@carynpinkston1939
I live in a small town with only two grocery stores nearby. One is big enough that it can generally supply our grocery needs, and the other is a tiny store that sells good meat, but it's selection is otherwise lackluster (and I don't trust those non-meat groceries besides - I once opened a yogurt I bought from them as I was walking out and found mold). The bigger grocery store practically has a monopoly where I live, so they can do pretty much whatever they want with the prices. It's such a pain! We have a choice of either paying unfair prices for our groceries, or going out of town to buy them (which we can't always do during the winter). Not only that, but this grocery store sells us produce that goes bad almost immediately, and we actually buy it, because we don't really have other options. I wish that our local grocery store had some real competition, or that they'd get in legal trouble for their practices.
@MrMastera
Everything works well in theory but in reality there are many other factors like corruption and organized crime that not only inevitably lead to a monopoly, but also choke small and medium businesses until their owners sell them out to the big fish.
@readisgooddewaterkant7890
Watching a video on the value of competition On youtube, The video watching monopoly
@perafilozof
The only problem is : Companies that gain Monopoly, gain almost unlimited money, and money corrupts those in government which than don't brake up monopiles to prevent their income from being lost. Human greed and corruption always ruins everything.
@joshuasbecreative8444
Awesome video good job on the explanation
@escuelasestelares
The human factor has been left out. A greedy person is not concerned with the common good. Thus competition becomes a way to exploit, to cheat, to lie, etc. For instance, in the banana example; nowadays the bananas in the market in the county I live, have lost their taste, their quality as a source of nourishment. Producers have found a way to produce more, to add deceitful labels to those bananas (i.e organic) to preserve them longer than their typical shelve lifetime with additional chemicals, etc. Even though, we see a banana, it is not what it used to be, nor is the quality of the land where those bananas grow. All of that thanks to competition. Many times we can be lost with labels such as "monopoly," "free market," etc. We may take side with a label only and even idealistically fight for that label, when the reality behind it is more complex. However, the bottom line, the source beyond labels is the quality of a person. Each person makes up society, and thus; the "aggregate value" of quality of people will give those labels their real meaning.
@avonzo
For a true competition to work a good governance framework has to back it up because biased support in the market would ruin the intended higher quality for the consumer.
@RealSalica
Yeah and we ended up with too much variety , farmers working for almost no money (search for suicides in farmers) and a higher amount of food waste because when there are too many options of the same product and grocery stores want to offer them all to the consumers ...well a lot don't get sold .
@Munchausenification
In general competition is overall a net gain for society in the long run, but not always. For example milk or other dairy products only get cheaper and overall quality goes up with higher production capacity and therefore a monopoly in this case is most of the time actually better in the end. The company called Arla is a good example of this, where the company does not have complete monopoly but close to it, in Denmark. It should also make it easier on a macro level to reduce waste in that milk products isnt something we buy 50% more of when on sale, our consumption stays pretty much the same. But despite this there are also downsides. Innovation could potentially be lower, suppliers have very little room for price negotiation - potentially leading to inflexible supply-side, the company is an expert on the homefront but an amateur in more aggressive markets.
@pueraeternus6520
The banana monopoly competes with the apple, orange, and pineapple monopoly though. Just because there's only one company making a product doesn't mean there's a lack of competition and innovation. A monopoly has to be larger than a specific product, it has to be an entire industry. Facebook isn't a monopoly.
@omerkaya545
I think anti-trust laws are anti free market. I believe that the only threat a company poses is if it can get special treatment from a government, ban competition etc. I don't see any other way how a company could worsen my life.
@The-Economist-God
You know what I really don’t understand? The „HOW”. Because if I look at the video, I don’t really understand that „how” exactly would competition lead to innovations. Or at least on the surface level I get it, but If I begin to think about, I don’t really understand it. For example, what happens when the other seller would try to innovate? You show it in your video that for example Seller B would hire a mascot to advertise their bananas. But wouldn’t it mean that their operation cost would rise too because of the extra labor? So the incumbant seller could undercut Seller B and since they’re next to eachother, could attract customers better with their lower prices. Because Seller B won’t be able to lower their prices to the point of the incumbant seller because of the increased operation „costs”. So I don’t really get, why competition would incentivize someone to innovate. I think the „cost” is a very important part which is missing from this video, and from the discussions of the effect of market competition on innovation. And you know, often economoists/people would try to give examples from evolution that market competition works. For example they would say that „the strongest one survive” which is of course not true and is the misrepresentation of the „survival of the fittest” methodology. Because the people who say that the „strongest one survives”, also forget to include the „costs” into their logic. Because in evolution, everything basically has a cost or and advantage and disadvantage. For example if you have bigger muscles, you would need more energy to keep your body functional. If you don’t find enough food, you’re more likely to not survive than a skinnier man. It’s possible that neanderthals did not survive out because of their bigger body which required more food to sustain. In this sense we can even say that some or too much innovation can even harm the everyday consumer. For example if both sellers in the video would stay open 24/7 and the demand at night wouldn’t be that high, then they would need to increase their prices to sustain their shops. Which would have to be payed by the consumers shopping during the day. Or why would suddenly good for consumers that evey shop would have a mascot giving out samples? As I mentioned previously, this would increase both seller’s prices and could even be uncomfortable for the consumer on the long run if the mascots would try to