There were regulated monopolies. But beyond that, there are no true monopolies. They are illegal, obviously. So, it would be a bit hard to name a true monopoly that got that way without gov assistance. Regulated monopolies are those that you would not want to be multiple companies, ie, for the good of the country. So, you really did not want multiple water companies, each digging up the roads competing for business in a single town. And so forth.
But, there are many companies with monopoly power. Verizon, now in the cell phone, and land line, industry. The result of buying up smaller phone companies. Exxon has lots of monopoly power, along with the other oil companies. Etc, etc. They did not need gov help to get where they wanted to go, except for political favors to allow them to bypass antitrust legislation, get drilling rights, that sort of thing. Assuming a completely free marketplace, with no government regulation, Exxon or BP or Conoco would be by now a single monopoly. All they need to do is buy out the other companies.
So, what I am saying is that the only reason that there are not more monopolies is because of the gov. Or said another way, because of us. We did not want monopolies. We set up the laws, through our representatives in government, to prevent that. Sherman Anti Trust act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others. If you believe in no gov intervention, then you probably are a follower of the Chicago economic theory, founded and led by Milton Freedman, and supported by the Libertarian economics views, and by some very wealthy businessmen.
Because of government we have monopolies like the Federal Reserve which effects everyone including our government.
You are misguided if you think government intervention creates competition and helps to "spread the wealth" of the market place.
It does just the opposite.
The federal reserve???? You may want to go to Wikipedia to get a better idea of what the fed is. It is not a monopoly, but a body set up to regulate finance in this country. Sounds like you do not much like it. You may want to look and see what happened before it was created. Not that I think it is perfect, by any stretch. But if you like unregulated financial systems, then you may want to wonder why Jefferson was so dead set against unregulated banking.
But, if you are looking at monopoly, then you would be looking at B of A, Chase, and the others. The share of deposites held by the largest 5 banks in this country has grown from 9% in 1984 to 40% in 2009. Completely as a result of banks gobbling up banks. And remember, banks have to get regulatory approval to buy other banks. What do you expect will happen if those regulations were either loosened or removed, as many in congress want??
So, the great depression ocured as banks failed. The great recession of 2008 occured as financial organizations failed. We saved banks useing taxpayer money, because banks failed. If it were not for the fact that banks have become so large, those things would not have happened. So, do you still suggest that unregulated finance is the way to move forward. Or should finance be regulated???
Before you get a big head, and call someone misguided, open your mind a little. Do you think that you pay $4 per gallon because of unregulated competition??? Do you think that gas costs four times as much to produce today as it did in the 1980's??? Have you noticed who controls the supply of oil, and influences the demand for oil? Have you noticed that the demand for oil is inelastic??? And that somehow, gas prices increase just until the public starts to demand government help, then drops part way back down until the public breaths a sigh of relief, then increase again, and decrease again, in a ratchet process. Do you think this is market driven?? Do you believe that trading in gas, by entities that never take delivery of a drop, is a market driven concept??
The concept that monopolies are created by the gov is very naive. Basically, it is a political concept that has no real validity in the real world. Remember, with the exception of Natural Monopolies, those controlled by the gov, monopolies are basically illegal. With few exceptions. If you remove those legal restrictions, you would have greater monopoly power, and more monopolies. Plain and simple. Because it is the natural result of competition. Companies buy companies to gain market share. Complete market share is the ultimate prize, and would be attainable without gov intervention. And, read what I say carefully. I am not saying that all industries tend to complete monopoly. Many do not. But nearly all tend toward monopoly power and oligopoly, if not true monopoly.
Ed's statement about IBM is an example where monopoly power did not work in a particular area. For instance, the desktop component of IBM failed, for technical and legal reasons. They just were not too smart. But their core business, mainframe computers, was and still is largely a monopoly.
Microsoft has not won all areas in the tech world. But you may want to look back at companies like WordPerfect and Lotus123, and try to understand why they ended up failing. It was, clearly, the monopoly power of Microsoft that killed them and many more companies along the way.
