very low barriers to entry.

One example would be a lemonade stand, one would need to invest in very little in order to set one up. There are plenty of places where one could be set up. Lemons can be easily grown in the owner's yard for their lemonade paper cups and pitchers have a large enough market for other then lemonade stands that it would be difficult to control this market. This is a very basic example.

The point is that the lower overall investment needed in order to start a business in an industry the harder it will be to have a monopoly over the market.