give out free samples to every passerby. Take a look at some of the restaurants in cities. Restaurant workers try to call you in, would ask questions, which could disturb your romantic trip and make you uncomfortable. (Same with live music in some restaurants) And going back to my point that in evolution everything has a price, we can see examples for this in the smartphone market. There are many brands who try to obtain market share and sales. But this means that their main focus is on price and they try to undercut eachother. But this undercutting comes with a „price”, which are features. You know, I see a lot of articles that a new phone comes out, which has better cameras than one other phone. And the article states that the phone is better than the other because of this one thing. But if I open the spec sheet of both phones, I can see that yeah the camera is better than on the other phone, but the processor or RAM is worse. This is becasue you can’t really have every advantage without disadvantages. Better processors and RAM-s would mean that the phone would be more expensive than the other one. So the manufacturers are leaving out some stuff to try to match the price range. This in my opinion hinders innovation. A few months back I tried to get myself a new phone and this was the issue that I was running into. I had to browse trough a lot of articles and spec sheet and devote a lot of my time to this matter. I got into an option paralysis and in the end I still got a phone that could have been better, but all the other alternatives had different problems. So I had to choose one not-the-best phone because there was competition? And I think myself that I could have got a better phone if there was a less competition and manufacturers would focus on real phone improvements and not trying to undercut eachother. So I kinda chose the „one-eyed man” in the land of the blinds. I also want to mention that „premium” or „luxury” products are often priced the way they are BECAUSE there are alternatives (competitors). For example, what would Iphone really worth if the people who buy them couldn’t point to other phones and label them as „lesser” or „poorer” phones? What if Iphones would be the only option? They would certainly worth less and people may not even buy them every year. So you could ask me that „then what causes innovation?”. And my answer to this is that innovation is a natural process and would happen regardless of competition. For example if you have already have a phone, you won’t really buy the same phone the next year if they don’t innovate on it. So basically even if there was only 1 manufacturer, it would be „forced” to innovate, if they want money in the future. Or if they want to sell only one phone for a very big price and then vanish with a lot of many , they couldn’t really do that, because if they would sell 1 phone for example 20.000 USD, that money would increase a lot of product’s prices which manufacturing companies use phones. And the monopoly would have to pay these increased prices too. (this is a little bit like „trickle down economics”) Another example is the video game crash of 1983 (which was caused partly because of the too much market competition). A lot of the same type of consoles and games came out after eachother, and they were sometimes low effort and of poor quality (which we could label today as shovelware). Consumers „had enough” after a certain amount of time that no innovation happened, which caused the crash. And even if there were only 1 publisher that would sell games, after some time they would need to innovate to be able to sell games so they are naturally forced to innovate. Going back to the video, what if there were only 1 seller, so they would have a monopoly? Consumers won’t necessarily buy a lot of bananas from them, for example they would buy only 1 kg of bananas because of their demand and money. The seller could still see this and would try to incentivize buyers to leave more money at them. For example they would offer 1kg of bananas for 1 dollars but 2kg for 1.80 or something like that. So we would have innovation because of the profit motivation BUT without competition. And even if originally the consumers would buy more than 1kg of bananas, the seller could still motivate them with deals to earn bigger profits. Another example where competition is not necessary to innovate is the taxi services. I don’t have an exact number, but before the smartphones, when there weren’t apps, a lot of taxi phone operators must have worked at a company. Think about it, handling all the consumers would require a lot of operators. So with the invention of smartphones, a company could look at their revenue and say that more profit would be left for them if they could cut the costs. The most straightforward method for this is to make an app, which would not only cut the costs of a lot of operators, but would make consumer statisfaction better, because instead of vaguely describing in phone where they are (to the oprator), the GPS would pinpoint their exact location. A driver wouldn’t have to search for the riders either when arriving at the pickup place. Or even the app would help the drivers see which one of them is closest to the pickup point. This would ensure that the company would use the least amount of fuel and the pickup time for the consumer would also be the lowest. So both the company and the consumers would win. A kind of non-zero sum game without competition. And don’t tell me that more competition would increase the quality of rides because we can see nowaday when there are lot of ride-share apps... The quality and price in my country is worse than when there was only a taxi service. Same with the food delivery services. And what would even happen if there were more competition honestly? We would converge to „perfect competition” as mentioned in the video, where there won’t be any profit for each seller. But then how would they innovate their services if they don’t have the resources for it? Why would it be good in some cases when a product won’t get innovations because of the competition? Why would that be beneficial for the consumers? Prices might be lower, but at the cost of innovations. As in my smartphone example, some aspects have to be „left out” (innovation in this case) in favor of the other thing. We can’t have the advantage without the disadvantage. I’m just not sure that if it’s even remotely good for the consumers.
@kajolk1708
Hey Guys, Loved your illustration style! Very clear narrative and storytelling. Can you mention the tool used to draw all these?
@cheungchoiwan6402
agree for free and healthy competition.
@CamonaTempest
Great work Thank you
@ahmedsaqawemaki2766
I hope in the next videos to talk about the ideas of: -Guerrela marketing and -Grassroots marketing Thanks.
@bigdawg3836
AMD do both on their Cpu product; Advanced the innovation and give the price not only competitive but also way cheaper
@jean-pierrep6844
Beautifully explained
@rcfokker1630
You need a Monopoly, in order to 'break up' other Monopolies?
@ShawnRavenfire