"Monopoly" used to mean a single company controlling a market. Now folks are now hollering "monopoly" about five different companies competing and collectively capturing 90% of a market?
Plus the market is artificially defined to be small. It excluded companies that do their own delivery (pizza places and others), home food delivery that isn't from restaurants, and the old option of just driving yourself to a restaurant.
There's thriving competition in the industry of getting people food, and lots of options that didn't even exist a decade ago. Crazy that it's being spun as the exact opposite.
> "Monopoly" used to mean a single company controlling a market. Now folks are now hollering "monopoly" about five different companies competing and collectively capturing 90% of a market?
Five companies controlling 90% of the market is more than enough to form a cartel or spontaneously self-organise in ways that have the same effect even without explicitly coordinating. (I once read an economics paper that I wish I could find now that said this would happen when the top 4 companies in an industry controlled more than 60% of the market)
What are the primary problems with monopolies? Do you think those exact same problems could be seen by a small group of of companies who act in a monopolistic manner (much like a cartel)?
I think you are stuck on the definition of the word monopoly rather than the reason behind why we ban/rule against them.
Plus the market is artificially defined to be small. It excluded companies that do their own delivery (pizza places and others), home food delivery that isn't from restaurants, and the old option of just driving yourself to a restaurant.
There's thriving competition in the industry of getting people food, and lots of options that didn't even exist a decade ago. Crazy that it's being spun as the exact opposite.