I think it comes down to leadership.

Put simply, monopolies do have greater capacity to innovate. When you're stuck in brutal competition, it's hard to funnel money into research which might not pay off for decades—your competition might have driven you out of business by that point.

On the other hand, the allure of monopoly profits is hard to ignore. It's tempting to simply funnel the profits into shareholder pockets and that's the approach investors will generally favor. For any middling CEO, it's the path of least resistance.

This is why founder-controlled monopolies (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.) are such a potent force. They have the incentive to preserve the companies long-term legacy (it's their personal legacy as well) through ambitions projects while also having the credibility and power to resist investor preferences for short-term profits.

I don't really buy it. Decades of monopoly profits are a powerful incentive to stagnate. Those profits definitely fund a lot of survival, and potentially some interesting side projects, but I wouldn't call most of it innovation or progress. As for ambitious research projects, some people just do those on their own, and for the rest, there's academia, government grants, and venture capital.

There is something to it. E.g. the government telecoms monopoly in Norway in the 1980s spent way more on research than the present day commercialized Telenor. However they were not necessarily innovative in products, but they did develop a lot of the original cell phone technologies which got later widely used.

I am not necessarily a fan of monopolies, but I think we owe it to ourselves to understand the tradeoffs and consider alternatives. E.g. how do you do basic research if there is so aggressive competition and shareholder look only 3 months ahead.

It is also worth nothing that the case of ULA isn't necessarily a case of merely monopoly but also how how that monopoly works. E.g. being a monopoly shouldn't require a cost plus contract. Secondly GM and the other big three are certainly not monopolies but have not proven any more capable than ULA in competing with Tesla in creating an electric car.

SpaceX is beating lots of other rocket companies which aren't necessarily monopolies. I think it is easy to overstate how bad ULA is when perhaps it is really about how good SpaceX is ;-)

Also remember the Russians also operated government monopolies for rocket building and yet managed to build considerably cheaper rockets than the Americans. I think there is a lot more to this issue than whether it is prive/public or a monopoly.

> As for ambitious research projects, (...) there's academia, government grants (...)

I.e. both of which provided by a de-facto ultimate monopoly which can afford "luxuries" like basic research because they don't have to worry it won't pay off next quarter.

> (...) and venture capital.

I want to see VC-sponsored ambitious research projects. VC-money-induced thinking is very short term.

> I want to see VC-sponsored ambitious research projects.

Isn't that exactly what YC research is?

Yes. It's also, like, just created. I'm observing it with keen interest.

Yes. PT was talking totally different context there and I think he has been quoted out of context.

PT said that in context of Google which is a search monopoly but pretends to me a media company where it might seem like just another fish in the pond.

That analogy is not applicable here because PT is referring to businesses who capture market by innovation and growth and become monopolies. I am reasonably sure PT is not referring to monopolies like USPS/AT&T/COMCAST/Cable Companies who have become monopolies using government's coercive power.

If you are running a business where your only customer is government and you are a monopoly I don't think anyone cares about innovation much. I would love to see counter examples if you have any.

Wow, that's a stretch. He even uses google's "don't be evil" as an example, which we know is dead and buried. Monopolies have a way, way stronger incentive to just stand still, optimize and collect profits.

That is so last century, when even monopolies tried to provide good customer service and a quality product. This century 100% of the effort is focused on business efficiency so that larger returns can be made for the shareholders/etc.

This means little reinvestment, little customer service, and a product/service only good enough to keep the conservative party from admitting that sometimes a little regulation is necessary (aka just about never).

The argument is that the desire to establish a monopoly stimulates innovation, not necessarily that monopolists are innovative once established.

There's also a big difference between natural monopolies (like electricity or gas distribution networks) and IP monopolies. Monopolies that are established by providing a vastly superior product require continuous R&D investment to maintain and natural monopolies do not.