There’s actually a bizarre irony.

Remember Bell labs, XEROX parc? Ask yourself why that existed and why research came out of them.

Monopoly.

So - many people don’t want to admit this but monopolies can be good from an R&D perspective, but without strong oversight by regulators - money will instead spent on R&D projects that specifically raise entry barriers.

▲

2 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

soulofmischief 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I can show you many more examples of monopolies which did not produce PARC or Bell Labs than those which did. It's possible such research happened in spite of dominating the market, not because of it. Anyway, you cannot have both monopolies and strong regulators. These are incompatible situations. Monopolies occur because regulation doesn't exist or is captured.

▲

jyrkesh 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Anyway, you cannot have both monopolies and strong regulators...

> Monopolies occur because regulation doesn't exist or is captured.

IMO, the stronger the regulator, the stronger the incentive to capture it.

Unless by "strong" you mean "competent"?

	▲	soulofmischief a day ago \| parent [-]
		I meant competent, but regulator strength in the way you're implying at its limit becomes monopolistic itself. So when I speak of regulation strength with respect to monopoly, I am speaking to the ability of a regulator to effectively both understand their duty and carry it out.