Monopols are being created by the market authority via rules that shield individual companies from competition.. rules like patents (appeared 14th century, Venice) or copyrights (appeared 17th century, England). It's the 'fault' of the political system (monopol on force) that causes this - mostly because Plato didn't do his homework.
Brave literally claims it doesn't have adds. I tried it and I found it crashed it computer with all the adds and pop ups. Its garbage. Duck Duck Go is garbage and doesn't fully work properly on Windows operating systems. Bing is just absolute trash. Well Bing doesn't crash like all the others except Google but if you are actually wanting to search something up your not going to get what you want to look at for starters I looked up a recipe for fish on both search engines and on Bing I got places to buy a wedding dress while on Google I got recipes on how to cook fish. So yea there is some kind of broken bullshit with Bing. I can never find what I am searching for on Bing ever. Bing is great if you want to spend an afternoon wasting time on the most garbage of stupidities but as an actual search engine its not good at all. Hell on a computer at someone's house I knew only had Bing because they were absolute morons who believed it was the only search engine that was good enough. Well at there house I was trying to find the bus schedule for the city bus and the dam thing kept trying to get me to either buy a zoo or look at pictures of elderly diapers or play Chinese board games online. Trying to use Bing as an actual search engine is like trying to pull the teeth out a fire breathing dragon's mouth that wants to kill you with tweezers. The actual screwed up fact is there are over 50 search engines. Brave is fully operated and controlled by North Korea and does not work properly outside of those countries. Duck Duck Go is operated by China, North Korea, and South Korea and doesn't work properly outside those countries. Then there are ones that only work in Europe and others that only work other countries. The only 2 that actually are world wide are Bing and Google and only 1 that actually gives you the results you are actually looking for and won't give your computer viruses that destroy your computer. Also a reality check needs to stated. That trial was not considered a real nor legal trial. It was a judge that ruled over an empty room. A single judge declared without a real trial that Google is an illegal monopoly. Is Google a Monopoly? Yes. Is it an illegal Monopoly? No. Does it hold such dominion that true competitors don't actually pop up? Yes. Does Google destroy the competition when they try and get created? No. Google actually has funded over 5000 other companies without owning them to try and allow for some competition and every single time the competition fails because they can't live up to the shit they talk about. In reality Google succeeded 25 years ago when they finally made a successful search engine that didn't crash as much as its competition did. Ask Jeeves was fully funded with trillions of the European money being dumped into that operating system in order to try and compete with Google and it shut down its search engine in 2005 and switched to just Ask before fully shutting down 2011 with the website fully fading from the Internet by 2013. Duck Duck Go is a search engine that is modeled using the original coding of Go Duck which at the time of 1998 to 2000 Go Duck was slightly better at searching than Google but Go Duck kept crashing sending people's computers into what is called the blue screen of death and Go Duck fully shut down in 2002 while Google had no crashes and was far superior to Bings search engine now. Google has gotten far better over the 25 years of competition not being able to compete with Google of the 2002 version of Google let alone the Google of now. I have used so many search engine over the years and some of them were fun because of how bat shit insane they were. They were funny but as actual usable for what you need them for everyone single one is worse than garbage. Hell Yahoo was a big competitor and they shut their company down and got bought out by Microsoft which forces the system to use Bing while actual employees only use Google. Every single computer used by IT and Microsoft around the world and Apple and blatantly every computer system uses Google Search. Hell the number 1 search thing on everything except Google is Google. Google search engine is searched up by all search engines with most having the 99% thing search up is just Google. Bing is searched so much for Google search that its actually funny. Bing is not even searched on any search engine at all. No search engines are actually searched for on any search engines but google will give you a list of all search engines freely and it does that because it knows you are coming back because you are not going to use anything but Google especially after spending the time on all other search engines pissed off and ripping your hair out.
Bing pays companies to make it so that their search engine can not be removed at all and can not be removed from the default position. Google pays to have the item start out as the default but it can be removed easily in fact. Facebook, and Bing yea they can't be removed or even turned off very easily. Hell I was barely able to get my smart phone to use google instead of Bing because Bing actively tries to not be removed. Hell on my computer Bing hid inside of other files to not be deleted and it even tried clinging onto the files of my video games. I had to delete not just my saves by the entire video game of Age of Empires off my computer in order to finally delete Bing off my system because its a virus not a search engine.
isn't the tech industry currently laying off mass amounts of workers? this seems sketchy, and quite ironic on a video that criticises the big tech companies one should find employment at
Everyone, please think about what this man is saying about "good monopolies": while in their money burning phase, consumers can benefit from their decreased prices, paid for by investors. Alright. And what happens if we do that? We spend our money on the growing monopoly, and not its competitors. The competitors lag behind and the monopoly grows. Once competition has been sufficiently starved as to make a comeback unlikely, the prices rise. Prices that will be paid by the consumer. This is short-sighted madness, helping a despot starve out those that can oppose him will not lead to freedom. If said despot is showering you with rewards, you better believe the bill is coming once you have nowhere to run.
Yeah it’s absolutely maddening that this video makes the argument that any anticompetitive behaviour can be a ‘good monopoly’ just because it happens to lower prices for consumers in the short term. Monopolies - all monopolies - are despised for a reason.
Devil’s advocate here: been listening to HMW for some time, it’s a bit of misunderstanding as he isn’t in favor of monopolies, he isn’t really ‘defending’ monopolies per-se, he is just saying that ‘on the way to a monopoly’ consumers do actually benefit. This is basic tactics that end in the rug pulls just like politicians do with promises of working less and “giving from the rich to the poor”. That said, it is indeed a fantastic take and also shows that it takes two to tango to generate these monopoly monstrosities we have today. Myself I have decided to go as minimalistic as comfortably possible and vote with my wallet: got rid of most streaming services, almost never go out to waste money, even avoid bus and subways 80% of the days (bike and walk instead). I think there’s a way to starve them all a bit if we just at least stop buying the non essentials; and we would even starve the government a tiny bit by not giving them that 15% sales taxes they get every time we spend our hard earned surviving dollars. This might sound extreme to some, but me personally I even got rid of things like milk, cereals, juices of all sort, etc… the fridge is so light, cheap and healthier now: brócoli, chicken, cheap bread, butter and that’s about it most of the days.
I had to pause the video to see if anyone commented this. Thanks for it. There is no good monopoly in our current system. Short term advantages for the costumer or employes will turn into long term problems
@@maximemeis2867 I don't think you understand what a monopoly is. It doesn't have to be legislated. Pushing exclusive deals like what Google does with Apple's Safari is part of how they maintain a monopoly.
@@maximemeis2867That is a disingenuous stance. The big companies have been doing tons of stuff to make the smaller competitors invisible (like paying apple to make google the default search engine. Something Microsoft did with Internet Explorer before google sued them) so they either unjustly bankrupt or are bought into the monopoly. And these techniques done by google *are* illegal when trying to become a monopoly.
@@maximemeis2867 a monopoly is when a company controls the vast majority of a market, and uses specific strategies to keep competitors out. It has nothing to do with laws preventing people from entering markets.
More than 50 years ago, JK Galbraith criticized mainstream economists for pretending the US economy is a free market while ignoring that most sectors are dominated by anti-competitive corporations. It's even more true now than it was then
the anti competitive stuff is caused by rules like patents (since 14th century) or copyright (since 17th century) that the POLITICAL SYSTEM creates and maintains.. because it is the monopol on force. Our problems are there.
Plus, its the job of a manager to maximize profit - which you can do by becoming a de facto monopolist. Since the incentive is there, it should be legally assumed, in case of doubt, that a company that "looks like" a monopoly IS one.
@@Z3sty_St4rRegulating human nature is a very tough job. Especially when the monopolies can buy and sell politicians and bureaucrats relatively cheaply.
@@ryanward10 who created a political system where a few are in control that then can be bought? Plato had this idea of reluctant philosophers in positions of power to lead us.. too bad that more selfish ruthless individuals are MORE competitive and ABLE and WILLING to (ab)use those positions for personal gain (at the cost of the rest).
Oh, absolutely. It’s like the big players are swallowing up the competition left and right. Whether it’s tech, healthcare, or even food, the choices keep shrinking.
And it’s not just about choice, either. When a few companies control the market, they can set whatever prices they want. It’s no wonder everything’s so expensive now. Look at cable and internet providers-they’ve got us all by the throat.
Yeah, and don’t get me started on streaming services. We cut the cord to save money, and now there are so many different platforms that we’re back to paying almost as much as we did for cable.
It’s frustrating, for sure. But it’s not just about higher prices. The quality of service seems to go downhill, too, when there’s no competition. Companies don’t have to try as hard when they know there’s nowhere else for us to go.
And the worst part is how it impacts the economy. When a few corporations dominate the market, it’s harder for small businesses to survive, and that limits job opportunities and innovation.
Before globalisation it was in the US’s interests to protect its population against monopolies. Now in the age of globalisation when US companies dominate the globe it is in the US’s interests to protect its companies with monopolies, the detriment done to their own population is seen to be outweighed by the benefits extracted from the rest of the world.
@@natthekiwi7074 I know you're too stupid to understand this don't worry. But for those who are still capable of independent thought: Capitalism works under a couple of specific conditions. #1 that there are laws that protect personal property and rights. #2 that those laws are enforced. #3 people make well thought out choices. As long as those 3 conditions are met the system is by far the best most democratic humans have ever developed. Why? Because under a capitalist economic system all money (excluding taxes) is given, not taken. Amazon cannot take your money, you must willingly give it to them. And how much money you have to give them is determined entirely by how much money other people are willing to give you. If people like you, or value your skills, they will give you money, if they do not, they won't give you money. Successful products and businesses are voted on by individuals using their wallets. The original commenter is likely pro communism/socialism/something-else-ism. The problem with those systems is simple: You entrust all decisions to the government. In theory that government is made of elected individuals, individuals who in theory should enact the will of the people who elected them. However once given power, they will use it to keep that power or try to gain more. They prioritize the success and profit of their group or party over the needs of the people they were elected to serve. Exactly like what is happening in almost every massively bloated government on the planet right now. The advantage that capitalism has despite having to have governmental oversight is that the government can be small and distributed, making it easier to break up corruption as it forms, and lessening the impact when it does form. However this is where condition #3 comes in. With a small government you rely on your population to make choices that benefit them. They must be educated and informed so that they can make complex decisions. The reason that the -isms are so popular is that they benefit individuals who do not want to have to educate themselves or make decisions. All they have to do is check a box on a voting ballet and someone else will take care of all of the decisions for them. This was the entire purpose in the formation of the United States. The goal was limited government oversight, and people free to vote with the wallets. The situation we're in is a result of people voting for easy solutions without considering the consequences.
So true. You may use the cheap prices but always need to remain independent from it. I used E-scooters in my city for commuting to and from the train station. Those are heavily funded by investors money. Now they try to rise prices and I switched back to cycling.
@@nami1540that was my favourite thing about e-scooters. Taking them more often, when they were cheap, than I had been cycling beforehand was what helped me find a bunch of mixed-use pathways and bike-lanes in parts of my city that I didn’t even realize were there. So when the prices went up I, and I went back to cycling, I actually cycled way more often and to much further places than I had been before.
@@nami1540thats a terrible idea, the reason monopolies have the low-price phase is to put competitors out of business, when prices go up its usually already too late
I switched to Firefox after 10 years once I heard that they crippled uBlock. I am not willing to see any ads in future. They left me no choice and I discovered that Firefox is great nowadays and that their mobile version has uBlock as well
That's what they're supposed to do - companies exist to make profits, that's it. Everything else they do, good or bad, is a side-effect. That's not in itself a problem. That's how it's supposed to be. Society (aka: you and I and almost everyone else reading this) on the other hand wants to encourage companies to make their profits by doing the good things and discourage them from doing the bad things. That's what regulations are for. It becomes "sickening" when its the politicians - the people we elected to create those regulations - are coming up with boneheaded phrases like "government not the solution to our problem; government is the problem!" That fundamentally (yet very intentionally) misrepresents the relationship between the people, the government, and the corporate interests that form the majority of our economy. The concept of deregulation is explicitly asserting that entities which exist only for the sake of profits, regardless of morality, should be solely in charge of deciding whether or not morality has to play a role in their profit-seeking. _Shockingly,_ they almost always decide "no". They only time they go for "yes" is when they think a regulation will impose a barrier to entry sufficient to reduce competition - that is, they'll take a regulatory hit when it helps entrench their monopoly. On the up side, Harris so far seems to be running the same line as Biden did so it's unlikely she'd dump the current FTC head just to make some billionaires happy. Can never be absolutely sure of course ("with great power..." cliches and all that) but she's been right beside the Oval Office for 4 years now so it's unlikely she'd suddenly shift her policy stance that far. Of course, the FTC is only one regulatory body - there are plenty of others that she could potentially go the other way with and beef up (how much that will matter in light of the recent SCOTUS decision that almost entirely defangs every federal regulatory body is another question). If Trump wins however well... we've already seen how he picks his regulators - find the person most likely to destroy the department entirely. While simultaneously telling the nation that all the work those bodies do is somehow going to get done better when the body enforcing them doesn't function. And that was before the whole Project 2025 dystopian fever dream became his guiding light.
Corruption has hit new levels when the corrupt don't even try to hide the corruption anymore. It's almost like they don't think they are doing anything wrong.
Even worse because unlike the 1800s when the USA was a rapidly growing country. The opposite is the case today. So even then at least they had a growing economy where ours in 2024 is stagnant.
According to the nyt, a judge has blocked the ftcs noncompete rule. Love living in america where judges are blatantly bought off and can just shut any pro consumer/ pro worker rule down
Big surprise, changing a entities purpose from performing a specific, designated task as fast and quickly as possible and expire as a entity after a certain date to a entity whose sole purpose is to generate revenue by any means necessary, and then to keep meeting unrealistic growth expectations creates a cold, uncaring, alien entity that seeks control, memorablity, money, and exploitation for disinterested share holders, CEOs, living Nobility and other cooperations. The Boomers and the silent generation has effectively fucked all of us over.
your right, the main problem is that these regulators own huge no of stocks in monopoly companies and they would make more money if they let mergers and acquisitions go through instead of blocking them.
