You have failed to distinguish between economic and political power.
Economic power is earned justly (by offering better/more efficient/lower priced goods and services), and monopolies obtained and maintained this way are desirable. They lose market share only when company stops being virtuous.
Political power, on the other hand, is always wielded unjustly. An example of this is when someone tries to get the government to make a law that hurts their competitors, but leaves them unscathed. This happens all the time. (And it explains why we license professionals, and support food cartels, etc.) These kinds of laws are always sold to the public as measures designed to protect them, when in reality they are just there to keep GE and the like in power. Antitrust regulations fall on this side, too.
Entities with political power are protected by the government's (legitimate) monopoly on the use of force. If they're not virtuous, the govenment is there to maintain their unearned monopoly. Like any corruption, this harms living standards and progress.
So that's why you have to distinguish between the two cases. If you don't, you're implicitly advocating policies that punish the good for being the good. The political solution is to separate the state and economics, just like we separate the state and church.
Economic power is earned justly (by offering better/more efficient/lower priced goods and services),
This often happens justly. It doesn't always happen justly. For example, sometimes buying from merchant A is "more efficient" because merchant A has defacto dictatorial power and a variety of ways of making your life miserable if you buy from anyone else.
and monopolies obtained and maintained this way are desirable.
I am dealing with a monopoly based on the political power of a certain local music venue owner. If the free market were in operation in this case, amateur musicians of a certain local music scene would play jam sessions at an entirely different pub for a number of reasons. We are somewhat held hostage at our current venue, because of our friendships with professional musicians. None of us dare start a session inside the loop because of the political fallout. So we put up with the barman who doesn't care for us, his turning the stage lights on us until we sweat (it's not a paid gig, for heaven's sake!) and the utter inattention, ignorance, and apathy of the crowd. Our particular town's instance of this particular music scene suffers artistically for this, as better musicians don't show up, and some talented out of town musicians don't want to join in.
They lose market share only when company stops being virtuous.
Sometimes a company stops being virtuous, and keeps market share.
Hostage? You can't use that word in this context because it means that someone is committing a crime. (And if that were the case, you would be talking to the police about it!)
If you don't like what the owner of a certain venue is doing, you're free (somewhat - the government collects taxes and does other immoral things that limit everyone's freedom) to try to open a competing venue, where you make the rules.
Also, to use the phrase "political fallout" when you're not talking about the government is confusing as hell. Relationships with family and friends do not qualify as political if we are to have a sensible discussion about this.
You're entitled to your opinion. It works like this: certain of our friends are afraid that if we started another session, they'd never get another gig again or soundboard job again, which would be a significant chunk of their income.
Also, to use the phrase "political fallout" when you're not talking about the government is confusing as hell.
That's either crazy talk, or a deliberate troll. There's definitely workplace politics in groups of musicians. Somehow, I am unconcerned about you in particular being confused.
You're entitled to your opinion. It works like this: certain of our friends are afraid that if we started another session, they'd never get another gig again or soundboard job again, which would be a significant chunk of their income.
Losing your current job is a lot less scary than losing your life.
> Economic power is earned justly (by offering better/more efficient/lower priced goods and services), and monopolies obtained and maintained this way are desirable.
Or by stomping on heads of competitors, fleecing existing customers to boost new customers, locking people into nasty contracts, bullying others out of the market, utilising less ethical means to undercut the competition, paying your employees lower, offering an inferior product with better marketing, going to the right school and having the right mates and getting contracts for things despite offering less for more.
I know in happy startup land there are lots of wonderful companies that are living the dream and doing it in a nice way, but if you think what's best for a company is great for everyone else, I'd have to disagree.
It's nice to think that the business world is a meritocracy but that simply isn't true.
Economic power is earned justly (by offering better/more efficient/lower priced goods and services), and monopolies obtained and maintained this way are desirable. They lose market share only when company stops being virtuous.
Political power, on the other hand, is always wielded unjustly. An example of this is when someone tries to get the government to make a law that hurts their competitors, but leaves them unscathed. This happens all the time. (And it explains why we license professionals, and support food cartels, etc.) These kinds of laws are always sold to the public as measures designed to protect them, when in reality they are just there to keep GE and the like in power. Antitrust regulations fall on this side, too.
Entities with political power are protected by the government's (legitimate) monopoly on the use of force. If they're not virtuous, the govenment is there to maintain their unearned monopoly. Like any corruption, this harms living standards and progress.
So that's why you have to distinguish between the two cases. If you don't, you're implicitly advocating policies that punish the good for being the good. The political solution is to separate the state and economics, just like we separate the state and church.