Law of the jungle is "might makes right", and is a part of egoism. Natural law is "do no harm", and is a part of anarchism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, neo-classical liberalism, and in effect utilitarianism (although they do not believe in natural law per se).
A monopoly will exist more frequently in egoism, less so in anarchism and the like. A monopoly thrives in egoism (which is essentially statism), because it uses government force of law and guns, taxes and regulations, subsidies, and currency manipulations to drive out competition and maintain it's market share. A monopoly in a free market (a market without any regulation beyond harm, or the intention of it) cannot rely on such help from the government (it could exist, and be out of the markets), so it would have to simply be the best company that provides that good/service to the community. Essentially it would be a good company that was so efficient it drove all other companies out of business with low prices for a good product. The moment it tried to jack up prices or interrupt supplies, another competitor could simply start up and take up the slack. Maintaining this free market monopoly would mean keeping customers happy.
Is a company having too much market share of an important resource dangerous? Sure, it could be. Especially if it were a food producer, let's say. But, how many food producers make enough food to hurt us? I mean if the egg monopoly goes belly up, who is hurt? I can live without eggs for a while, until a competitor steps in. Unless they made ALL the food, then it's a non sequitur. All industries are like this...no one has the internet monopolized, they have a trading site and a payment processor. If they went belly up, Amazon would step in, or w/e. Life would go on with a moderate interruption.
However do I eat when the pizza shop goes bankrupt?
I go to the Chinese food place.
The free market, by it's unregulated nature, breeds a Division of Labor (specialization) so diverse and exact that crises like this are more likely in non-free markets where government laws and guns create misallocation of resources from the private industries that would otherwise spend it more productively and efficiently according to the profit motive. This leads to bubbles, and companies that get too much market share, or do not properly specialize into a proper economic niche, or both.
The clearest problem with monopolies being formed isn't whether they are free or un-free markets (although free markets certainly have less occurrences), it's in what cycle of the economy. In downturns, the largest market share holders can grab more market share with less risk (and investment, hence our credit crunch and slow hiring practices) through a process called
differential accumulation. Essentially, they wait out the small guy until they go bankrupt, and since it's a zero-sum game (the individual market), or at least growing slower than the rate of bankruptcies, the top market share holders need only play to beat the market (not maximize profit, like in a good economy) to accumulate a larger share and come out of the downturn monopolized (or at least with a much larger market share). This is a time where big guys get bigger and more centralized. Example: banks during the bailout process. This is why they got bigger, more centralized, not less when the bailouts occurred. It could only speed up the process to let their competitors go under, and keep them afloat with taxpayer's money to cover their losses. When you subsidize those with top market share in a downturn (or collapse), you essentially create monopolies. Stimulus works much the same way, if given to companies. The money cannot loosen credit markets, under a principle called
monetary circuit theory, and it cannot spur hiring because of differential accumulation.
I'll link you to an article I wrote on it:
Why Stimulus Absolutely Cannot Work
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=38744
So, I'd worry about un-free markets in a downturn most, then free markets in a downturn, then un-free markets in a normal economy or boom, then free markets in a normal economy or boom. That's my take on the threats of monopolies.
Connect With Us