Monopolys are *always* bad. The question is just when. That´s by design, due to how capitalism works. As a company, you *must* increase profit margine every year, to increase shareholder value. But you can only innovate a product so much, especially when you already dominate the space and can´t just out marketing your competition. That means they either *have to* increase prices or they *have to* decrase quality, change quantity, etc. So no. Monopolys are bad for the consumer. Always.
You cant just decrease quality endlessly and expect to stay competitive with new challengers in your own market branch or alternative branches, thats why monopolies are so difficult to keep up without government help
"Why the good monopolies don't last" they don't last because there is no such thing, there's just ones that are preparing to be evil instead of being evil
To be fair, he said "... and why the good times of monopolies don't last..." The window of this concept is always short. But the issue is not the benefits of a monopoly, but to realize any "good times" are on a track toward another future. And this future will not be "good times." But who are we to say who controls the narrative of society?
In my state, we have a hospital chain that in the past decade has bought every clinic and hospital and even started their own pharmacy business. They've bought small clinics, competitors that owned multiple locations, prior Walgreens locations, etc. It's actually crazy. There's basically no clinics that aren't owned by them in my state, and of course they give extremely poor care. Why did the government allow this to happen?
@@suspicioussand I think the US has many advantages over other countries, such as rights we are given by the constitution that other countries simply do not have. We've been at the forefront of ground-breaking technology, for example, and there's just many other areas we do well in. But none of that matters when our healthcare system is so broken and awful. Unfortunately I have no hope of it ever being fixed.
"Pushed through ,,, banning of non-compete agreements" ... ironic that a few minutes before watching this I read an article tat the non-compete ban has been blocked by a judge.
This is something that should be passed as a law not a random arbitrary rule by an unelected government agency anyways. We should respect the checks and balances of our government and not blur the lines.
@evancombs5159 if the system were working as intended I'd agree, but right now the only checks are the ones being written by corporations to line the account balances of government officials. And the laws needed to prevent that won't be written into law by said corrupt officials who benefit
@@MindAx13 so your method of getting things back in order is doing more of the things that got the system out of whack to begin with? Continual centralization of power into unelected officials doesn't solve the problem, just makes it easier to exploit.
It was better overall, and shows monopolies can actually be good for consumers sometimes. Netflix was the solution to piracy and inconvenient movie watching, but now we're regressed to where Blockbuster would be more convenient than the current state of streaming.
Back then the political system also created and maintained rules that shielded a few from competition.. thus creating a winner takes all environment where the few can maximize for profit.
@@arthurmiranda8896 We desperately need a leader who is able to present an image that fuses progressivism and pluralism with masculinity, tenacity, honor, and sharp intellect. Just like Teddy Roosevelt did.
@@scivolanto Yep, grabbing the initial market share generates a huge cost-of-entry for would be competitors. Then again, it didn't work out for myspace.
It's certainly not just IP. You could absolutely build a search engine that would be superior to Google in every regard (especially now) and utterly fail to make any headway in the market because Google bought out pretty much every browser and OS to make it the default choice. You could come up with a service model far surpassing both AWS and Azure and never get off the ground just due to not having the servers to handle your customers. You could make the most stable and user-friendly Linux distro ever, and barely anyone would use it, because the app makers only target Windows. IP abuse is a thing and should be curbed, patent protections should last less, but trust me when I say that getting rid of patents entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
@@maximemeis2867They're never enforced, to be more aptly described. And the ones that try to be enforced are now at the risk of being invalidated by US's Supreme Court now.
The idea that "good monopolies" exist is ridiculous. The only reason these benefits exist for consumers is to accrue market share making them automatically short lived. Over time every "good monopoly" will inherently become "the bad kind."
Which is why natural monopolies like vital utilities ought to be highly regulated if not controlled by democratized government, because its citizens can hold the government accountable through constant pressure to remain not-for-profit and the threat of voting in their opposition into leadership.
@@doujinflip utilities being a monopoly is a symptom of government regulation. These companies have lobbied for decades to strangle any attempt of smaller, locale focused utility companies. Same thing happened with ISP's. Use the feds to bully both private and public initiatives under the veneer of "safety".
@@doujinflipwhen was the last time the citizenry held the government accountable? Be honest the citizenry is easily distracted with bread and circuses and sucks at holding anyone to account
Idealistally, i would rather pay for l 1 or 2 streaming services where both have reasonable prices, good content, and consumer friendly business practices, than 10. Having too much competition leads to piracy as people can’t afford to pay for multiple streaming services.
One good monopoly that basically every gamer use "steam", you use it, i use it, your favorite TH-camr use it, everyone use it because it's the best place to sell or buy stuff from, they are doing the bare minimum and yet still in the top spot.
I called every HVAC company that serviced my area, the absolute lowest quote for an INSTALL ONLY pre-charged minisplit was 2.7k. Connecting wall one story right next to fusebox. Did it myself in 4 hours had to buy a 150$ vacc pump. It's glorified mounting two TVs. If you knew what you were doing could easily do it in less than 3 hours. 1000$ an hour for such easy labor is a scam.
It's crazy. My parents had some masonry work done to their home. 2 guys working for 4 hours. They charged 3262 Euros. It's just so insane. If I ever get to own a home I'm defiently going to try do most stuff around the house myself. And even weirder is the guys doing the work get paid less than 20 euros and hour so where is the money going
I did the same, it's crazy how much they want for such a simple task. The hardest part was making sure I complied to all my local building codes. That and lifting the damn thing onto the wall mount lol
@@grimkahn3775He just said the job was as simple as mounting two TVs. It's price gouging on the assumption that people don't understand the work that is being done
And the most expensive part is a chip that isn't that expensive per unit. But the cost of setting up dies and stuff for mass producing it is very expensive, and the cost must be distributed over every unit sold.
Shouldn't ignore R&D and engineering for something so complicated. That's bad on principle. You shouldn't allow it to sell for nearly 10x the prediction either. That's also bad on principle.
@@dddmemaybe in theory ignoring R&D is indeed not good, but R&D is a one-time fixed expense and it becomes less relevant to the sticker price the more units get made.
@@danycashking but if you wanna stay competitive you have to keep investing in R&D, so when that R&D is less relevant, that product is less relevant too, and now you're selling a new product with new tech
It's actually a stolen idea from the "landlords game", which was created to show why land value taxation helps decrease exploitation by the inherent Monopoly of private ownership of land. "The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give." - Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI "Of the Rent of Land"
"What's the point of being in business if you can't corner the market, gouching customers?" - Quark , brother of future Grand Nagus Rom after learning about introduction of new legislation making monopolies illegal.
but capitalism is defined as voluntary exchange among equals.. the only mechanism able to change that is the monopol on force - the political system. We got a problem with representative democracy.
@@joansparky4439 > capitalism is defined as voluntary exchange among equals That's how it's defined in the introductory course. Turns out all those doctors of economics weren't just playing video games for the remaining 6-7 years they stayed in school. > the only mechanism able to change that is the monopol on force No. Capitalism naturally tends toward monopoly. Assuming absolutely no control on the market (aka: Libertarian dream world), the first company in an industry that gets ahead sufficiently far that they can start buying competitors and imposing barriers to entry to prevent new competitors becomes able to continuously reinforce its position. Worse, once a monopoly is sufficiently powerful, it could (again under the assumption of no regulations) start buying their way into _other_ markets and using the profits from their existing monopoly to jump straight to that "buying competitors and imposing barriers to entry" phase. Such a company certainly has to _start_ by offering a better product in order to get ahead in the first place, but once they've accomplished that there is no mechanism within the framework of capitalism to stop the rush toward full monopoly power. It _must_ be imposed externally (eg: by a governing body). _That_ is where the "monopoly on force" comes into play. > We got a problem with representative democracy Correct. Too many voters believe Reagan's lies. It's no coincidence that the rise of super monopolies coincides with the push to deregulate everything. Government is only "the problem" because we've allowed corporate interests to make it a problem, reaping all of the profits while us average folk get to deal with the result of four decades of wage stagnation. If you don't like the government, then vote for better people. People who are willing to stand up against corporate lobbyists, media fearmongers and anyone else who makes their living by selling irrational fear and unrealistic dreams. "Voting with your wallet" is just not going to accomplish anything unless your wallet happens to be the size of Warren Buffet's - the $50 you chose to take elsewhere isn't even a rounding error on the balance sheet of a billion dollar company. And "elsewhere" is probably just another billion dollar company doing the exact same shit but you just haven't been told to be mad at them yet.
You forgot the part where pretty much every modern Western governments actively promotes oligopolies and monopolies via over regulation and direct or indirect support (ie grants, tax write-offs, direct funding, partnerships, etc etc). It was alluded to slightly in the video, but big government and big corporations have an exceedingly similar structure as they are run by the same bureaucratic managerial elite. They share a significant overlap in interests so it makes sense for them to work together.
Effective overregulation and red taping, whether made for virtuous or not reasons, whether well or badly thought out, have essentially relegated the potential of starting a business, hence, competing with the already rich, to... the already rich. There are no options for everyone else than to sell your labour to the rich and then spend that money on goods sold by the rich: We are as far away from anything remotely 'free market' as possible.
@@Woodshedphilosophysome of you keep parroting this bs over and over again. Likely brainwashed by corporate propaganda who want even less regulation from the govt to continue their monopolies. Monopoly can and do grow organically. Initially a company gets success and rises up among competitors by providing a genuinely good product or service. Once it becomes big enough, you literally can't compete. Even if you try to sell a good product, they'll defeat you by temporarily selling a similar product at a loss, with massive advertising (because being monopoly gives them a lot of money in hand to burn) till your company runs out of money and thus business. They can buy your best employees and plant employees who sell secrets from your company without you knowing. They can even buy your company or a significant stake of it to influence your company's decisions if it's publicly traded. The power and money they earn from their initial success is used to eliminate competition to become a monopoly. It's like saying you can defeat a dictator like Kim Jonn Un by just starting your political campaign there. I'd like to see you try.
8:56 Stuff like this happens so often with utility companies. It is ridiculous. I can't fathom why modern basic needs like Water, Electricity, and Internet are not government funded. I live in this area I have to use the companies that supply that area. No other choice unless I live somewhere else. It isn't a true choice.
I remember when Google first entered the market. One of their famous tag lines was "don't be evil". Apparently they weren't referring to their business.
CUDA is not a standard for AI/ML model, it is a programming interface that NVIDIA developed for general computing on GPUs the whole idea is based on in-parallel processing which turned out an effective way for AI/ML tasks as it is for gaming / 3d rendering etc.
@@CloudMelonVis Just an addendum that CUDA is the standard General GPU compute interface used by _everyone_ in the field, the competition like RoCM and openCL are vastly unpopular or inferior to the ease of use and performance of CUDA on Nvidia - also industry entrenchment - a lot of folks trained in CUDA and don't want to learn a new thing.
CUDA is tailored to NVIDIA GPU architecture and RoCM is AMD. Also there’s an interoperability question here such as Triton project when it comes to programming GPU in general. I did think the explanation in this video was a little bit misleading. Also NVIDIA’s competitive advantage is not limited to CUDA but their investment in combing hardware and software engineering. I’m not intending to advertise but I feel dived into this topic in one of my own videos : Why is NVIDIA Explosively Growing in this AI era ? | AI GPU infrastructure with Kubernetes th-cam.com/video/KrmqURibQB8/w-d-xo.html
@@frederik1179 ah it does exist. AMD ROCm™ Software Open software stack that includes programming models, tools, compilers, libraries, and runtimes for AI and HPC solution development on AMD GPUs Although I personally think the interoperability is the future!
So, the reasons that monopolies are allowed to happen that you just listed, like all these reasons are good for the individuals involved at the ground level. The sumbitch of it is that they send ripples through society though, and that is, in fact, the price of integrity. Telling the larger company to shove it to maintain being the little guy that's a threat is a hard choice to make, but it's the right choice. This Khan lady actually doing her fucking job even though it means she's not set up to be a cushy partner later is the right choice, but it's harder. Integrity involves harder choices, and people as a whole have not been making the harder choices for a long time.
The fact that Kamala hasn't committed to keeping Khan in her position worries me a lot for this reason. Feel like if she gets replaced it will just go back to the status quo of the past couple decades.
@@lIIIIlIllI that's the problem for them it was business but you can only bend a stick so much until it breaks and once it breaks there's no turning back. Just like empires fell, it might take a century of existence to collapse the empire, but down it'll go. Just look at ancient Rome, the rich were to greedy, they kept siphoning away money from the middle class until there was none, just like the origin of Caesar, a street that should have been flourishing but was filled with war vets that could not work and people that were in debt over their heads.
GoG has its own little niche away from steam that keeps it alive, and Epic Games Store is being subsidized by fortnite and only kept relevant because of temporary exclusivity deals (people complain about it but those developers get a lot of funding, and the consumers get a better product down the line when deal ends so its fine) and constantly shoving free games at people. Epic still lacks many critically basic features for a storefront. it's truly a dogwater platform.
Actually it isn't. 20 years ago almost nobody was using digital storefronts, and the vast majority of games were purchased at brick-and-mortar stores. Steam would bundle itself with these physical games, such that when you put in the disk to install it would install the Steam client and require the Steam client to run the game. People weren't using Steam because it was the better store or client. Far from it, the Steam of this era was basically a bloatware DRM system that frequently crashed but had a storefront tacked on. But you had to install Steam to play these games, so Steam got its massive install base and a huge lead over the competition. By the time the Steam client existed in a form that would be recognizable to modern gamers (roughly 2008-ish), the war was already over. Steam had a vast catalogue of exclusives that its competitors couldn't sell, and was getting a massive number of installs from people who were just installing games they bought at Gamestop and didn't even know the competing services existed. We are fortunate that Valve decided to invest in making its client great, but they didn't need to. You would have been forced to use it either way because they already had a monopolistic lock on digital distribution.
