[noemon]

Sure him too in whatever that was that he might have tried to monopolise with price-fixing, barriers to entry and general disruption of the competitive environment of the market during his golden years.

[SolarCross]

Apparently he got big by being cheaper than the competition, he was cheaper by running rolling wrecks under tax free flags.

The big lie about "monopolies" being perpetrated by wannabe wreckers is that often they do have competition but because they are offering something to the customers that they particularly want (cheap, quantity, quality or whatever) in a way better than the competition so they scoop up all (if we are honest "all" doesn't even mean "most" just "quite a lot") of the business. "monopolies" are just the consequence of success and that success is lost the moment they stop offering that which made them successful. Only government has the actual luxury of price gouging.

[noemon]

I don't really blame you for being only able to comprehend as much as you write, after all the average person only deals with very basic goods only in one country or locality, preventing that person from comparing identical products and services with other localities, countries and providers.

Personally for me the most striking and obvious 'monopoly' in the UK is home furniture, the market between Ikea(cheap crap that last for months) and FurnitureLand(passable stuff that cost a lot more than they should) is so saturated and uncompetitive that you pay very expensive prices to receive very mediocre goods made in Thailand. For people who have been in Greece, Italy and France the UK market for furniture is simply identical to Soviet Russia(identical drab crap at premium prices) and the same thing goes for jewellery(H. Samuel), metalworks and a variety of other industries. FurnitureLand after wiping out the competition, it has now proceeded on increasing its prices and reducing its catalogue. Even in London at bloody Westminster even there you find it quite difficult to find furniture dealers and even when you do, they charge astronomic figures to bring stuff from Southern Europe. Even this which is quite obvious to discerning customers is quite difficult for the average person to discern, let alone the premium prices of even more titanic industries such as consumer electronics, computers and such. In case you have not noticed, computers have not grown in real computing power perhaps for more than a decade. At one point you used to buy a computer(in the same price-range) 3-4 years after your old one and you could instantly notice an upgrade, you would be like "wow" that has made my day, this is no longer the case and nor has it been for over a decade, you buy a new computer at the same price-range as your old one and it feels identical to the one you just chucked away(despite it being nominally better), you are merely happy it is working without crashing not that it's in any way better in practice. There is a reason behind this and the reason is precisely what I am trying to tell you, when companies grow big and confident enough in a market as well as being very few of them they start talking to each other arranging stuff at the consumers expense, they stop or stall innovating and simply try to squeeze the most out of you without actually offering you much in return since you no longer have a choice to go elsewhere. This is Soviet Communism mate and is in fact very obvious that it is leading directly to communism at unprecedented speeds. Amazon, in a variety of products is the sole supplier in the entire country, that is you cannot get it anywhere except for Amazon, which means that it has the power to charge you any price it wants for such items and there is no failing whatsoever. Soviet Communism.

[SpecialOlympian]

New York basically decided they didn't need to give one of the world's largest corporations billions in tax breaks for the made up number of 25,000 jobs, the only source for which is an Amazon press release, which would have been almost entirely low wage packers/deliverers/cafeteria/etc.

This would have also had the effect of gentrifying the surrounding neighborhood, pricing out the people who would have received those jobs anyway. Assuming even a fraction of those jobs materialized.

Let's see how another recent deal played out, like the one ousted GOP governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker managed to negotiate with Foxconn:

Earlier this month, Foxconn, a major supplier to Apple Inc., reiterated its intention to create 13,000 jobs in Wisconsin, but said it had slowed its pace of hiring. The company initially said it expected to employ about 5,200 people by the end of 2020; a company source said that figure now looks likely to be closer to 1,000 workers.

It is unclear when the full 13,000 workers will be hired.

[...]

Heavily criticized in some quarters, the Foxconn project was championed by former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a Republican who helped secure around $4 billion in tax breaks and other incentives before leaving office. Critics of the deal, including a number of Democrats, called it a corporate giveaway that would never result in the promised manufacturing jobs and posed serious environmental risks.

They could have created a larger economic impact in Wisconsin by splitting half a billion dollars between 26,000 randomly selected Wisconsinites, and would have generated more tax revenue in doing so.

For some reason, the same people who decry aiding individuals directly in the form of welfare seem to have no problem with welfare for large corporations. In fact, making deals such as not collecting taxes for a decade and allowing employers to reclaim the state income taxes deducted from your paycheck is seen as strong and virtuous leadership by those with conservative brain dementia.