How regulations deal the monopolistic hand
I have never truly considered the fact that monopolies are simply the result of risking innovation, however after listening to Dr. Per Bylund I believe this statement has great merit. After 3 years of intensively studying business in university, I can honestly say that I have always been taught to fear monopolies but never been pushed to question what creates them. As Dr. Bylund began to explain the fact that monopoly is simply a term and issue only arises when regulation creates unbalanced monopolistic power, I began to realize that I was never given space to disagree with policy, only the creation of monopolies. In the lecture it was pointed out that power mainly derives from barriers to entry, and those barriers to entry are often supported by government policy such as CON laws. It was not mentioned in the lecture however I would also argue that government regulations through copyright laws, patent laws, industry subsidies, and licences offer similar barriers to entry for businesses. As governments control access to the market they are in turn restricting the amount of innovation that can occur as there is a lack of room for new companies to enter the industry bringing about change either through their own innovation or innovation that is spurred through competition.
This ties into our previous conversations surrounding socialism and further provides proof for reasons to why socialism especially as a political policy is a terrible idea. To me, the government's issue of patents or licensing closely echoes socialism in a minor form. Licinging in particular gives the government the ability to control what companies or innovations are able to enter the market as if certain businesses don't obtain proper licensing they will not be able to operate at all. This pretty closely emulates socialism due to the fact that the government is essentially controlling access to resources via choosing to approve or deny companies that try to obtain a licence who will be using said resources. Patents and copyright also act as forms of governmental barriers to entry as giving certain business models, names, or phrases the right to be the sole owner and producer of said product or title makes it so other innovators can not enter the market.
Now of course just like was stated in the lecture, there will always be the power of personal choice. No one is forcing your hand when it comes to making a purchase therefore a monopoly just on its own is not entirely dangerous because it is just one of the many choices that exist for us. To me the true problem occurs when government regulation steps in in such a strict manner that it gives sole power to one creation, company, brand, etc. which will limit our choices as there is no way for competition to exist. Without competition either via prices or via innovation we would be greatly lacking as a society and unable to compete on a global scale. The rest of the world will continue to innovate, learn from other markets' mistakes, and create more products that offer higher value to consumers. If we go so far as to create continual monopolies through intense regulation I believe it will lead to the collapse of our economy as the government continue to fail by restricting innovation and consumers begin moving towards foreign produced products simply because they suit our needs at a better price than the one and only company supported by or government regulation.
Federalisms effect on monopolistic power
Admittedly, I do not have a vast understanding of Federalism as it is often left out of conversations surrounding political philosophy especially in our government classes, which is admittedly strange as one could argue that we would be nowhere without the federalist papers. That being said, when the question about returning to federalism and its potential limitations on monopolies was posed I found Dr. Bylands answer intriguing. Allowing states to have more say over regulations would undoubtedly shake up the current economic atmosphere of the United States which I think could further increase innovation as companies would be able to monetarily cast their vote by choosing to place their headquarters in states where politicians have created regulations that are best suited for their operation.
In my personal opinion our current government structure allows far too much campaign financing from large corporations so much so that the line has completely blurred between business and government in some cases. This intensive campaign financing has allowed for certain companies to obtain licensing, patents, or be overlooked by the government for their wrong doings simply because they place money directly in the pockets of politicians. I think a return to federalism in this case could be a viable option as it pushes each state or local entity to create policy that will allow for competition and thus innovation to thrive. No more competing for the federal government's favor through lavish campaign donations in order to support your monopoly, instead if regulations in one area exist that place significant barriers to entry then all you have to do is move. Allowing companies to move from one area to another based on policy will allow for politicians to think deeper about the effects of their regulations as states are under fire to be financially competitive, not just the federal government at large. Forcing politicians to see the removal of jobs from their area as powerful companies move due to their own unjust regulations might spur much needed political change.