@drosberg3680 do they do this now, no? Then none of that matters. Everyone ran their business' like that back then, you either did so too or you went bankrupt. People choose steam now because people like steam, not because of forced downloads.
If I recall correctly, Steam was included with those physical games, but it was not required to play the game. A big part of what made Steam big was people realizing that it allowed them to have online backups of their games forever, to re-download on any PC. And it offered online services in a time where the main competitor in that space was Game Spy (i.e. terrible). Steam absolutely won by creating and maintaining a good product.
3:53 Building costs ≠ development costs. As a shareholder I get inside into the books. If the production of a 30 K GPU would only be $500 I would buy myself a private jet and a yacht tomorrow
Thanks for pointing this out many people who have no idea how expensive R&D and development costs are just look at end to end production cost and go oh look at “how much they are charging for!!!”
Yeah, also invidia became the default in the space, because they have best in class software support, developer support etc That also costs a ton probably
0:45 it's not the ONLY way a company can make a profit. It's the only way a firm can make a RISK-ADJUSTED profit IN EXCESS of the (competitive) economy-wide rate of profit.
@@rohithamruthur very good decision protecting contracts and freedom of association. And of course people who don’t like non compete are free not to sign them. Nobody forced them to sign a non compete.
@@trinleywangmo did they pull a gun and force you to sign a non compete ? That would be force. The reality is that nobody is forced to sign a non compete. You are free to say no and walk away and they can t do anything about it.
@@maximemeis2867 you can force people, without threats of violence, to sign anything if they have nowhere else to go. If they quit they go hungry. This is the reality of a lot of people
The next ruling should be that companies can no longer count as individuals when it comes to lobbying. Of course, it will get lobbied against and thus get denied. Unless... the court rules that because the new ruling is directly protesting lobbying, any lobbying from corporations are not allowed to be considered during the making of the decision.
The problems start when food companies become monopoly and start charging whatever they want.. leaving people hungry... and other companies leaving people homeless
@@qwejy I did. And you don t have a monopoly if the government does not grant you one. Without government garanting you a monopoly, competitors and potential competitors remain free to try to take your customers.
I am holding a cash position right now, of about 300k. I know a dip is supposed to be the buying opportunity, so whats the best stocks to dive into, in this recession?
With $300K cash, invest in recession-resistant stocks from sectors like healthcare, utilities, consumer staples, and technology. Blue-chip, dividend-paying stocks with strong balance sheets are ideal. Consulting a financial advisor can refine your strategy.
No doubt, having the right plan is invaluable, my portfolio is well-matched for every season of the market and recently hit 100% rise from early last year. I and my CFP are working on a 7 figure ballpark goal, tho this could take till Q2 2025.
I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get. I just scheduled a caII.
We Are in Unchartered Financial Waters! every day we encounter challenges that have become the new standard. Although we previously perceived it as a crisis, we now acknowledge it as the new normal and must adapt accordingly. Given the current economic difficulties that the country is experiencing in 2024, how can we enhance our earnings during this period of adjustment? I cannot let my $680,000 savings vanish after putting in so much effort to accumulate them.
Keeping some gold is usually a wise decision. You would be better off keeping away from equities for a bit or, even better, seeking advice from an expert given the current market conditions and everything that is at risk with the current economy.
You have a very valid point, I started investing on my own and for a long time, the market was really ripping me off. I decided to hire a CFA, even though I was skeptical at first, and I beat the market by more than 9%. I thought it was a fluke until it happened two years in a row, and so I’ve been sticking to investing via an analyst
My CFA ’Sophia Maurine Lanting , a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
Thank you for saving me hours of back and forth investigation into the markets. I simply copied and pasted her full name into my browser, and her website came up first in search results. She looks flawless.
In a way he's right. With a monopoly it's possible to win so hard that you have no competition and in the zero-sum game of tech billionaires, that's a win.
monopols (that are profit maximizing) have revenue ABOVE cost, which means COMPETITORS see that and would like to join on the supply side, underbidding the monopolist to earn some profit themselves - until supply meets demand AT COST. The only way by which this mechanism can be disabled is when the market authority (political system) enforces rules that undermine or prohibit competition.. rules like patents (14th century, Venice) or copyright (17th century, England).
@@joansparky4439Or, you know, if the monopolist uses their overwhelming financial advantage to buy out or sabotage their fledgling competitor. Or if they operate in a field with high natural barriers to entry, like semiconductor manufacturing or telecommunications. Or if they have a first-to-market advantage, like most popular social networks at the moment. Or a billion other reasons completely disconnected from the government.
@@kaijuultimax9407Nvidia won that hard. They deserve to be a monopoly for a while. Jensen and his company did the work. Anyone who else could have started GPUs 30 years ago and work their butt off and risk everything … but they didn’t. To the Jensen goes the spoils 🏆
In light of the ongoing global economic crisis, it is crucial for everyone to prioritize investing in diverse sources of income that are not reliant on the government. This includes exploring opportunities in stocks, gold, silver, and digital currencies. Despite the challenging economic situation, it remains a favorable time to consider these investments.
The pathway to substantial returns doesn't solely rely on stocks with significant movements. Instead, it revolves around effectively managing risk relative to reward. By appropriately sizing your positions and capitalizing on your advantage repeatedly, you can progressively work towards achieving your financial goals. This principle applies across various investment approaches, whether it be long-term investing or day trading.
Even with the right strategies and appropriate assets, investment returns can differ among investors. Recognizing the vital role of experience in investment success is crucial. Personally, I understood this significance and sought guidance from a market analyst, significantly growing my account to nearly a million. Strategically withdrawing profits just before the market correction, I'm now seizing buying opportunities once again.
@@hunter-bourke21bravo! I appreciate the implementation of ideas and strategies that result to unmeasurable progress, thus the search for a reputable advisor, mind sharing info of this person guiding you please?
Much credit goes to *Izella Annette Anderson* for her significant contributions. She maintains an online presence, making it easy to locate her. While other advisors might pose challenges to find Zella has proven to be an excellent mentor throughout the year.
@@piku5637 Yep! One successful example is the Cleveland Model/ Preston Model, which is a system of anchoring democratically managed worker co-operatives into communities by securing stable contracts with local institutions, like hospitals, universities, and municipalities. This helps jobs and wealth stay in the community rather than work being outsourced and profits being shipped to Wall St. It's a great benefit to the people that have been involved in such a type of community wealth building... Because that's the thing, the main goal is about building wealth not government redistribution.
@@piku5637 Yep, or any model in which employees get a percentage of control over the company. It was nice working at a coffee co-op and being able to shoot down a really dumb idea from management because all the employees have an actual say in the matter, was really nice.
The fact that AT&T and Standard Oil remerged so easily after in 3-4 companies is absolutely MAD. Now you have a handful of CEOs meeting up at a restaurant to decide to raise or not prices. Nothing really has changed...
As I sit here, I am on hour 4 of trying to get the Microsoft task scheduler to run a simple but necessary task on a laptop. Because about 15 processes irremediably failed in conjunction, I had no choice but to factory reset the computer. It probably won't work. If it doesn't, I'll be forced to buy another laptop. However, in my experience the task scheduler, an application that has been around since the 1990s, only works about 30% of the time. The rest of the time either involves hours-long fixes involving replacing registry keys etc or the problem proves completely intractable. The latter case entails buying new laptops, testing them for basic functionality, then returning them to the store a high percentage of the time when the Windows operating system fails completely to operate even basic tasks, processes which the company has had 30 years to figure out but can't. That's not a benevolent monopoly.
It just makes sense: The whole point of capitalist free markets is to encourage competition by using profits as a tool to measure how successful a company is. But since the only measure that can be objectively evaluated is profits, and the most efficient way to increase those profits is to stifle competition, the winning strategy for a business is to become a monopoly. That's why libertarianism doesn't work, and is the inherent contradiction with capitalism that can only be moderated via policy.
@@AlneCraft It makes sense that businesses *want* to become monopolies but it also makes sense that as soon as they begin leveraging that to make a profit potential competitors are going to want a piece of that. Outside of specific industries, like telecommunications, which are recognized as natural monopolies due to various factors such as barriers to entry it is very hard to establish a monopoly and even harder to maintain it once you start gouging your customers.
@@studentofsmithit's not easy to "get a piece" since that needs a lot of things coming together to succeed, you need good competitive ideas with lots of expertise (that you'll mostly need to get from the ones you need to compete with) and huge capital investments, look at TH-cam for example, not a single major tech company even dares thinking of making a competitor, same for quite a lot of other stuff
I thought I was crazy. I watched a documentary that mentioned about AT&T was a monopoly that got dismantled into several smaller companies I had never heard of. I always wondered what happened to them and then I saw that graphic
Easy way to solve this: exponential tax rates. The more money a business makes, the higher their tax rate. The same for people who get dividends, the more they make the more they pay. This would incentivise to keep companies seperate, and ownership distributed.
We already have progressive taxation. (That’s what it’s called, not “exponential”.) Unfortunately, so many exemptions have been carved out as favors to big donors that the after-exemptions tax rates at the top are lower.
@@waralo191 Are you using “logarithmic” to describe the system we have, or the system you are proposing? Reaching a 100% tax bracket doesn’t require a mathematically-described curve. You can also just define a 100% tax bracket. We came close to that long go, 91% IIRC.
I live in a small town and the nearest grocery store is 40 miles away. There were two grocery stores but one bought the other and jacked the prices up. Nobody seems to care.
The rise of monopolies is indeed rather concerning, particularly the blanket that it throws over opportunities for other competitors. This ruling may be a pivotal point marking the change of tides.
Except Texas just rules against banning non competes as this video was likely being edited. The FTC could appeal to the 5th circuit, but if you know the 5th, you know how that will go…
I'm not real smart in all things business but like to observe various industries. It truly does seem like there is no way to make a profit these days for some industries without basically having huge market share. Everything is just so expensive. I always thought it's because while expenses have ballooned, while consumers make had stagnated. So companies must be bigger to have costs of scale to have lower prices. Something smaller companies can't do as consumers can't afford the expensive stuff. Also the need for constant growth. Eventually it just makes sense to buy other companies to look good for investors and shareholders. Just something I've thought about before this video.
the drive for growth is due to a flaw in our fiat currency, which it copied from metal currency when the gold standard was ended (this solved one problem, but did create another). Due to this growth pressure companies either post profit or go under.. same for the whole economy.
The reason monopolies are even possible to achieve is because many of these industries are tightly regulated, meaning that entering those markets is near impossible. Those monopolies also capture regulatory agencies to crush out competition
Yep, the political system creates and maintains rules that shield a few from competition, so they can maximize for profits. All thanks to Plato and his idea of reluctant philosophers leading us..
Yeah, no. Some are. Like pharma and nuclear, but overall regulations are appropriate. Not to say there isn't inefficiencies and unfairness. But just like with those earlier examples, these "unfair" regulatory conditions are not always there because some shenanigans. Biggest reason is because big companies can just directly use money to crush competition various ways, it's way more efficient and easy. And if you become sufficiently big, you can also craft your product in way that protects or furthers the monopoly.
@@mukkaar there are regulations that are needed (personal freedom or private property for example are based on regulation) and there are regulations that undermine or prohibit competition.. Only one kind issustainable. PS: Capitalism is based on regulation. There is no Capitalism without it. PPS: regulation that protects the environment also is needed.. otherwise the society will not be able to survive.
I'm honestly less concerned with the monopolies themselves, and more concerned with the investment firms blatantly controlling and funding their actions from the shadows, such as BlackRock and Vanguard
Where it cuts into the sponsor and you say "I know many of you are sitting at work right now..." and I'm like 😮 I'm busted. But apparently everyone else is watching on company time too. 😅
Also, as follow-up, don't change your career to IT. I work in IT and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Go into a skilled trade. I'd go for Electrician personally. But plumber would be my second.
@@g0d5m15t4k3I am a mechanical engineering student and would recommend against it as well. People glorify working in tech or engineering. People think that you could have a positive impact and that the work is exciting. Today I think that being a teacher, therapist, doctor or even a police man would be more exciting that programming (mechanical engineering is a lot of programming as well. CAF and FEM have become low end jobs for India).
You forgot reason # 4: On the rare occasion regulators actually do their job, partisan officials claim the act is either unconstituional, or that regulating is somehow beyond the reach of these agency's authority, and legally block the enforcement of antitrust measures, as with the non-complete case being blocked by a federal judge for these very reasons. Absolute lunacy.
We need more small local and Regional businesses and less multi-state and Multinational businesses. More individuals will have more opportunities to become middle or upper middle class, while a handful of individuals will be denied millionaire and billionaire status. If one of these local and Regional companies goes out of business, it won't affect the entire National and international market.
The lawyer thing isn’t a conspiracy. The companies are represented by attorneys (they can’t represent themselves you know), and it’s good practice to be friendly with opposing counsel. So you’ll inevitably make some friends and connections. When you leave office, you call them up, and they vouch for you based on the work they know you’ve done. Boom job. Not a conspiracy with corporations, and more the reverse of the criminal defence counsel to ADA pipeline.
“We have never sought to become a monopoly. Our products are simply so good that no one feels the need to compete with us.” ~ CEO Nwabudike Morgan, Morgan Data Systems press release
Why are your products better than those whom can make equivalent products? Stopping the competition from making competitive products is anticompetitive. The government can aid in those anticompetitive practices.
@@kerwinbrown4180 our products are better, which means that no one _can_ make equivalent products (that’s what “better” means). We don’t need the government to push our stuff. We just need the government to stay out of our way, which is both free market…and what buying congressmen is for.
Solution: Make every industry a monopoly, but pit different internal teams against each other and also make the monopolising company owned by workers and customers. I call it, Silicon Valley communism.
