Dúvidas (247) - Serão os monopólios modernos mais duradouros do que os antigos?

«Monopolies have been as ephemeral as classical economics would predict. That is unless they benefit from a government scheme to keep out competition, such as the championing of AT&T during the 20th century. Once state support for AT&T's monopoly status was removed, the phone market became cut-throat. 

One of the last acts of Lyndon Johnson's administration was to file an antitrust suit against IBM. Described by Robert Bork as the antitrust division's Vietnam, the suit was dismissed in 1982 during the Reagan administration. A few years after the launch of the Apple II computer, IBM was no longer feared as a monopolist. People used to worry that Microsoft's Internet Explorer had a stranglehold on the browser market. Who thinks that today? In both cases, time and technological innovation played their roles. 

Today some worry about Google and Facebook monopolising their spheres of the online world. But their days on the top will end. Consumers' preferences will change, or some unimagined technology will displace them. Consumers and capitalism would be better served if governments followed The Economist's recommendations to lower barriers to enter markets and to eliminate incumbent supporting rents. That is what causes monopolies.»

ANDREW TERHUNE, um leitor de Filadélfia, escrevendo a propósito do Special report on competition, publicado com o número de 7 de Novembro da Economist

A expressão «monopólio» na carta não deve ser lida à letra porque se trata de empresas dominantes coexistindo com várias ou mesmo muitas outras empresas. Repare-se igualmente que a dúvida só faz sentido se existirem condições concorrenciais e uma regulação forte. De contrário, um monopólio moderno poderá manter-se por tempo indefinido. Dito isto, a carta chama a atenção para a facilidade com se que esquece a história económica e se imagina constantemente que desta vez será diferente.