Re: My Dinner With Marc Andreessen

In article <v69fbp$3d8jk$1@dont-email.me>, Rich  <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

Yes, and no.  You may be overlooking that in a totally free market, the
competitors are also completely free to purchase each other, reducing
the overall competition.  If the specific market has large market
specific capitol costs for entry (i.e., must build a $5Bn or more
semiconductor chip fab in order to enter and compete) then, over time,
consolidation (largest competitor purchasing up smaller competitors)
can happen faster than new entrants such that, in the limit, the result
will also be monopoly.

It goes beyond this.  It is in the clear best interest of any business
to have a monopoly or to at least reduce competition.  This being the
case, people in an existing business do the most they can to keep the
market from being free.

It is true that one of the things they do is to lobby for regulation
to control the market, and in this regard it's true that the government
is often involved in reducing competition. 

But with hands taken completely off the market, dominant businesses
(especially in a market with a lot of initial capital required, such
as telecoms or chip fab as described above) will do to most they can
to squelch competition and the government can also prevent that to increase
competition.  There's nothing that -can- stop it short of regulation.

Copyrights and patents can also reduce competition but they can also
increase competition by promoting innovation.  Too short a patent
duration and it does little to promote innovation, too long a patent
duration and it suppresses competition.  So once again there's a fine
line to be treaded.

It's not as simple as Adam Smith made it out to be anymore.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."