I was just curious about fields where it’s hard to break in on a small scale or as a beginner without much expertise.

On the one hand, if some organization/entity figured out a way to produce a desirable good in a high quantity for a low price, in principle, society values that. More people can have something they want. Supply is high, and cost is not prohibitive. Also, that company may be the most successful, so basically, economic actors are incentivized to produce better quality more efficiently (requiring less resources including money or effort).

However, it being easy to enter a field is also good for economic efficiency, I believe. From this perspective, the better quality something is, the more expensive it should/will be. It makes perfect sense that someone can immediately start selling something they are not very good at but for a very low price, and sustainably increase their skill, and price, over time.

I am wondering if these ideas are in conflict with each other. It seems to indicate that you could technically compete with a huge company so long as your service costed less than theirs. In reality, economies of scale seem to cause the opposite to happen. You cannot compete, or even enter the market, because you can’t beat the company’s prices. Their operations are more efficient than yours.

Does this mean that there are some sectors with a low barrier to entry because they do not lend themselves to scaling? Such as restaurants, tutoring, being a piano teacher, etc? Whereas operations that scale well by their nature quash competition? I think this has been called “parabolic”, like a board game where whoever gets the advantage early on gets a feedback loop of advantage and basically the contrast between the winner and everybody else grows stronger and stronger.

But how does that relate to monopoly law? Is the only reason a monopoly is considered bad because competition is sort of like the incentive for business to be “efficient” in the opposite direction - for customers to “efficiently” spend their dollars by getting more for less?

So we ideally want there to be competition, so businesses have to be optimal from the perspective of buyers. We can increase competition by somehow making a field easy to enter. Yet it seems like the endgoal for businesses is to quash competition, and the better they get, the harder it is to enter and compete.

Is this some kind of paradox? I’m not sure what to make of this. Is it possible that you could somehow ensure in any field that there is always a legitimate, easy way to enter a field and compete? Or is the point that the nature of difficulty of entering a field is not really economic, it’s more inherent, like rocket science is just not easy, but the government wants there to be competition, so they just made it illegal to be a monopoly? What about if the government instead offered large grants in any industry they were worried was getting monopolized?



Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.