The incumbent is able to operate at a loss for longer than the up-and-coming competitor can,
And how exactly are they deliberately eliminating competition?
You didn't read what I wrote.
I see what you mean by that now. That's not necessarily a deliberate attempt at getting rid of competitors though, it's simply a larger business surviving while another dies.
Ah, the old "the government creates all monopolies" argument. Utter bullshit. Monopolies form easily because competitors form an unstable equilibrium. If one gets slightly ahead (by any means, ethical or not) it has more resources to spend marketing, buying up resources, or otherwise pushing out its competitors. Bingo! A monopoly.
Right, that is an example of a justified monopoly, where, like I said earlier, they achieve that status by simply being a good business, not by using government to force out competition.
The reason this is a problem, when there's government regulation, is because if that monopoly decides to start fucking people over, it's a lot harder for new, potential competitors to come around and fill the now angry consumer's demand for better quality/less expensive products.
I'll admit, Kraft cheese was a shitty example. A much better one would be pharmaceuticals. FDA regulations, and intellectual property laws, have really effected healthcare in America. Martin Shkreli and his HIV medications, or the more recent EpiPen price hike, these were only possible because FDA regulations, and patents and other IP laws, made it impossible for new competitors to show up.
There's a great video by That Guy T that can explain monopolies in an Ancap society much better than I can.
And the finale, the classic assumption that consumers have perfect information. Putting aside consumer rumour and hearsay, and average consumer education levels, the existence of the marketing industry shows that companies are seriously invested in providing imperfect information. The internet is not magic, it facilitates misinformation and disinformation just as well as it does true information.
It's up to the individual to make smart decisions for themselves. Society has no obligation to protect people from misinformation or poor choices, and no right to force anyone to stop making poor choices available in the market.
Another thing to keep in mind, like I said earlier, fraud is a form of coercion. If a company says something is or isn't in their product, when that isn't true, then an Ancap society would consider that criminal.
Assuming there are no monopolies. And, as I said later, monopolies can form and maintain themselves in a Free Market.
That's interesting, there are quite a few (and growing) artisan cheese (and cured meat) producers near me, despite no change in regulations. It's almost as if the regulations are aimed at conglomerates who use exotic addititves to make the "disgusting rubber" and stray far from the traditional (and well supported by regulations) recipes.
You didn't read what I wrote.
Ah, the old "the government creates all monopolies" argument. Utter bullshit. Monopolies form easily because competitors form an unstable equilibrium. If one gets slightly ahead (by any means, ethical or not) it has more resources to spend marketing, buying up resources, or otherwise pushing out its competitors. Bingo! A monopoly.
This is why the Monopoly board game is no fun. Because monopolies are inevitable in a free market.
LOL you're funny.
See, we agree.
And the finale, the classic assumption that consumers have perfect information. Putting aside consumer rumour and hearsay, and average consumer education levels, the existence of the marketing industry shows that companies are seriously invested in providing imperfect information. The internet is not magic, it facilitates misinformation and disinformation just as well as it does true information.