The difference between Europe and America's economies is stark, especially in the cities. Small businesses thrive in Europe, filling the entire city with plenty of passerby stopping by their local grocery/cafe/department-store/whatever, whereas in USA, big corp takes all the business with the lower per unit operational costs, and the ease people have of getting anywhere in the city with their cars. The USA is most definitely a car culture powered corporotopia.
Bruh. One of the most important verdicts ever. Damn america-centrism. The EU has been aware of the monopolistic tendencies of american firms for decades
You mean the FTC funding has been cut drastically since we bailed out a bunch of corporations and let them monopolize instead of the market deciding? Thanks Obama.
Great video. This is at some parts of the world pretty much the case for the airline industry. Airlines like lufthansa have almost an monopoly in central europe and they make it impossible for new competitors to get into the german market
Here's a realization for you: monopolies don't exist because governments fail to regulate them, monopolies exist BECAUSE of government, as they facilitate it. Government is a monopoly in and of itself. As an organization, they offer the service of law; the court system, where corporations (people) come to conspire (lobby). Legislation is but a way for big business to make it harder for new competition to enter the market, or straight up crush small players. Even How Money Works covered the example of Walmart lobbying for minimum wages for the same purpose. This leads me to the real monopoly government has: violence. No matter how evil a practice is, once it has been (il)legalized, government will use violence to enforce it. Big oil wouldn't have been possible without government banning alcohol in the 19th century (for health reasons of course, they care so much about tax animals... I mean citizens). Similar patterms can be seen across all industries. Let alone cases like the CIA running poppy fields in Afghanistan after the army destroyed the country.
@@doujinflip you really do believe that, do you? Look at it like this: churches have been replaced with townhalls and parlementary buildings, the Vatican is now the Capitol, and the cross is the flag with 50 stars on it. That's your religion and you have inherited their dogmas in their schools.
@@GubernareMens We should probably tell Rockefeller that his monopoly was facilitated by the government, I'd imagine he'd be very surprised to hear that. A monopoly is simply the natural result of a company growing large enough to where competing with it becomes impossible, the end state of capital growth. A government isn't needed for it, hell, a good government will try to stop it from taking place at all costs. Also, yes, it's true that the government has the monopoly on violence. Pray that remains the case, for you do not want to live in a place where there are multiple competing distributors of violence.
One of the monopolies I am happy exists is Steam. It has only ever been a positive for PC gamers. And is genuinely just a better product. Why wouldn't people flock to it when the only other thing is....the epic game store?
From breaking the Bell to too big to fail, this definitely needs to be addressed, and is a prime example of something to write your representatives about
Lot of good points here. Private monopolies are certainly more dangerous than the other types due to the lack of transparency and public access. I’d argue though that the current market has a better self control than what the FTC strives to do and that is in public markets. It’s never been easier to invest in these big companies and all of the monopolies mentioned are mostly owned by the public. The incentives to increase profits benefit shareholders which are the public. Monopolies are not one person lining their pockets but rather executive teams striving to increase equity values. In this way the incentives of the public and of the company are aligned. If a company jacks up prices to a point where customer loyalty is eroded, the market will punish that company. Same with poorly made acquisitions (look at the fall from grace GE and IBM had due to this). I could go on and on but if you think about the feedback loop, it really isn’t a problem.
Peter Theil (one of the founders of PayPal and part of this new generation of tech bros) wrote a book called "Zero to One" in which he literally advocates for and talks about the benefits of monopolies in the tech industry. He essentially starts with the assumption that the main drive of tech companies is to innovate and builds his argument from that standpoint, conveniently ignoring the downsides of monopolies and that the main goal of companies is profit, not innovation. Once you've achieved a monopoly you don't need to innovate to increase your profits. Peter Theil is also currently very friendly with various anti-democratic groups (aka, N@zis). He's also the man who sponsored J D Vance, to the point of him becoming Trumps VP pick.
monopols are based on anti-competitive regulation that SHIELD the profit maximizing monopolist (revenue above cost = profit, which would attract competition to join on the supply side, subsequently increasing it until it meets demand AT COST) provided by society - by the monopol on force - by our political system where we elect an absolute minority (1 in 500k) to make and maintain our laws.
The FTD & DOJ blind eye on monopolies started with Reagan. It is the part of Reaganomics that is rarely mentioned. We've been paying for it ever since.
I'd make the argument that monopolies are always bad. With the profit-driven motive, as soon as the company realizes there's no other game in town, they'll cut costs rapidly which results in worse products.
Also can say thanks for whoever was working at this didn't disappoint and the harsh reality time like Saul Goodman said is really what can fit in this part as well. Especially in these times which a lot of people now really aren't wanting to but for anyone with sense have to considering the times just got bad now.
The continuously changing economic conditions in our society have made it necessary for people to find additional sources of income, thus I am looking at the stock market to fuel my retirement goal of $3m, my only concern is the recent market crash.
Every crash/collapse brings with it an equivalent market chance if you are early informed and equipped, I've seen folks amass wealth amid economy crisis, and even pull it off easily in favorable conditions. That should be the least of your concern. Also explore the option of working with a CFA to reduce greatly your chances of loss.
You're right, I and a few Neighbors in Bel Air Area work with an Investment Adviser who prefers we DCA across other prospective sectors instead of a lump sum purchase. As a result, my portfolio has recorded significant improvement even during the most unfavorable market season.
I'm intrigued by this. I've searched for investment advisers online but it's kind of hard to get in touch with one. Okay if I ask you for a recommendation??
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with Melissa Terri Swayne for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
The purpose of maintaining the monopolies was to compete against Chinese backed monopolies. This has been incredibly successful, China hasn't usurped any US Tech and is in a horrible financial situation. Since the reason to keep these monopolies is gone, the gov't will start breaking them up, at least slowly.
@@tobzdaman619 Tesla is dominating China for EV, it's over half the market. There are also millions of new Chinese EV's just rotting, their sales numbers are heavily inflated to make them look good on paper. The Chinese do produce a lot of cheap photovoltaics, but non of them meet EU/US standards for Carbon neutrality, and they aren't the best from a technology standpoint.
@@HeartofCobalt european and united states research institutes basically are donating their research to china still I think UN countries need to create more incentives for democracies to get more favorable trade, and incentivise democratisation in weaker countries, maybe even having a UN caretaker government programme, for countries that accept, UN allies take over and create favorable conditions for the country to develop, somewhat like EU candidate status countries getting more trade, more money, more regulatory support the more they synchronize to EU rules. Except in countries where elections lead to problems, the UN caretaker is a choice people can vote for. Just a committee of faceless regulators maybe 7 that rotate every semester or full year, that have some key performance indicators to measure their success. If country indicators improve, the regulators get fat payouts.
sure.. this is why anti competitive constructs like patents (14the century, Venice) and copyright (17th century, England) appeared.. to cope with CHN. 😂
Monopoly is not just an idea that's suddenly new or a new concept. Anything can be a monopoly when the biggest corporations work/compete together, which is pretty much all the time. Everything will end up a monopoly since it's such a basic idea
I recommend to pay closer attention to intel, in that case. Their stock plummeted due to massive problems with current generation of processors (thats on top of going down over the years). They are 1 of the 2 active right holders to the x86 processor architecture, which most of the computers use. Perhaps they are unlikely to go down under, but its an interesting case nonetheless.
The scariest part of monopolies is that they get so rich and powerful they can change the laws to protect themselves ie rent seeking. Which means at some point you start working for the company even if you don't work for them. I don't want to subsidize Walmart's wages or every oil company for some reason.
Even the largest tree in the forest at any time dies and fall off leaving a clearing for new plants to compete and grow. But in today's economy the old tree it's always fertilized and when there's a drought the government takes the water from nearby plants and uses it to water the old tree.
Because all markets consolidate - especially in the face of recessions. At some point, a given path has been explored enough, and you only get marginal returns on investment. So you just need to scale as far as you can. Until new technology disrupts the existing players.
ROI in a saturated market, where supply meets demand, at the equilibrium point is ZERO. Free markets trend towards ZERO profit at any moment in time. What can't deal with this is our currency - it stops circulating at ZERO ROI. Fiat copied this flaw from gold, although it should not have to.. because fiat is based on PROMISES which have a finite time span of validity.. this would create a value loss of the promise which in the form of fiat would appear as a negative interest rate on currency itself. All of a sudden ZERO ROI would be VERY attractive. Too bad Modern Monetary Theory hasn't figured that one out yet..
Sign up for a FREE career session with TripleTen → get.tripleten.com/HowMoneyWorks
Use promo code: HowMoneyWorks
Monopols are being created by the market authority via rules that shield individual companies from competition.. rules like patents (appeared 14th century, Venice) or copyrights (appeared 17th century, England). It's the 'fault' of the political system (monopol on force) that causes this - mostly because Plato didn't do his homework.
This looks like a get rich quick scheme
Brave literally claims it doesn't have adds. I tried it and I found it crashed it computer with all the adds and pop ups. Its garbage. Duck Duck Go is garbage and doesn't fully work properly on Windows operating systems. Bing is just absolute trash. Well Bing doesn't crash like all the others except Google but if you are actually wanting to search something up your not going to get what you want to look at for starters I looked up a recipe for fish on both search engines and on Bing I got places to buy a wedding dress while on Google I got recipes on how to cook fish. So yea there is some kind of broken bullshit with Bing. I can never find what I am searching for on Bing ever. Bing is great if you want to spend an afternoon wasting time on the most garbage of stupidities but as an actual search engine its not good at all. Hell on a computer at someone's house I knew only had Bing because they were absolute morons who believed it was the only search engine that was good enough. Well at there house I was trying to find the bus schedule for the city bus and the dam thing kept trying to get me to either buy a zoo or look at pictures of elderly diapers or play Chinese board games online. Trying to use Bing as an actual search engine is like trying to pull the teeth out a fire breathing dragon's mouth that wants to kill you with tweezers. The actual screwed up fact is there are over 50 search engines. Brave is fully operated and controlled by North Korea and does not work properly outside of those countries. Duck Duck Go is operated by China, North Korea, and South Korea and doesn't work properly outside those countries. Then there are ones that only work in Europe and others that only work other countries. The only 2 that actually are world wide are Bing and Google and only 1 that actually gives you the results you are actually looking for and won't give your computer viruses that destroy your computer. Also a reality check needs to stated. That trial was not considered a real nor legal trial. It was a judge that ruled over an empty room. A single judge declared without a real trial that Google is an illegal monopoly. Is Google a Monopoly? Yes. Is it an illegal Monopoly? No. Does it hold such dominion that true competitors don't actually pop up? Yes. Does Google destroy the competition when they try and get created? No. Google actually has funded over 5000 other companies without owning them to try and allow for some competition and every single time the competition fails because they can't live up to the shit they talk about. In reality Google succeeded 25 years ago when they finally made a successful search engine that didn't crash as much as its competition did. Ask Jeeves was fully funded with trillions of the European money being dumped into that operating system in order to try and compete with Google and it shut down its search engine in 2005 and switched to just Ask before fully shutting down 2011 with the website fully fading from the Internet by 2013. Duck Duck Go is a search engine that is modeled using the original coding of Go Duck which at the time of 1998 to 2000 Go Duck was slightly better at searching than Google but Go Duck kept crashing sending people's computers into what is called the blue screen of death and Go Duck fully shut down in 2002 while Google had no crashes and was far superior to Bings search engine now. Google has gotten far better over the 25 years of competition not being able to compete with Google of the 2002 version of Google let alone the Google of now. I have used so many search engine over the years and some of them were fun because of how bat shit insane they were. They were funny but as actual usable for what you need them for everyone single one is worse than garbage. Hell Yahoo was a big competitor and they shut their company down and got bought out by Microsoft which forces the system to use Bing while actual employees only use Google. Every single computer used by IT and Microsoft around the world and Apple and blatantly every computer system uses Google Search. Hell the number 1 search thing on everything except Google is Google. Google search engine is searched up by all search engines with most having the 99% thing search up is just Google. Bing is searched so much for Google search that its actually funny. Bing is not even searched on any search engine at all. No search engines are actually searched for on any search engines but google will give you a list of all search engines freely and it does that because it knows you are coming back because you are not going to use anything but Google especially after spending the time on all other search engines pissed off and ripping your hair out.
Bing pays companies to make it so that their search engine can not be removed at all and can not be removed from the default position. Google pays to have the item start out as the default but it can be removed easily in fact. Facebook, and Bing yea they can't be removed or even turned off very easily. Hell I was barely able to get my smart phone to use google instead of Bing because Bing actively tries to not be removed. Hell on my computer Bing hid inside of other files to not be deleted and it even tried clinging onto the files of my video games. I had to delete not just my saves by the entire video game of Age of Empires off my computer in order to finally delete Bing off my system because its a virus not a search engine.
isn't the tech industry currently laying off mass amounts of workers? this seems sketchy, and quite ironic on a video that criticises the big tech companies one should find employment at
Everyone, please think about what this man is saying about "good monopolies": while in their money burning phase, consumers can benefit from their decreased prices, paid for by investors. Alright.
And what happens if we do that?
We spend our money on the growing monopoly, and not its competitors.
The competitors lag behind and the monopoly grows. Once competition has been sufficiently starved as to make a comeback unlikely, the prices rise. Prices that will be paid by the consumer.
This is short-sighted madness, helping a despot starve out those that can oppose him will not lead to freedom. If said despot is showering you with rewards, you better believe the bill is coming once you have nowhere to run.
Absolute fantastic take.
Yeah it’s absolutely maddening that this video makes the argument that any anticompetitive behaviour can be a ‘good monopoly’ just because it happens to lower prices for consumers in the short term. Monopolies - all monopolies - are despised for a reason.
Devil’s advocate here: been listening to HMW for some time, it’s a bit of misunderstanding as he isn’t in favor of monopolies, he isn’t really ‘defending’ monopolies per-se, he is just saying that ‘on the way to a monopoly’ consumers do actually benefit. This is basic tactics that end in the rug pulls just like politicians do with promises of working less and “giving from the rich to the poor”.
