Need some skeptics to help me test a theory. Monopolies cannot exist without government interference.

We’ve actually never seen pure capitalism in our lives, the same way we will never see pure socialism/communism.

I don’t think there’s any such thing as pure capitalism or communism.. these are just theories that people wrote down much like you are planning to do yourself.. there is no capitalism without the state.. the state doesn’t interfere with market, the state has its own goals, economic growth, territorial expansion, military dominance, control of trade, intelligence, surveillance, as far as the state’s concerned I’m sure they see it as the market is inferring with them lmaoo

That’s not true at all. Capitalism is merely a word that captures the idea of “free enterprise”. Quid pro quo works synonymously as well. Capitalism also isn’t a form of societal organisation, which is what communism is.

Yes, that’s good, free enterprise, but within the bounds and laws of the state. It’s the state that enforces private property, without which capital could not exist.

Whether capitalism works better influenced by the state or not is not what I’m trying to discuss here. I’m speaking strictly on monopolies. Monopolies cannot exist without the state being involved. At least, that’s my hypothesis.

The economist Steve Keen has a book called Debunking Economics, in it there’s a chapter where he argues that capitalism has a ‘tendency towards monopoly’ and uses a mathematical model to prove it. What you’ll find in that book is beyond what anybody will offer you here on KTT.

I doubt it, especially if the book is exploring capitalism as we see it.

Lol

Well one historical fact I can point to which contradicts your thesis is Standard Oil, the biggest monopoly of all time, was broken up by the US government, yes?

I don’t see how this refutes my point. Standard Oil’s market share peaked at 90% in the 1890s. By the time the antitrust case was filed against them in 1906, their market share was 70%. When they were forcefully broken up by the government into 34 separate companies in 1911, market share was 64%.

Even at their peak, they didn’t have a monopoly over the oil trade as there were many competitors who were able to produce oil and profit, although not at the level of Standard Oil.

I do have to thank you though, I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the expertise employed by John D. Rockerfeller with his tenure at Standard Oil. It was good reading around the subject.

Hilariously, Rockerfeller’s shares transferred over to every single company that Standard Oil was broken up into, effectively making him the richest man in the world as the result of the ruling. That’s the sketchiest part in my opinion.

Additionally, the definition of monopoly in some areas seems to be far too broad to be accurate.

Investopedia determines that a monopoly is "when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry", which is rather ridiculous, because such a claim implies that a startup in a new industry is, by default, a monopoly due to the lack of any competition. This definition also fails to acknowledge the clear difference in what is referred to as a coercive monopoly, such as USPS being the only organisation allowed to legally deliver first class mail in the US.

I'd wager that coercive monopolies are the only monopoly that can actually exist, because a company can always lose market share either due to a competitor eventually challenging them or if a leading company experiences mismanagement. A coercive monopoly is unaffected by either of these two elements, because they will have a monopoly on a certain industry thanks to legislation that ensures that is the case.

Facebook is a good example for this.

good read, Steve Keen's work is always top notch

Yeah US isn’t even capitalist by definition, yet people claim the us is the most capitalist state of all.

Can’t be 100% capitalist with government regulation

Explain

If Facebook was allowed to grow unimpeded they’d be their own bank, government, source of information. Facebook is huge enough to promote their own candidate for office, get that person in, and completely disregard the US government while acting on its own accord.

There’s a reason why members of government are investigating FB and Google and it has nothing to do with privacy. They want to know what they know.

I don't understand what makes you think Facebook is a monopoly. As far as I'm aware, FB is being investigated for it's alleged role in influencing the 2016 election, which is resulting in the government throwing plenty of accusations to see which one sticks.

Then I got the two mixed up. Google was probed by the gov for privacy concerns but they also want to check Google and be involved with this massive operation.