When I think of Monopoly, I think of buying and owning lots of properties so I can charge rent from my friends sitting around the table, playing the infamous board game with me. Growing up, the idea of owning real estate and making lots of money off it seemed amazing, and honestly, it’s still something I’d like to pursue. However, monopoly is more than that when combined with power.
From the start of Dr. Per Bylund’s lecture, he stated that a monopoly alone simply means there is one seller. He explained that there is nothing inherently wrong with having just one seller and used the example of a rural community with only one store. As someone who grew up in a town that had only a gas station, I was always at least grateful we had one. Then I came to Stillwater and found a gas station at almost every corner. Neither of these situations is an issue because there is room for more competition if needed. Dr. Bylund put it simply: “Monopolists try to satisfy consumers.” If someone has a new and innovative idea, they should be allowed to compete with the current seller to bring better and more satisfactory products or services to customers.
This connects to something Dr. Steve Trost mentioned in the first video lecture: if both parties have something that the other desires more than what they currently have, they should be allowed to exchange goods or services freely. Dr. Bylund used the iPhone as an example. The iPhone wasn’t the first phone on the market, but it was the first to offer a specific set of features, and people wanted this new product more than they wanted to keep the money they would use to buy it. Dr. Trost also made an important point about free exchange—when two parties want to trade goods or services, it’s best for them to do so without government interference, unless corruption or fraud is involved. When federal regulations hinder entrepreneurs from providing goods and services to the public—essentially giving power to a sole seller—that’s when the bad side of monopoly emerges.
One example given in the lecture was utility companies. If you have an issue with how much your utility company is charging you, odds are you have little to no options for switching providers. A similar situation exists with hospitals. Even if multiple hospitals operate in an area, they are often owned by the same entity, meaning they can charge similar prices for the same services while simultaneously preventing new competitors from entering the market. To me, this seems counterproductive. If services like utilities, hospitals, banks, and even Google are meant to provide a good or service to the public that would not otherwise be available, why make it impossible for people to have options or at least the ability to choose what’s best for them?
This reminded me of growing up in a small town and struggling to get internet access. Throughout middle and high school, my family and I did not have internet at home—not because we didn’t want it, but because our only option was ridiculously expensive. While a single gas station was enough for our small town to function, limited internet access restricted educational resources for many students. From personal experience, the only time I was able to fully research colleges and prepare for graduation was while connected to the school’s Wi-Fi.
However, this situation was different from a government-backed monopoly because the lack of competition wasn’t due to regulations preventing new providers from entering the market. Instead, it was because entering the rural internet market is difficult and costly. But if the same situation occurred in a bigger city like Stillwater or Oklahoma City, people would rightfully question why no competition existed. The presence of multiple internet providers in a city keeps prices competitive and services efficient, whereas in a small town, limited access means customers are often stuck with high prices and poor service.
This brings me back to the key point about monopolies: having only one seller isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In cases where competition is possible, monopolies must innovate and satisfy consumers to maintain their dominance. However, when government regulations or high barriers to entry prevent competition, monopolies can become harmful, leaving consumers with fewer choices and higher costs.
Ultimately, while the concept of monopoly in Monopoly the board game is fun—buying properties and charging rent to make as much money as possible—the real-world implications are more complex. The difference between a beneficial and harmful monopoly lies in whether competition is possible. If competition is allowed, monopolies can push innovation and provide better services. But when competition is blocked, either by government intervention or other artificial barriers, monopolies can stifle progress and harm consumers.