That said, it is indeed a fantastic take and also shows that it takes two to tango to generate these monopoly monstrosities we have today.
Myself I have decided to go as minimalistic as comfortably possible and vote with my wallet: got rid of most streaming services, almost never go out to waste money, even avoid bus and subways 80% of the days (bike and walk instead).
I think there’s a way to starve them all a bit if we just at least stop buying the non essentials; and we would even starve the government a tiny bit by not giving them that 15% sales taxes they get every time we spend our hard earned surviving dollars.
This might sound extreme to some, but me personally I even got rid of things like milk, cereals, juices of all sort, etc… the fridge is so light, cheap and healthier now: brócoli, chicken, cheap bread, butter and that’s about it most of the days.
That's a brilliant point! Glad some people know what they're putting themselves into for some mere savings, only to get trapped in the long term.
I had to pause the video to see if anyone commented this. Thanks for it. There is no good monopoly in our current system. Short term advantages for the costumer or employes will turn into long term problems
Finally someone addresses the fact that monopolies exist right now and they own smaller companies that make up half their market
No they don t. There is no law preventing you from entering the search market. That s what a monopoly would require to exist.
@@maximemeis2867 I don't think you understand what a monopoly is. It doesn't have to be legislated. Pushing exclusive deals like what Google does with Apple's Safari is part of how they maintain a monopoly.
@@maximemeis2867That is a disingenuous stance. The big companies have been doing tons of stuff to make the smaller competitors invisible (like paying apple to make google the default search engine. Something Microsoft did with Internet Explorer before google sued them) so they either unjustly bankrupt or are bought into the monopoly.
And these techniques done by google *are* illegal when trying to become a monopoly.
@@maximemeis2867What? That's not how monopolies work.
@@maximemeis2867 a monopoly is when a company controls the vast majority of a market, and uses specific strategies to keep competitors out. It has nothing to do with laws preventing people from entering markets.
More than 50 years ago, JK Galbraith criticized mainstream economists for pretending the US economy is a free market while ignoring that most sectors are dominated by anti-competitive corporations. It's even more true now than it was then
the anti competitive stuff is caused by rules like patents (since 14th century) or copyright (since 17th century) that the POLITICAL SYSTEM creates and maintains.. because it is the monopol on force. Our problems are there.
If you bring it up, you get called a communist or anti-American.
Plus, its the job of a manager to maximize profit - which you can do by becoming a de facto monopolist. Since the incentive is there, it should be legally assumed, in case of doubt, that a company that "looks like" a monopoly IS one.
@@Z3sty_St4rRegulating human nature is a very tough job. Especially when the monopolies can buy and sell politicians and bureaucrats relatively cheaply.
@@ryanward10 who created a political system where a few are in control that then can be bought?
Plato had this idea of reluctant philosophers in positions of power to lead us.. too bad that more selfish ruthless individuals are MORE competitive and ABLE and WILLING to (ab)use those positions for personal gain (at the cost of the rest).
Fun fact, it seems like a handful of companies own everything.
Oh, absolutely. It’s like the big players are swallowing up the competition left and right. Whether it’s tech, healthcare, or even food, the choices keep shrinking.
And it’s not just about choice, either. When a few companies control the market, they can set whatever prices they want. It’s no wonder everything’s so expensive now. Look at cable and internet providers-they’ve got us all by the throat.
Yeah, and don’t get me started on streaming services. We cut the cord to save money, and now there are so many different platforms that we’re back to paying almost as much as we did for cable.
It’s frustrating, for sure. But it’s not just about higher prices. The quality of service seems to go downhill, too, when there’s no competition. Companies don’t have to try as hard when they know there’s nowhere else for us to go.
And the worst part is how it impacts the economy. When a few corporations dominate the market, it’s harder for small businesses to survive, and that limits job opportunities and innovation.
Lina Khan is the best FTC head we’ve had in decades and the monopolies desperately want her gone.
She's incredibly based. Protect her at all costs.
I never gave the FTC a second thought until she showed up.
An absolute angel of corporate justice.
I may be incorrect in this but didn't she hold position within the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)?
She's probably out if Kamala wins. She might be out if Trump wins as well.
all could end if trump wins. Microsoft wasn't broken up because Bush came to power and his adm made a deal with the company.
Before globalisation it was in the US’s interests to protect its population against monopolies. Now in the age of globalisation when US companies dominate the globe it is in the US’s interests to protect its companies with monopolies, the detriment done to their own population is seen to be outweighed by the benefits extracted from the rest of the world.
It’s almost like this whole capitalism idea wasn’t a very good one to begin with
Misaligned values in corporate culture have created parasitic or malignant entities feeding on the rest of the world.
@@natthekiwi7074 I know you're too stupid to understand this don't worry. But for those who are still capable of independent thought: Capitalism works under a couple of specific conditions. #1 that there are laws that protect personal property and rights. #2 that those laws are enforced. #3 people make well thought out choices. As long as those 3 conditions are met the system is by far the best most democratic humans have ever developed. Why? Because under a capitalist economic system all money (excluding taxes) is given, not taken. Amazon cannot take your money, you must willingly give it to them. And how much money you have to give them is determined entirely by how much money other people are willing to give you. If people like you, or value your skills, they will give you money, if they do not, they won't give you money. Successful products and businesses are voted on by individuals using their wallets.
The original commenter is likely pro communism/socialism/something-else-ism. The problem with those systems is simple: You entrust all decisions to the government. In theory that government is made of elected individuals, individuals who in theory should enact the will of the people who elected them. However once given power, they will use it to keep that power or try to gain more. They prioritize the success and profit of their group or party over the needs of the people they were elected to serve. Exactly like what is happening in almost every massively bloated government on the planet right now.
The advantage that capitalism has despite having to have governmental oversight is that the government can be small and distributed, making it easier to break up corruption as it forms, and lessening the impact when it does form. However this is where condition #3 comes in. With a small government you rely on your population to make choices that benefit them. They must be educated and informed so that they can make complex decisions. The reason that the -isms are so popular is that they benefit individuals who do not want to have to educate themselves or make decisions. All they have to do is check a box on a voting ballet and someone else will take care of all of the decisions for them.
This was the entire purpose in the formation of the United States. The goal was limited government oversight, and people free to vote with the wallets. The situation we're in is a result of people voting for easy solutions without considering the consequences.
Lol "dominance" across the globe. We have private communism with all the bailouts these companies get just to stay as monopolies
@@natthekiwi7074unless someone else knows an alternative that isn’t a command economy we’re stuck with it.
??? Bro the low prices and deals are just stage 1 of a monopoly. Stage two is raising prices are market dominance. There are no good monopolies
So true. You may use the cheap prices but always need to remain independent from it. I used E-scooters in my city for commuting to and from the train station. Those are heavily funded by investors money. Now they try to rise prices and I switched back to cycling.
@@nami1540that was my favourite thing about e-scooters. Taking them more often, when they were cheap, than I had been cycling beforehand was what helped me find a bunch of mixed-use pathways and bike-lanes in parts of my city that I didn’t even realize were there. So when the prices went up I, and I went back to cycling, I actually cycled way more often and to much further places than I had been before.
This!!!
So when they raise prices you will start your own business and sell at a lower price right?
@@nami1540thats a terrible idea, the reason monopolies have the low-price phase is to put competitors out of business, when prices go up its usually already too late
'let's be honest, who is ever changing their search engine on their phone?' as a dude with a firefox search bar on my home screen I feel attacked.
99.99% of people don't change it
If you even know what Firefox is these days you’re definitely the exception and not the norm lol
By default, firefox also searches with google, so you are still in the google sphere
@@CQQLFTW as someone who uses duckduckgo, i sincerely wish for you to shut up.
I switched to Firefox after 10 years once I heard that they crippled uBlock. I am not willing to see any ads in future. They left me no choice and I discovered that Firefox is great nowadays and that their mobile version has uBlock as well
It is absolutely sickening that they're openly trying to remove the one person doing a moderate amount in advocating for the rest of us.
That's what they're supposed to do - companies exist to make profits, that's it. Everything else they do, good or bad, is a side-effect. That's not in itself a problem. That's how it's supposed to be.
Society (aka: you and I and almost everyone else reading this) on the other hand wants to encourage companies to make their profits by doing the good things and discourage them from doing the bad things. That's what regulations are for.
It becomes "sickening" when its the politicians - the people we elected to create those regulations - are coming up with boneheaded phrases like "government not the solution to our problem; government is the problem!" That fundamentally (yet very intentionally) misrepresents the relationship between the people, the government, and the corporate interests that form the majority of our economy. The concept of deregulation is explicitly asserting that entities which exist only for the sake of profits, regardless of morality, should be solely in charge of deciding whether or not morality has to play a role in their profit-seeking. _Shockingly,_ they almost always decide "no". They only time they go for "yes" is when they think a regulation will impose a barrier to entry sufficient to reduce competition - that is, they'll take a regulatory hit when it helps entrench their monopoly.
On the up side, Harris so far seems to be running the same line as Biden did so it's unlikely she'd dump the current FTC head just to make some billionaires happy. Can never be absolutely sure of course ("with great power..." cliches and all that) but she's been right beside the Oval Office for 4 years now so it's unlikely she'd suddenly shift her policy stance that far. Of course, the FTC is only one regulatory body - there are plenty of others that she could potentially go the other way with and beef up (how much that will matter in light of the recent SCOTUS decision that almost entirely defangs every federal regulatory body is another question).
If Trump wins however well... we've already seen how he picks his regulators - find the person most likely to destroy the department entirely. While simultaneously telling the nation that all the work those bodies do is somehow going to get done better when the body enforcing them doesn't function. And that was before the whole Project 2025 dystopian fever dream became his guiding light.
All by design
Class war my friend
@@itscrispy4469 tbh I think earth is actually what hell is
Corruption has hit new levels when the corrupt don't even try to hide the corruption anymore. It's almost like they don't think they are doing anything wrong.
1800’s all over again bruh
Including the settler colonialism, genocide, ecocide, slavery...
Even worse because unlike the 1800s when the USA was a rapidly growing country. The opposite is the case today. So even then at least they had a growing economy where ours in 2024 is stagnant.
@@hinnahinna-j9y Except there's very little hospitable land left to colonize. The only thing left is your brain.
@@11conormcloughlin ours grows by cannibalizing itself in the pursuit of cutting costs to drive up stock price.
It's actually worse because in the 1800s we didn't have drones, AI or automatic weapons. The scale of it all is so disturbing.
According to the nyt, a judge has blocked the ftcs noncompete rule. Love living in america where judges are blatantly bought off and can just shut any pro consumer/ pro worker rule down
Yeah, what's the saying..? Something like the US has "the best justice money can buy". It's not wrong.
Wtf?! Are you serious? I thought that only happen in Mexico.
That's a natural result of capitalism.
The "judge" that blocked the free market for America's working people is an appointee of "trickle down" Trump. No surprise there.
Big surprise, changing a entities purpose from performing a specific, designated task as fast and quickly as possible and expire as a entity after a certain date to a entity whose sole purpose is to generate revenue by any means necessary, and then to keep meeting unrealistic growth expectations creates a cold, uncaring, alien entity that seeks control, memorablity, money, and exploitation for disinterested share holders, CEOs, living Nobility and other cooperations.
The Boomers and the silent generation has effectively fucked all of us over.
The current issue is so many people are invested in the stocks of monopolies that there is general acceptance of the monopoly practice.
Good point. That's definitely a big part of the problem.
True, but that could always be remedied, the Ma Bell breakup worked out pretty well for investors.
@@miles13242 if only we lived in sensible times people might understand things can alway get better.
your right, the main problem is that these regulators own huge no of stocks in monopoly companies and they would make more money if they let mergers and acquisitions go through instead of blocking them.
How's about we just do socialized divestment so then that way we don't have a dog eat dog stock market 🫤
Monopolys are *always* bad. The question is just when. That´s by design, due to how capitalism works. As a company, you *must* increase profit margine every year, to increase shareholder value. But you can only innovate a product so much, especially when you already dominate the space and can´t just out marketing your competition.
That means they either *have to* increase prices or they *have to* decrase quality, change quantity, etc. So no. Monopolys are bad for the consumer. Always.
You cant just decrease quality endlessly and expect to stay competitive with new challengers in your own market branch or alternative branches, thats why monopolies are so difficult to keep up without government help
"Why the good monopolies don't last" they don't last because there is no such thing, there's just ones that are preparing to be evil instead of being evil
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
To be fair, he said "... and why the good times of monopolies don't last..."
The window of this concept is always short. But the issue is not the benefits of a monopoly, but to realize any "good times" are on a track toward another future. And this future will not be "good times."
But who are we to say who controls the narrative of society?
In my state, we have a hospital chain that in the past decade has bought every clinic and hospital and even started their own pharmacy business. They've bought small clinics, competitors that owned multiple locations, prior Walgreens locations, etc. It's actually crazy. There's basically no clinics that aren't owned by them in my state, and of course they give extremely poor care. Why did the government allow this to happen?
American healthcare ☕
@@suspicioussand I think the US has many advantages over other countries, such as rights we are given by the constitution that other countries simply do not have. We've been at the forefront of ground-breaking technology, for example, and there's just many other areas we do well in. But none of that matters when our healthcare system is so broken and awful. Unfortunately I have no hope of it ever being fixed.
"Pushed through ,,, banning of non-compete agreements"
... ironic that a few minutes before watching this I read an article tat the non-compete ban has been blocked by a judge.
Clarence Thomas?
Great. There goes the last essence of freedom we had as people!
This is something that should be passed as a law not a random arbitrary rule by an unelected government agency anyways. We should respect the checks and balances of our government and not blur the lines.
@evancombs5159 if the system were working as intended I'd agree, but right now the only checks are the ones being written by corporations to line the account balances of government officials. And the laws needed to prevent that won't be written into law by said corrupt officials who benefit
@@MindAx13 so your method of getting things back in order is doing more of the things that got the system out of whack to begin with? Continual centralization of power into unelected officials doesn't solve the problem, just makes it easier to exploit.
