Are "free market" monopolies evil?

This fine gentleman makes an intelligent and strong case that (specifically) free market monopolies are not 100% truly possible, but to the extent that there have been real instances of near free market monopolies, the same have never proven to be either coercive or evil, and in fact that they have always been quite beneficial. Please don't let his slight speech impediment deter you from listening to this entire video. This is not what we are taught (I.E., the government line) about monopolies.

Your comments have been enough to make me not bother to hear this man.

Local monopolies whether by management or labor are always bad.

Look what happened to phone charges when ATT was broken up.

There may be instances of monopolies being benevolent and an advantage to all concerned. I think Microsoft falls into that category because it forced a common system.

Enforced monopoly by government such as postal service, education and probably medical care are bad.

AT&T was a government sanctioned and regulated monopoly. Not a free market monopoly.

lsayre wrote:AT&T was a government sanctioned and regulated monopoly. Not a free market monopoly.

Still we saw what happened to prices when they were broken up. Isn't free market monopoly a contradiction in terms?

franco b wrote:

lsayre wrote:AT&T was a government sanctioned and regulated monopoly. Not a free market monopoly.

Still we saw what happened to prices when they were broken up. Isn't free market monopoly a contradiction in terms?

Only the Anti-Trust concept of a "coercive" free market monopoly is a contradiction. Perhaps the government figures that since their own fabricated monopolies have all been coercive, that free market monopolies must also be coercive?