Billions are being made by some people because markets are being gamed. The last time around that such happened was more than a century ago when buying up companies to create monopolies sparked the laws to prevent such manipulations. Well, this time around, we-the-sheeple are facing the same kind of problem - but from a different direction.That is, the consolidation of new-markets, not existing ones! The result is a quasi-monopoly of market-attendance profiting very few people - who think that as "innovators" they deserve the resulting moolah. Monopolies were clearly outlawed a long time ago. What has not happened however is that new-tech markets have been aggregated. Meaning that there may not be a monopolist in any market anymore. BUT there are MOST CERTAINLY OLIGOPOLISTS! Whazzat? Any company that is a member of an oligopoly, the definition of which is (from here): To wit, a recent study of a Very Seriously Flagrant Market Problem, titled: The Cost of America’s Oligopoly Problem - excerpt: (This matter/problem is very serious stuff, and I do not suggest it for those who are not very much into Economic Theory.) Furthermore, from the site: Some call the above "churning". I am one. Why a start-up should burgeon and then the owners make out of it a "buy-out" is damn easy. They want to "take the money and run". Why should that be illegal? Because what they have created is either a Monopoly (in which there is no real competition) OR an oligopoly where the competition is reduced to only two or three "real players" - and a handful of "also rans". Is that illegal? Yesserie! Monopolies are illegal because they amassed companies in the same sector and thus controlled pricing. That is clearly illegal. Any company that comes up with a good idea and then corrals all players just another example of the same consequence - that is, many players but only one owner of the playing-ground. How many companies compete with Facebook? Or Google? THAT is where the problem lies. And why is it that the only politician to date to drum the problem out to a DeepSleep American-nation is Mrs Warren? Because the rest of them are either asleep or personally part-of-the-problem (meaning they own stocks)! MY POINT!?! "Free markets" do not mean Monopolized Markets that make billions for those who create one are OK. Monopolies are illegal and should be broken-up! Oligopolies need to be hemmed-in as well. Why? Because THEY DO NOT DESERVE THE EXCESS PROFITS THAT THEIR MONOPOLIES/OLIGOPOLIES OFFER THEM ON A PLATTER! By bilking Jack-'n-Jill America because they own a dominant part of any given market. Period! So, what's been happening as a result? The monopolies continue and the wealth generated is being shared by a tiny group at the top. Which is why I have been suggesting all along in this forum that we need BADLY an Upper-income Tax-Rate of 100% at some moment when too few people have taken too much of an advantage from a "Good Idea". (For the moment, Senator Warren seems to agree with me.) Whyzzat? Because the True Purpose of a market-economy is to assure that the nation's worker-consumers benefit the most. Not just a select few who have a good-idea with which they are "gaming the market"! Their "good idea" would go nowhere were it not for a huge market-economy consisting of consumers (like me and you) in which it is promoted and thus succeeds ...
Actually that's not what happened. Antitrust laws like the Sherman Act were passed because politically-connected businesses were unable to compete with their more successful rivals on the market, so they got the government to knock them down. It's impossible for a firm to buy up all the competition. A famous example is American Can. They tried to do what you are suggesting--buying up all the other canning companies so that they could be the sole producer and completely monopolize the market. What happened was that new canning companies were being started left and right--after all, if you started a competitor, American Can would buy your business! Every time they bought another company two new ones popped up! Your other scenario is also impossible. Firms that are so well run that they have captured the majority of a market simply can't "control pricing." At all times it is the consumer that controls pricing. Prices are signals that inform capital where to invest. If a sector had its prices raised by a single powerful firm that would invite capital into that sector to take advantage of the higher profit margins. Essentially, that would create multiple competitors that didn't previously exist--competitors that are newer, more innovative and with the latest capital assets. Alcoa was accused of being such a monopolist, and they were by far the largest producer of Aluminium at the time--but they never raised their prices above the market rate. They couldn't. It just doesn't work that way. There are always substitutes, even if they aren't direct.
Interesting argument but dead wrong. The anti-trust law did set markets straight but that depended of course on the market. Any, it ended "trusting" (which was just another word for "market agglomeration and dominance" by any one company. Your historical argumentation is not all wrong, but neither is it all right, because it did have the result of breaking up some very large trusts: Here is an article to correct that error: The Trust Buster (a certain Teddy Roosevelt) - plus this excerpt: But that's history. What other Trusts have been busted? Over the 20th century, quite a few. But, for that revelation, you must go here: History of United States antitrust law My point: There's been a lot of Trust Busting since Teddy set the fire at the turn of the century? And here we are at a new Turn of the Century, and what have we? Trusts like Google, and Facebook. Same ole problem, but with a new face ...
The incorrectness of what is highlighted in red is self-evident. Housing prices, for instance, have very rarely led to Market Trusts or Monopoly situations. Though there are indeed what is called Oligopolies. From WashPo, here: Economists identify an unseen force holding back affordable housing - excerpt: I can understand that oligopolies are allowed under Replicant administrations. (After-all, reelection funding must come from somewhere!) Let's see - shall we - if a Dem-administration doesn't undertake some far less indulgent kickass in an oligopolistic housing market? Shall we? Oh yes, let's ... !
Damn fine reason to start investigating some patent monopolies/oligopolies Right Now! Let's start with the obstinate Mr. Zukerberg ... !
It is ironic that consumers have complete control over all of this. No laws needed. Don't like Google? Don't use it. Don't like Facebook? Don't use it. Don't like Apple? Don't use it. On and on, ad nauseum. Unless one is so weak that they just can't do without their Apple Iphone 755 or whatever is the newest latest greatest that everyone "must" have. If consumers support monopolies, obviously they have no problem with monopolies.
See what I mean? They knew damn-right well that their pricing was oligopolistic! But I have an even better idea. We raise Taxation Rates to the level just before JFK pulled them down in 1963: History, Marginal Tax Rate for Highest and Lowest Income Earners: (Click on image to obtain full-size.) Or, just look at the dip in the Upper-income Rates under the letter "s" in the title's word "Rates". Effective tax-rates are nonetheless somewhat different. From Forbes here: Anybody who wants to call such taxation "fair and comparably honest" should have their head examined ...
Moreover,from here: For The First Time In History, U.S. Billionaires Paid A Lower Tax Rate Than The Working Class: What Should We Do About It? Excerpt: Anyone who believes that upper-income taxation is "fair" in America should also have their head-examined ...
