Bob Mannix wrote:
My point was
that the result of the free market is (often) for example, domination of the
marketplace by one supplier (Tesco, MS or whoever, because they have done it
better)

Not necessarily better at all. In competition wars of this type all it
takes is deep pockets. Supermarkets forced all local shops to close by
undercutting their profits: Now they are more expensive than many local
shops for many things.

The free market doesn't work when you have a monopoly, which is why
there is legislation about such. Ditto cartels, but they are harder to spot.



at which point people suddenly get up in arms about their "dominant
market position". If one player beats all the others and they go out of
business, and the one becomes a virtual monopoly, that is the free market in
operation - why penalise such a successful operator?

Because it give them de facto licence to hold their customers to ransom.
The socially beneficial effects of a free market depend on competition
and customer choice.



It's hypocritical. A
truly free market would have no concept of conterfeiting or trademark
registration or any other form of protection - you buy from a seller and
your contract, and any problems, are between the two of you. The market will
decide. I'm not in favour of it, but I believe some people profess to be
until they perceive they have a problem.


That one goes way back to the guilds and trades unions.

Why spend years developing a better mousetrap, if all that happens is it
get copied instantly?

Such practices stifle innovation, within a capitalist society.


The ideal balance is to give incentives to innovation and efficiency, by
allowing better products to be protected and have free access to
markets, and prevent monopolies/cartels on the one hand and
counterfeiting on the other.

Now I WAS considering referring the NHS to the monopolies and mergers
commission..

Surely a state run monopoly is against EU law?