Mainstream Politics and Economics Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (49959)	8/2/2013 11:54:35 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) of 85487

2 - Many so called "robber barrons" and monopolies or dominate companies of the time primarily got wealthy through lower prices, or otherwise out competing their rivals. For example standard oil became dominant and maintained a declining dominance by lowering prices again and again. With the end result, if allowed to continue would to be reduce the number of competitors in its industry, and then prices would rise. The trend was in the other direction. For example standard oil's refining market share decline from 90 percent in 1880 to under 65% by the time it was broken up. Standard Oil was neither a protected nor a natural monopoly. It dominated because it executed better and was more efficiently structured. Other companies took its ideas and started to become more competitive, and also the oil market grew faster than Standard's ability to keep up. But my point remains, your example aside, our history is replete with bad fall out from unregulated markets. It is the extent of regulation that the debate needs to be about. en.wikipedia.org

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next