5:50 "I know many of you are sitting at work right now" - I feel called out sir
I came here to comment literally the same thing. We're busted 😂
It's my lunch break!
I'm on toilet
But im unemployed...
Can't be more true. Helps to numb the pain of working a dead end job.
I miss when it was just netflix and hulu
Me too bro...
Learn to pirate fools
It was better overall, and shows monopolies can actually be good for consumers sometimes. Netflix was the solution to piracy and inconvenient movie watching, but now we're regressed to where Blockbuster would be more convenient than the current state of streaming.
I miss when buying a digital piece of media like music meant you got to download a DRM free file to use/store indefinitely on your PC.
hulu sucked, i miss when it was just netflix
There's a reason historians and economists are calling this period we're in the Second Gilded Age
Back then the political system also created and maintained rules that shielded a few from competition.. thus creating a winner takes all environment where the few can maximize for profit.
I’d rather go with those that say feudalism is making a comeback
Where the hell are we going to find a new Ted Roosevelt?
@@arthurmiranda8896 We desperately need a leader who is able to present an image that fuses progressivism and pluralism with masculinity, tenacity, honor, and sharp intellect. Just like Teddy Roosevelt did.
And we should all be extremely concerned because the first one ended in two world wars.
The truth is, that "intelectual property", and patents, are the single thing, that guarantees monopoly to the big tech
not really, just being the first one for a social media, for instance, guarantees a moat against other competitors.
@@scivolanto Yep, grabbing the initial market share generates a huge cost-of-entry for would be competitors.
Then again, it didn't work out for myspace.
It's certainly not just IP.
You could absolutely build a search engine that would be superior to Google in every regard (especially now) and utterly fail to make any headway in the market because Google bought out pretty much every browser and OS to make it the default choice.
You could come up with a service model far surpassing both AWS and Azure and never get off the ground just due to not having the servers to handle your customers.
You could make the most stable and user-friendly Linux distro ever, and barely anyone would use it, because the app makers only target Windows.
IP abuse is a thing and should be curbed, patent protections should last less, but trust me when I say that getting rid of patents entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but we've allowed them to push IP far beyond reasonable limits.
@@GuyFromJupiterThe music industry is full of abuse too.
remember when regulations were a thing.
They still exist, they're just used by the big companies to smash the smaller companies.
There has never been as many regulations as today. The new ones just add up on the old ones are almost never repealed.
@@maximemeis2867They're never enforced, to be more aptly described. And the ones that try to be enforced are now at the risk of being invalidated by US's Supreme Court now.
@@saxor96 Don't bother. This guy's on every economic video defending corporations using the same type of language. probably a bot
Pepperidge farm remembers
The idea that "good monopolies" exist is ridiculous. The only reason these benefits exist for consumers is to accrue market share making them automatically short lived. Over time every "good monopoly" will inherently become "the bad kind."
Which is why natural monopolies like vital utilities ought to be highly regulated if not controlled by democratized government, because its citizens can hold the government accountable through constant pressure to remain not-for-profit and the threat of voting in their opposition into leadership.
@@doujinflip utilities being a monopoly is a symptom of government regulation. These companies have lobbied for decades to strangle any attempt of smaller, locale focused utility companies. Same thing happened with ISP's. Use the feds to bully both private and public initiatives under the veneer of "safety".
@@doujinflipwhen was the last time the citizenry held the government accountable? Be honest the citizenry is easily distracted with bread and circuses and sucks at holding anyone to account
Idealistally, i would rather pay for l 1 or 2 streaming services where both have reasonable prices, good content, and consumer friendly business practices, than 10. Having too much competition leads to piracy as people can’t afford to pay for multiple streaming services.
One good monopoly that basically every gamer use "steam", you use it, i use it, your favorite TH-camr use it, everyone use it because it's the best place to sell or buy stuff from, they are doing the bare minimum and yet still in the top spot.
I called every HVAC company that serviced my area, the absolute lowest quote for an INSTALL ONLY pre-charged minisplit was 2.7k. Connecting wall one story right next to fusebox. Did it myself in 4 hours had to buy a 150$ vacc pump. It's glorified mounting two TVs. If you knew what you were doing could easily do it in less than 3 hours. 1000$ an hour for such easy labor is a scam.
It's crazy.
My parents had some masonry work done to their home. 2 guys working for 4 hours. They charged 3262 Euros. It's just so insane. If I ever get to own a home I'm defiently going to try do most stuff around the house myself.
And even weirder is the guys doing the work get paid less than 20 euros and hour so where is the money going
I did the same, it's crazy how much they want for such a simple task. The hardest part was making sure I complied to all my local building codes. That and lifting the damn thing onto the wall mount lol
That's because nowadays you aren't paying for labor, you're paying for job knowledge/expertise.
Any resources you used that you could link? Looking to be able to do more stuff for myself.
@@grimkahn3775He just said the job was as simple as mounting two TVs. It's price gouging on the assumption that people don't understand the work that is being done
3k is not the manufacture cost of an H100. 3k is the estimated cost if you include R&D and engineering. in reality, they're closer to 600$.
And the most expensive part is a chip that isn't that expensive per unit. But the cost of setting up dies and stuff for mass producing it is very expensive, and the cost must be distributed over every unit sold.
Shouldn't ignore R&D and engineering for something so complicated. That's bad on principle. You shouldn't allow it to sell for nearly 10x the prediction either. That's also bad on principle.
@@dddmemaybe in theory ignoring R&D is indeed not good, but R&D is a one-time fixed expense and it becomes less relevant to the sticker price the more units get made.
@@danycashking but if you wanna stay competitive you have to keep investing in R&D, so when that R&D is less relevant, that product is less relevant too, and now you're selling a new product with new tech
@@altertopias Wrong, if you wanna stay competitive just make laws that favor you over the competition
Monopoly is a board game! Hope this helps 👍
It's actually a stolen idea from the "landlords game", which was created to show why land value taxation helps decrease exploitation by the inherent Monopoly of private ownership of land.
"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give." - Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI "Of the Rent of Land"
ahh I see what I have been missing now.
You're a godsend! Was very confused up to this point about this video but thanks to your comment I finally understand now. Monopoly is a board game.
😂
🏆 here's your "participation" trophy. 😅
"What's the point of being in business if you can't corner the market, gouching customers?" - Quark , brother of future Grand Nagus Rom after learning about introduction of new legislation making monopolies illegal.
but capitalism is defined as voluntary exchange among equals.. the only mechanism able to change that is the monopol on force - the political system.
We got a problem with representative democracy.
@@joansparky4439 > capitalism is defined as voluntary exchange among equals
That's how it's defined in the introductory course. Turns out all those doctors of economics weren't just playing video games for the remaining 6-7 years they stayed in school.
> the only mechanism able to change that is the monopol on force
No. Capitalism naturally tends toward monopoly. Assuming absolutely no control on the market (aka: Libertarian dream world), the first company in an industry that gets ahead sufficiently far that they can start buying competitors and imposing barriers to entry to prevent new competitors becomes able to continuously reinforce its position.
Worse, once a monopoly is sufficiently powerful, it could (again under the assumption of no regulations) start buying their way into _other_ markets and using the profits from their existing monopoly to jump straight to that "buying competitors and imposing barriers to entry" phase.
Such a company certainly has to _start_ by offering a better product in order to get ahead in the first place, but once they've accomplished that there is no mechanism within the framework of capitalism to stop the rush toward full monopoly power. It _must_ be imposed externally (eg: by a governing body). _That_ is where the "monopoly on force" comes into play.
> We got a problem with representative democracy
Correct. Too many voters believe Reagan's lies. It's no coincidence that the rise of super monopolies coincides with the push to deregulate everything. Government is only "the problem" because we've allowed corporate interests to make it a problem, reaping all of the profits while us average folk get to deal with the result of four decades of wage stagnation.
If you don't like the government, then vote for better people. People who are willing to stand up against corporate lobbyists, media fearmongers and anyone else who makes their living by selling irrational fear and unrealistic dreams. "Voting with your wallet" is just not going to accomplish anything unless your wallet happens to be the size of Warren Buffet's - the $50 you chose to take elsewhere isn't even a rounding error on the balance sheet of a billion dollar company. And "elsewhere" is probably just another billion dollar company doing the exact same shit but you just haven't been told to be mad at them yet.
You forgot the part where pretty much every modern Western governments actively promotes oligopolies and monopolies via over regulation and direct or indirect support (ie grants, tax write-offs, direct funding, partnerships, etc etc). It was alluded to slightly in the video, but big government and big corporations have an exceedingly similar structure as they are run by the same bureaucratic managerial elite. They share a significant overlap in interests so it makes sense for them to work together.
Like church and state, look, see the problem.
Effective overregulation and red taping, whether made for virtuous or not reasons, whether well or badly thought out, have essentially relegated the potential of starting a business, hence, competing with the already rich, to... the already rich. There are no options for everyone else than to sell your labour to the rich and then spend that money on goods sold by the rich: We are as far away from anything remotely 'free market' as possible.
The most necessary industries tend to be the most anti-competitively regulated. Housing, autos, medical, etc.
Someone finally said it, thank you! Regulatory capture is the leading cause of monopolistic practices, and create more barriers to entry.
In an economy where a company must grow at all cost, a monopoly is literally the end game.
Exactly.
It isn't just grow at all cost, but grow a lot, quarter over quarter at all costs.
It's a feature of capitalism
The only entity that can create a monopoly is the government. You are free to compete with any business you wish
@@Woodshedphilosophysome of you keep parroting this bs over and over again. Likely brainwashed by corporate propaganda who want even less regulation from the govt to continue their monopolies.
Monopoly can and do grow organically. Initially a company gets success and rises up among competitors by providing a genuinely good product or service. Once it becomes big enough, you literally can't compete. Even if you try to sell a good product, they'll defeat you by temporarily selling a similar product at a loss, with massive advertising (because being monopoly gives them a lot of money in hand to burn) till your company runs out of money and thus business.
They can buy your best employees and plant employees who sell secrets from your company without you knowing.
They can even buy your company or a significant stake of it to influence your company's decisions if it's publicly traded.
The power and money they earn from their initial success is used to eliminate competition to become a monopoly.
It's like saying you can defeat a dictator like Kim Jonn Un by just starting your political campaign there. I'd like to see you try.
8:56 Stuff like this happens so often with utility companies. It is ridiculous. I can't fathom why modern basic needs like Water, Electricity, and Internet are not government funded. I live in this area I have to use the companies that supply that area. No other choice unless I live somewhere else. It isn't a true choice.
I remember when Google first entered the market. One of their famous tag lines was "don't be evil". Apparently they weren't referring to their business.
They were. But they removed that from their moto a while back.
CUDA is not a standard for AI/ML model, it is a programming interface that NVIDIA developed for general computing on GPUs the whole idea is based on in-parallel processing which turned out an effective way for AI/ML tasks as it is for gaming / 3d rendering etc.
Appreciate all your videos, just a little correction from a techie point of view :)
@@CloudMelonVis Just an addendum that CUDA is the standard General GPU compute interface used by _everyone_ in the field, the competition like RoCM and openCL are vastly unpopular or inferior to the ease of use and performance of CUDA on Nvidia - also industry entrenchment - a lot of folks trained in CUDA and don't want to learn a new thing.
CUDA is tailored to NVIDIA GPU architecture and RoCM is AMD. Also there’s an interoperability question here such as Triton project when it comes to programming GPU in general. I did think the explanation in this video was a little bit misleading. Also NVIDIA’s competitive advantage is not limited to CUDA but their investment in combing hardware and software engineering. I’m not intending to advertise but I feel dived into this topic in one of my own videos : Why is NVIDIA Explosively Growing in this AI era ? | AI GPU infrastructure with Kubernetes
th-cam.com/video/KrmqURibQB8/w-d-xo.html
But I'm not aware that pytorch for example has the AMD equivalent to cuda implemented as a backend
@@frederik1179 ah it does exist.
AMD ROCm™ Software
Open software stack that includes programming models, tools, compilers, libraries, and runtimes for AI and HPC solution development on AMD GPUs
Although I personally think the interoperability is the future!
So, the reasons that monopolies are allowed to happen that you just listed, like all these reasons are good for the individuals involved at the ground level. The sumbitch of it is that they send ripples through society though, and that is, in fact, the price of integrity. Telling the larger company to shove it to maintain being the little guy that's a threat is a hard choice to make, but it's the right choice. This Khan lady actually doing her fucking job even though it means she's not set up to be a cushy partner later is the right choice, but it's harder. Integrity involves harder choices, and people as a whole have not been making the harder choices for a long time.
The fact that Kamala hasn't committed to keeping Khan in her position worries me a lot for this reason. Feel like if she gets replaced it will just go back to the status quo of the past couple decades.
@@lIIIIlIllI that's the problem for them it was business but you can only bend a stick so much until it breaks and once it breaks there's no turning back. Just like empires fell, it might take a century of existence to collapse the empire, but down it'll go. Just look at ancient Rome, the rich were to greedy, they kept siphoning away money from the middle class until there was none, just like the origin of Caesar, a street that should have been flourishing but was filled with war vets that could not work and people that were in debt over their heads.
"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." - JFK
@@marshalltucker9690 why do the good ones always get killed.
Steam is good example of a monopoly that exists because it fairly out-competed everyone else with Superior products and services.
GoG has its own little niche away from steam that keeps it alive, and Epic Games Store is being subsidized by fortnite and only kept relevant because of temporary exclusivity deals (people complain about it but those developers get a lot of funding, and the consumers get a better product down the line when deal ends so its fine) and constantly shoving free games at people. Epic still lacks many critically basic features for a storefront. it's truly a dogwater platform.
