I agree with your statement, while at the same time it was the monopoly that got him to the position he was in. It's hard not to make money once you're at that point. I don't think he could have gotten that rich if actual competition existed and he was investing in hundreds of companies. He didn't do any manoeuvring to get his stakes in all those separate companies, unless you count back room deals.
A monopoly is someone who owns an entire market. In the history of america, the only monopolies that have existed were government granted ones, like the US Postal Service. The government passed a law prohibiting the offering of first class mail. At the time they did this, there was a thriving and growing and diverse mail delivery system made up of thousands of small businesses and private contractors.
Standard Oil was never a monopoly, and never had monopoly pricing power. Standard oil was only ever able to get large because they quickly and constantly drove down the price of gasoline.
There is this tendency for americans to call businesses that are not monopolies under the definition to be monopolies to justify using violence against them (it is violence when a company is forcibly broken up or forced to not engage in "anti-competitive" (by which they really mean "competitive") activities.)
The reality is, none of these businesses were monopolies, and as much as I hate microsoft, they weren't a monopoly. Existing laws would have been sufficient for enforcement against microsoft for their crimes, which included fraud and misrepresentation. But the "anti-trust" laws are all about preserving government power and are used only against businesses that become big enough to wield influence and thus attract opponents in government... usually opponents in government in the pocket of competing businesses.
The US would be a better country and have a more robust economy, if Standard Oil had never been broken up. This and the "anti-trust" movement is a triumph of socialism over capitalism.
Standard Oil was able to use anti-competitive forces against competitors. They specifically were able to extract better rates for the transportation of oil with the railroad companies which helped give them a more competitive cost structure than peers. Because of the high cost of capital required at the time, many peers were driven out of business and were forced to sell to Rockefeller.
I love how ideological nonsense that bears no releationship to historical facts is considered "facts" and by not goose stepping along with your fascist ideology you feel justified in calling me ignorant. When its painfully obvious that all you are able to contribute to the conversation is a poor repetition of your vague memories of the propaganda you were told about the situation, when in reality, vertical integration, including the purchasing of transportation systems gave standard oil a competitive advantage. This is known as competition, and is not "anti-competitive". In fact, if you use the phrase "anti-competitive" seriously, you should lose the right to post on this website because you reveal yourself to be an unthinking socialist, and if you ever managed to start a company, you would surely fuck it up by following your ideology over reality.
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
This is not a definition, this is an expression of the leftist ideological position. I have seen many situations on Wikipedia where factually correct edits are reversed because they disagree with the ideology of the wikipedia editors who have stature.
It is kinda like hacker news where a useful comment like mine is voted down to zero, while someone calling me names and repeating ignorant comments that are consistent with the groupthink of the left, get modded up.
It is not that their name calling and ideological regurgitation are superior to my argument... it is that people vote based on ideology, often when they are profoundly ignorant of the reality.
I suggest that you not use Wikipedia as a source for definitions, as that one is particularly heinous. In common usage one could use the term "monopoly" to describe entities with strong pricing power, but common usage is not usage in economics, yet the wikipedia definition starts "in economics".
Any "Economist" who defines a monopoly as a company that does not have ownership of the entire market, is an ideologue pretending to be an economist.
According to my economics textbooks, when you say "ownership of the entire market" you are talking about a pure monopoly, which is different to a monopoly. You don't need the entire market to have monopolistic power.
So, I would disagree with your definitions, and your assertion that "in economics, they use this term correctly".
I would also suggest that your assertions seem somewhat ideological. Many people agree that trusts are bad for capitalism in that they restrict competition, and are not evidence of socialism.
I love how you just made up a term and then claimed that using the word wrong is justified because you made up a different term for the correct definiton.
Of course, you've never opened an economic texbook in your life.
I also love how you claim that my references to history are ideological assertions, then you make a broad and profoundly ignorant ideological assertion as a counter argument, except that, of course, you don't make an actual argument, you just say "many people believe".
Many people believe there is a good, that's not proof that its true.
You are a fucking ignorant socialist, and it is consequently no wonder that you are so dishonest as well.
It is fucktards like you that make hacker news (and any "social" news site) not worth participating on,..... because there are just too many ignorant, low intelligence people downvoting those who bothered to learn something and who bother to think.
Just in case there's any question of our relative positions here.
What di you make of the DeBeers 10 year diamond monopoly? If all the supposed monopolies out there, this seems the hardest to debunk. I read one economist say they were really a cartel with government protection, but he didn't cite any evidence. DeBeers seem to have controlled the trade through their own shrewdness. Only point I can think against it is there's nothing to stop people reselling diamond rings so it's wrong to say they control the market.
The only way a cartel can work is via government enforcement. Cartels can try to fix prices, but as soon as they do, if the price is above the free-market price, members of the cartel will try to gain marketshare by selling under the table at a lower price. Cartels are not sustainable in a free market for this reason.
I can't comment on DeBeers because I do not know enough of the history of the situation. I will say, though, that diamonds are essentially worthless, and it is primarily by brilliant propaganda / advertising that people continue to buy them.
