Monopoly or Not?

Image Source

Definitions

The first thing to be established in the talk is the definition of a monopoly. While he states that it means that there is only a single seller I believe the definition to be slightly different. For me a monopoly would be any person or corporation that has a vast control of the market of an item and has enough influence to dictate the price, sale, and production of the item regardless of if the company or person is actually the only seller. For example, if there are three companies all selling a product and one of them controls 70% of the market and has the ability to drive the other two out of business if they don’t comply, then it is a monopoly. In the real world it is hard to use strict and narrow definitions because rarely in life do they apply to something exactly as written. This is why we have things like the supreme court whose job is to apply laws and ideas to technology and concepts that didn’t even exist when they were written.

This Product or No Product

He says that it is not a case of this product or no product but rather different variations of the same thing with different functionalities. A major hole in this argument is the pharmaceutical industry. Currently throughout the country 8.4 million Americans use insulin daily. This does not include all the people that desperately need it but can’t afford the life saving medication. Three companies control 90% of the global market for insulin and have set the price so high that even politicians are starting to wonder if they should cap the cost. If politicians are debating regulating you then you have caused a lot of problems.

Monopoly or Not

The speaker talks about how the monopoly doesn’t have the power to force you to buy their product. For his example he uses cell phones saying that you don’t really need them. I would vehemently disagree in the current day as even many job applications have a requirement for a phone number that they can reach you to even get the job there let alone your qualification. Sure I understand that this was just a bad example and that the statement might have merit but i think that using any sort of developing technology in the discussion of whether a monopoly is good or not needs to be case by case basis and have a great amount of context to determine the situation of the particular item, industry, or resource. As new advancements are made it needs to be decided whether or not they make such a groundbreaking discovery that there is no possible way it could compare to anything else on the market. Perfect example is if a new airbag system came onto the market that was able to protect someone in a car crash 100% of the time and no matter how bad it was or how much damage the car took it would keep the passenger perfectly safe. If this technology came onto the market no manufacturer would ever use any other airbag and regulatory agencies would require said airbag. This would need to be disseminated so that a single company can’t control all car sales and manufacturing around the world. However if the airbag was only 10-20% more effective than other airbags it could see an acceptable difference that would still allow other manufacturers to keep a solid presence in the market. If you want a monopoly that literally has the power to force you to use their service then look at the utilities companies around the country. Throughout the country utilities companies are allowed by law to create monopolies of different cities, counties, and states that allow them to charge and distribute power and water however they want because of laws created in the 1900’s. This is not a simple case of choosing another competitor as legally there can’t be any others and you can’t exactly say no to heating in the middle of freezing winter.

Potential Innovation Incentives

Throughout the talk he says that innovators would not create new inventions if they were considered a monopoly and stopped from getting any benefit from it. Off the top of my head I am able to think of a view that could incentivize people into innovation. One would be that the person gets a royalty from all new designs and sales based upon their invention for up to a set amount of years which encourages them to seek widespread use of it. Another could be a commission based on how valuable your creation is. The companies all wanting to get in on its creation pay a certain amount decided by the government to you in order to get the blueprint. In this anyone would be able to pay to learn how to make it but they would all have the choice of not paying. Again I would like to reiterate that this is just for items that would be deemed to be vital advancements to the society that provide a massive increase in health, safety, or general welfare to the community that is unrivaled by any competitor in the field.