Actually it isn't. 20 years ago almost nobody was using digital storefronts, and the vast majority of games were purchased at brick-and-mortar stores. Steam would bundle itself with these physical games, such that when you put in the disk to install it would install the Steam client and require the Steam client to run the game. People weren't using Steam because it was the better store or client. Far from it, the Steam of this era was basically a bloatware DRM system that frequently crashed but had a storefront tacked on. But you had to install Steam to play these games, so Steam got its massive install base and a huge lead over the competition.
By the time the Steam client existed in a form that would be recognizable to modern gamers (roughly 2008-ish), the war was already over. Steam had a vast catalogue of exclusives that its competitors couldn't sell, and was getting a massive number of installs from people who were just installing games they bought at Gamestop and didn't even know the competing services existed. We are fortunate that Valve decided to invest in making its client great, but they didn't need to. You would have been forced to use it either way because they already had a monopolistic lock on digital distribution.
@@drosberg3680I don't remember Valve forcing other publishers to bundle Steam with their games back in the mid to late 00's.
@drosberg3680 do they do this now, no?
Then none of that matters.
Everyone ran their business' like that back then, you either did so too or you went bankrupt.
People choose steam now because people like steam, not because of forced downloads.
If I recall correctly, Steam was included with those physical games, but it was not required to play the game. A big part of what made Steam big was people realizing that it allowed them to have online backups of their games forever, to re-download on any PC. And it offered online services in a time where the main competitor in that space was Game Spy (i.e. terrible).
Steam absolutely won by creating and maintaining a good product.
5:40 HE SAID THE THING
Freaking family guy
3:53 Building costs ≠ development costs. As a shareholder I get inside into the books. If the production of a 30 K GPU would only be $500 I would buy myself a private jet and a yacht tomorrow
Thanks for pointing this out many people who have no idea how expensive R&D and development costs are just look at end to end production cost and go oh look at “how much they are charging for!!!”
Yeah, also invidia became the default in the space, because they have best in class software support, developer support etc
That also costs a ton probably
0:45 it's not the ONLY way a company can make a profit. It's the only way a firm can make a RISK-ADJUSTED profit IN EXCESS of the (competitive) economy-wide rate of profit.
THANK YOU for saying this.
The sad irony of this video being released the day after the noncompete ban was struck down
@@rohithamruthur very good decision protecting contracts and freedom of association. And of course people who don’t like non compete are free not to sign them. Nobody forced them to sign a non compete.
@@maximemeis2867 EVERYONE is forced to sign a non compete. What's wrong with you.
@@trinleywangmo did they pull a gun and force you to sign a non compete ? That would be force. The reality is that nobody is forced to sign a non compete. You are free to say no and walk away and they can t do anything about it.
@@maximemeis2867 you can force people, without threats of violence, to sign anything if they have nowhere else to go. If they quit they go hungry. This is the reality of a lot of people
The next ruling should be that companies can no longer count as individuals when it comes to lobbying. Of course, it will get lobbied against and thus get denied.
Unless... the court rules that because the new ruling is directly protesting lobbying, any lobbying from corporations are not allowed to be considered during the making of the decision.
...Which of course will never happen because every government official loves their "lobbyist" money so much.
The problems start when food companies become monopoly and start charging whatever they want.. leaving people hungry... and other companies leaving people homeless
Odds are, if you can name a brand off the top of your head, it's a monopoly, or at the very least an oligopoly.
@@Spoon80085 really? Can you show me the law that prevents you from setting up your competitor to Google, or to Apple or to Coke ?
@@maximemeis2867 I don't think you watched the video, nor do I think you know the definition of a monopoly. Focus up in school lad.
@@qwejy I did. And you don t have a monopoly if the government does not grant you one. Without government garanting you a monopoly, competitors and potential competitors remain free to try to take your customers.
@@maximemeis2867 If huManS eVolVed fROm MonKeys, WhY StILl MonKeyS??
I am holding a cash position right now, of about 300k. I know a dip is supposed to be the buying opportunity, so whats the best stocks to dive into, in this recession?
With $300K cash, invest in recession-resistant stocks from sectors like healthcare, utilities, consumer staples, and technology. Blue-chip, dividend-paying stocks with strong balance sheets are ideal. Consulting a financial advisor can refine your strategy.
No doubt, having the right plan is invaluable, my portfolio is well-matched for every season of the market and recently hit 100% rise from early last year. I and my CFP are working on a 7 figure ballpark goal, tho this could take till Q2 2025.
Please can you leave the info of your lnvestment advsor here? I’m in dire need for one
*Marissa Lynn Babula* is the licensed advisor I use. Just search the name. You’d find necessary details to work with to set up an appointment.
I just googled her and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get. I just scheduled a caII.
We Are in Unchartered Financial Waters! every day we encounter challenges that have become the new standard. Although we previously perceived it as a crisis, we now acknowledge it as the new normal and must adapt accordingly. Given the current economic difficulties that the country is experiencing in 2024, how can we enhance our earnings during this period of adjustment? I cannot let my $680,000 savings vanish after putting in so much effort to accumulate them.
Keeping some gold is usually a wise decision. You would be better off keeping away from equities for a bit or, even better, seeking advice from an expert given the current market conditions and everything that is at risk with the current economy.
You have a very valid point, I started investing on my own and for a long time, the market was really ripping me off. I decided to hire a CFA, even though I was skeptical at first, and I beat the market by more than 9%. I thought it was a fluke until it happened two years in a row, and so I’ve been sticking to investing via an analyst
Could you possibly recommend a CFA you've consulted with?
My CFA ’Sophia Maurine Lanting , a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
Thank you for saving me hours of back and forth investigation into the markets. I simply copied and pasted her full name into my browser, and her website came up first in search results. She looks flawless.
Anyone who cares about privacy. That's who's changing their search engine.
No one knows what "privacy" means or claims they "don't care". Well, ALMOST no one.
"Competition is for losers."
-Peter Thiel
In a way he's right. With a monopoly it's possible to win so hard that you have no competition and in the zero-sum game of tech billionaires, that's a win.
monopols (that are profit maximizing) have revenue ABOVE cost, which means COMPETITORS see that and would like to join on the supply side, underbidding the monopolist to earn some profit themselves - until supply meets demand AT COST.
The only way by which this mechanism can be disabled is when the market authority (political system) enforces rules that undermine or prohibit competition.. rules like patents (14th century, Venice) or copyright (17th century, England).
@@joansparky4439Or, you know, if the monopolist uses their overwhelming financial advantage to buy out or sabotage their fledgling competitor. Or if they operate in a field with high natural barriers to entry, like semiconductor manufacturing or telecommunications. Or if they have a first-to-market advantage, like most popular social networks at the moment. Or a billion other reasons completely disconnected from the government.
@@kaijuultimax9407Nvidia won that hard. They deserve to be a monopoly for a while. Jensen and his company did the work. Anyone who else could have started GPUs 30 years ago and work their butt off and risk everything … but they didn’t. To the Jensen goes the spoils 🏆
Zero to one reference
In light of the ongoing global economic crisis, it is crucial for everyone to prioritize investing in diverse sources of income that are not reliant on the government. This includes exploring opportunities in stocks, gold, silver, and digital currencies. Despite the challenging economic situation, it remains a favorable time to consider these investments.
The pathway to substantial returns doesn't solely rely on stocks with significant movements. Instead, it revolves around effectively managing risk relative to reward. By appropriately sizing your positions and capitalizing on your advantage repeatedly, you can progressively work towards achieving your financial goals. This principle applies across various investment approaches, whether it be long-term investing or day trading.
Even with the right strategies and appropriate assets, investment returns can differ among investors. Recognizing the vital role of experience in investment success is crucial. Personally, I understood this significance and sought guidance from a market analyst, significantly growing my account to nearly a million. Strategically withdrawing profits just before the market correction, I'm now seizing buying opportunities once again.
@@hunter-bourke21bravo! I appreciate the implementation of ideas and strategies that result to unmeasurable progress, thus the search for a reputable advisor, mind sharing info of this person guiding you please?
Much credit goes to *Izella Annette Anderson* for her significant contributions. She maintains an online presence, making it easy to locate her. While other advisors might pose challenges to find Zella has proven to be an excellent mentor throughout the year.
I copied her whole name and pasted it into my browser; her website appeared immediately, and her qualifications are excellent; thank you for sharing.
A democratic economy is just as important as a democratic government!
Worker co-ops.
🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🙌✨
@@piku5637 Yep! One successful example is the Cleveland Model/ Preston Model, which is a system of anchoring democratically managed worker co-operatives into communities by securing stable contracts with local institutions, like hospitals, universities, and municipalities. This helps jobs and wealth stay in the community rather than work being outsourced and profits being shipped to Wall St. It's a great benefit to the people that have been involved in such a type of community wealth building... Because that's the thing, the main goal is about building wealth not government redistribution.
@@piku5637 Yep, or any model in which employees get a percentage of control over the company. It was nice working at a coffee co-op and being able to shoot down a really dumb idea from management because all the employees have an actual say in the matter, was really nice.
But you got all the options. No.1, or no.2. Or as some others say, SH!t, or SH!t lite :D
9:58 when companies have been allowed to do as they pleased for the last 40 years, is it any wonder regulators don't have any power?
@@ifeoluwaadeoye6557 what nonsense. There has never been as many regulations on the books
@@maximemeis2867 right, and yet there are so many recalls every year in almost every industry. Clown
@@ifeoluwaadeoye6557 how can there be so many recalls if more regulations was supposed to make things better?
That thumbnail is absolutely genius
The fact that AT&T and Standard Oil remerged so easily after in 3-4 companies is absolutely MAD. Now you have a handful of CEOs meeting up at a restaurant to decide to raise or not prices. Nothing really has changed...
As I sit here, I am on hour 4 of trying to get the Microsoft task scheduler to run a simple but necessary task on a laptop. Because about 15 processes irremediably failed in conjunction, I had no choice but to factory reset the computer. It probably won't work. If it doesn't, I'll be forced to buy another laptop. However, in my experience the task scheduler, an application that has been around since the 1990s, only works about 30% of the time. The rest of the time either involves hours-long fixes involving replacing registry keys etc or the problem proves completely intractable. The latter case entails buying new laptops, testing them for basic functionality, then returning them to the store a high percentage of the time when the Windows operating system fails completely to operate even basic tasks, processes which the company has had 30 years to figure out but can't.
That's not a benevolent monopoly.
At 10:42 you state that monopolies are the natural state of businesses. I'd love to see a video explaining how and why that is.
It just makes sense:
The whole point of capitalist free markets is to encourage competition by using profits as a tool to measure how successful a company is.
But since the only measure that can be objectively evaluated is profits, and the most efficient way to increase those profits is to stifle competition, the winning strategy for a business is to become a monopoly.
That's why libertarianism doesn't work, and is the inherent contradiction with capitalism that can only be moderated via policy.
@@AlneCraft It makes sense that businesses *want* to become monopolies but it also makes sense that as soon as they begin leveraging that to make a profit potential competitors are going to want a piece of that. Outside of specific industries, like telecommunications, which are recognized as natural monopolies due to various factors such as barriers to entry it is very hard to establish a monopoly and even harder to maintain it once you start gouging your customers.
@@AlneCraft
Then why dont you own all the monopolies? Dont you want to own them?
@@studentofsmithit's not easy to "get a piece" since that needs a lot of things coming together to succeed, you need good competitive ideas with lots of expertise (that you'll mostly need to get from the ones you need to compete with) and huge capital investments, look at TH-cam for example, not a single major tech company even dares thinking of making a competitor, same for quite a lot of other stuff
Closer to the natural state of success
0:38 Wouldn't 31.7 million out of 33.2 million be ~95.5%, not 99.9%?
@@user-df8fo7od3yNot really - that’s the difference of approximately 1.5 million companies in the upper tier.
31.7 ÷ 33.2 = .95
I thought I was crazy. I watched a documentary that mentioned about AT&T was a monopoly that got dismantled into several smaller companies I had never heard of. I always wondered what happened to them and then I saw that graphic
Easy way to solve this: exponential tax rates. The more money a business makes, the higher their tax rate. The same for people who get dividends, the more they make the more they pay. This would incentivise to keep companies seperate, and ownership distributed.
We already have progressive taxation. (That’s what it’s called, not “exponential”.) Unfortunately, so many exemptions have been carved out as favors to big donors that the after-exemptions tax rates at the top are lower.
@@tookitogo the tax doesn't rise exponentially, but logarithmically. What i mean, is that after a certain amount of profit, you pay 100% taxes.
@@waralo191the large companies would simply set up their holdings in a low tax country, which is what Nike is doing to pay 1% taxes
@@waralo191 Are you using “logarithmic” to describe the system we have, or the system you are proposing?
Reaching a 100% tax bracket doesn’t require a mathematically-described curve. You can also just define a 100% tax bracket. We came close to that long go, 91% IIRC.
@@benny7899 Yeah, you make license fees nondeductible from income for the purpose of calculating profit, for determining taxation
I live in a small town and the nearest grocery store is 40 miles away. There were two grocery stores but one bought the other and jacked the prices up. Nobody seems to care.
8:22 is that the Terraria coin pile landing sound effect?
The rise of monopolies is indeed rather concerning, particularly the blanket that it throws over opportunities for other competitors. This ruling may be a pivotal point marking the change of tides.
Except Texas just rules against banning non competes as this video was likely being edited. The FTC could appeal to the 5th circuit, but if you know the 5th, you know how that will go…
I'm not real smart in all things business but like to observe various industries.
It truly does seem like there is no way to make a profit these days for some industries without basically having huge market share. Everything is just so expensive.
I always thought it's because while expenses have ballooned, while consumers make had stagnated. So companies must be bigger to have costs of scale to have lower prices. Something smaller companies can't do as consumers can't afford the expensive stuff.
Also the need for constant growth. Eventually it just makes sense to buy other companies to look good for investors and shareholders.
Just something I've thought about before this video.
the drive for growth is due to a flaw in our fiat currency, which it copied from metal currency when the gold standard was ended (this solved one problem, but did create another).
Due to this growth pressure companies either post profit or go under.. same for the whole economy.
The reason monopolies are even possible to achieve is because many of these industries are tightly regulated, meaning that entering those markets is near impossible. Those monopolies also capture regulatory agencies to crush out competition
Yep, the political system creates and maintains rules that shield a few from competition, so they can maximize for profits.
All thanks to Plato and his idea of reluctant philosophers leading us..
just like what OpenAI and Microsoft wants with AI models.
Yeah, no. Some are. Like pharma and nuclear, but overall regulations are appropriate. Not to say there isn't inefficiencies and unfairness. But just like with those earlier examples, these "unfair" regulatory conditions are not always there because some shenanigans.
Biggest reason is because big companies can just directly use money to crush competition various ways, it's way more efficient and easy. And if you become sufficiently big, you can also craft your product in way that protects or furthers the monopoly.
@@mukkaar there are regulations that are needed (personal freedom or private property for example are based on regulation) and there are regulations that undermine or prohibit competition..
Only one kind issustainable.
PS: Capitalism is based on regulation. There is no Capitalism without it.
PPS: regulation that protects the environment also is needed.. otherwise the society will not be able to survive.
@@joansparky4439 Where do you get your ideas from? Is there a book I could read?
I'm honestly less concerned with the monopolies themselves, and more concerned with the investment firms blatantly controlling and funding their actions from the shadows, such as BlackRock and Vanguard
Where it cuts into the sponsor and you say "I know many of you are sitting at work right now..." and I'm like 😮 I'm busted. But apparently everyone else is watching on company time too. 😅
Also, as follow-up, don't change your career to IT. I work in IT and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Go into a skilled trade. I'd go for Electrician personally. But plumber would be my second.
@@g0d5m15t4k3I am a mechanical engineering student and would recommend against it as well. People glorify working in tech or engineering. People think that you could have a positive impact and that the work is exciting. Today I think that being a teacher, therapist, doctor or even a police man would be more exciting that programming (mechanical engineering is a lot of programming as well. CAF and FEM have become low end jobs for India).
You forgot reason # 4: On the rare occasion regulators actually do their job, partisan officials claim the act is either unconstituional, or that regulating is somehow beyond the reach of these agency's authority, and legally block the enforcement of antitrust measures, as with the non-complete case being blocked by a federal judge for these very reasons. Absolute lunacy.
We need more small local and Regional businesses and less multi-state and Multinational businesses.
More individuals will have more opportunities to become middle or upper middle class, while a handful of individuals will be denied millionaire and billionaire status.
If one of these local and Regional companies goes out of business, it won't affect the entire National and international market.
The lawyer thing isn’t a conspiracy. The companies are represented by attorneys (they can’t represent themselves you know), and it’s good practice to be friendly with opposing counsel. So you’ll inevitably make some friends and connections. When you leave office, you call them up, and they vouch for you based on the work they know you’ve done. Boom job. Not a conspiracy with corporations, and more the reverse of the criminal defence counsel to ADA pipeline.
“We have never sought to become a monopoly. Our products are simply so good that no one feels the need to compete with us.” ~ CEO Nwabudike Morgan,
Morgan Data Systems press release
Why are your products better than those whom can make equivalent products? Stopping the competition from making competitive products is anticompetitive. The government can aid in those anticompetitive practices.
@@kerwinbrown4180 our products are better, which means that no one _can_ make equivalent products (that’s what “better” means). We don’t need the government to push our stuff. We just need the government to stay out of our way, which is both free market…and what buying congressmen is for.
No matter how good monopolies are in the short term, they will always harm all of us in the long run. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Solution: Make every industry a monopoly, but pit different internal teams against each other and also make the monopolising company owned by workers and customers. I call it, Silicon Valley communism.
As a Canadian, i find this hilarious that some people are only just becoming aware of this fact.
We have so many monopolies in Canada, its insane
Currently Kroger is trying to merge with Albertsons but the government has been blocking it.
shoutout to lina khan. we need more people like this
But people also keep on buying stuff from hige corporations instead of buying from small or medialum sized businesses
The difference between Europe and America's economies is stark, especially in the cities. Small businesses thrive in Europe, filling the entire city with plenty of passerby stopping by their local grocery/cafe/department-store/whatever, whereas in USA, big corp takes all the business with the lower per unit operational costs, and the ease people have of getting anywhere in the city with their cars. The USA is most definitely a car culture powered corporotopia.
Bruh. One of the most important verdicts ever.
Damn america-centrism. The EU has been aware of the monopolistic tendencies of american firms for decades
You mean the FTC funding has been cut drastically since we bailed out a bunch of corporations and let them monopolize instead of the market deciding?
Thanks Obama.
Great video. This is at some parts of the world pretty much the case for the airline industry. Airlines like lufthansa have almost an monopoly in central europe and they make it impossible for new competitors to get into the german market
Here's a realization for you: monopolies don't exist because governments fail to regulate them, monopolies exist BECAUSE of government, as they facilitate it.
Government is a monopoly in and of itself. As an organization, they offer the service of law; the court system, where corporations (people) come to conspire (lobby). Legislation is but a way for big business to make it harder for new competition to enter the market, or straight up crush small players. Even How Money Works covered the example of Walmart lobbying for minimum wages for the same purpose.
This leads me to the real monopoly government has: violence. No matter how evil a practice is, once it has been (il)legalized, government will use violence to enforce it. Big oil wouldn't have been possible without government banning alcohol in the 19th century (for health reasons of course, they care so much about tax animals... I mean citizens). Similar patterms can be seen across all industries. Let alone cases like the CIA running poppy fields in Afghanistan after the army destroyed the country.
A government is a monopoly, but a democratic government has to constantly answer to and benefit its shareholders: i.e. its citizens.
@@doujinflip you really do believe that, do you? Look at it like this: churches have been replaced with townhalls and parlementary buildings, the Vatican is now the Capitol, and the cross is the flag with 50 stars on it. That's your religion and you have inherited their dogmas in their schools.
@@doujinfliplol, nice world you live in
@@GubernareMens We should probably tell Rockefeller that his monopoly was facilitated by the government, I'd imagine he'd be very surprised to hear that. A monopoly is simply the natural result of a company growing large enough to where competing with it becomes impossible, the end state of capital growth. A government isn't needed for it, hell, a good government will try to stop it from taking place at all costs.
Also, yes, it's true that the government has the monopoly on violence. Pray that remains the case, for you do not want to live in a place where there are multiple competing distributors of violence.
@@doujinflip when they have actually answered their shareholders?
Thank you for finally addressing this. This is the largest financial issue in the US currently.
You should talk about how private equity took over the sandwich shops in America!
One of the monopolies I am happy exists is Steam. It has only ever been a positive for PC gamers. And is genuinely just a better product. Why wouldn't people flock to it when the only other thing is....the epic game store?
Oh yeah how money works time
From breaking the Bell to too big to fail, this definitely needs to be addressed, and is a prime example of something to write your representatives about
Better talk about the main trend of this year - providing liquidity. Don't forget to mention Cryptonica, their impact on the market is huge.
Lot of good points here. Private monopolies are certainly more dangerous than the other types due to the lack of transparency and public access.
I’d argue though that the current market has a better self control than what the FTC strives to do and that is in public markets. It’s never been easier to invest in these big companies and all of the monopolies mentioned are mostly owned by the public. The incentives to increase profits benefit shareholders which are the public. Monopolies are not one person lining their pockets but rather executive teams striving to increase equity values. In this way the incentives of the public and of the company are aligned. If a company jacks up prices to a point where customer loyalty is eroded, the market will punish that company. Same with poorly made acquisitions (look at the fall from grace GE and IBM had due to this). I could go on and on but if you think about the feedback loop, it really isn’t a problem.
Peter Theil (one of the founders of PayPal and part of this new generation of tech bros) wrote a book called "Zero to One" in which he literally advocates for and talks about the benefits of monopolies in the tech industry. He essentially starts with the assumption that the main drive of tech companies is to innovate and builds his argument from that standpoint, conveniently ignoring the downsides of monopolies and that the main goal of companies is profit, not innovation. Once you've achieved a monopoly you don't need to innovate to increase your profits.
Peter Theil is also currently very friendly with various anti-democratic groups (aka, N@zis). He's also the man who sponsored J D Vance, to the point of him becoming Trumps VP pick.
monopols are based on anti-competitive regulation that SHIELD the profit maximizing monopolist (revenue above cost = profit, which would attract competition to join on the supply side, subsequently increasing it until it meets demand AT COST) provided by society - by the monopol on force - by our political system where we elect an absolute minority (1 in 500k) to make and maintain our laws.
The FTD & DOJ blind eye on monopolies started with Reagan. It is the part of Reaganomics that is rarely mentioned. We've been paying for it ever since.
I'd make the argument that monopolies are always bad. With the profit-driven motive, as soon as the company realizes there's no other game in town, they'll cut costs rapidly which results in worse products.
Also can say thanks for whoever was working at this didn't disappoint and the harsh reality time like Saul Goodman said is really what can fit in this part as well. Especially in these times which a lot of people now really aren't wanting to but for anyone with sense have to considering the times just got bad now.
The continuously changing economic conditions in our society have made it necessary for people to find additional sources of income, thus I am looking at the stock market to fuel my retirement goal of $3m, my only concern is the recent market crash.
Every crash/collapse brings with it an equivalent market chance if you are early informed and equipped, I've seen folks amass wealth amid economy crisis, and even pull it off easily in favorable conditions. That should be the least of your concern. Also explore the option of working with a CFA to reduce greatly your chances of loss.
You're right, I and a few Neighbors in Bel Air Area work with an Investment Adviser who prefers we DCA across other prospective sectors instead of a lump sum purchase. As a result, my portfolio has recorded significant improvement even during the most unfavorable market season.
I'm intrigued by this. I've searched for investment advisers online but it's kind of hard to get in touch with one. Okay if I ask you for a recommendation??
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with Melissa Terri Swayne for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran a Google search on her name and came across her website… thank you for sharing.
>Search engines just as good or better than google
You showed 2 bings and one google. And... None of those were Kali
The purpose of maintaining the monopolies was to compete against Chinese backed monopolies. This has been incredibly successful, China hasn't usurped any US Tech and is in a horrible financial situation. Since the reason to keep these monopolies is gone, the gov't will start breaking them up, at least slowly.
China is dominating EV and renewable energy tech?
@@tobzdaman619 Tesla is dominating China for EV, it's over half the market. There are also millions of new Chinese EV's just rotting, their sales numbers are heavily inflated to make them look good on paper. The Chinese do produce a lot of cheap photovoltaics, but non of them meet EU/US standards for Carbon neutrality, and they aren't the best from a technology standpoint.
@@HeartofCobalt european and united states research institutes basically are donating their research to china still
I think UN countries need to create more incentives for democracies to get more favorable trade, and incentivise democratisation in weaker countries, maybe even having a UN caretaker government programme, for countries that accept, UN allies take over and create favorable conditions for the country to develop, somewhat like EU candidate status countries getting more trade, more money, more regulatory support the more they synchronize to EU rules.
Except in countries where elections lead to problems, the UN caretaker is a choice people can vote for. Just a committee of faceless regulators maybe 7 that rotate every semester or full year, that have some key performance indicators to measure their success. If country indicators improve, the regulators get fat payouts.
that's an excuse not a reason.
sure.. this is why anti competitive constructs like patents (14the century, Venice) and copyright (17th century, England) appeared.. to cope with CHN.
😂
The goal of nearly all business is market domination. Monopoly is a normal part of capitalism.
The title of this video should have been "why everything is and always has been a pyramid scheme"
Lo and behold, it turns out every economic process ever is a pyramid scheme if you dig deep enough.
Monopoly is not just an idea that's suddenly new or a new concept. Anything can be a monopoly when the biggest corporations work/compete together, which is pretty much all the time. Everything will end up a monopoly since it's such a basic idea
Wich breaks current anti trust laws but the govt doesnt wana stop them.
People in power will help each other stay in power for favors
They put in protections before, but now you see a few mutual funds with enough shares to swing decisions owning competitors.
ROI for investors is maximized + middle management & high profile positions earn huge money = product suffers & monopoly becomes the only option
I wonder if when big corps screw up enough if they will also receive massive bail outs by government because they are “too big to fail”…
Already there, I suspect.
I recommend to pay closer attention to intel, in that case. Their stock plummeted due to massive problems with current generation of processors (thats on top of going down over the years).
They are 1 of the 2 active right holders to the x86 processor architecture, which most of the computers use. Perhaps they are unlikely to go down under, but its an interesting case nonetheless.
The scariest part of monopolies is that they get so rich and powerful they can change the laws to protect themselves ie rent seeking. Which means at some point you start working for the company even if you don't work for them. I don't want to subsidize Walmart's wages or every oil company for some reason.
Monopoly is the "natural law" of Capitalism.
I feel like someone wrote extensively on this in the 1800s. Some poor German guy with a bushy beard. Ah, oh well.
Even the largest tree in the forest at any time dies and fall off leaving a clearing for new plants to compete and grow.
But in today's economy the old tree it's always fertilized and when there's a drought the government takes the water from nearby plants and uses it to water the old tree.
Because all markets consolidate - especially in the face of recessions.
At some point, a given path has been explored enough, and you only get marginal returns on investment. So you just need to scale as far as you can.
Until new technology disrupts the existing players.
ROI in a saturated market, where supply meets demand, at the equilibrium point is ZERO.
Free markets trend towards ZERO profit at any moment in time.
What can't deal with this is our currency - it stops circulating at ZERO ROI.
Fiat copied this flaw from gold, although it should not have to.. because fiat is based on PROMISES which have a finite time span of validity.. this would create a value loss of the promise which in the form of fiat would appear as a negative interest rate on currency itself.
All of a sudden ZERO ROI would be VERY attractive.
Too bad Modern Monetary Theory hasn't figured that one out yet..