The wealth-building thread

[EJ3]

Not so easy these days when U barely make it from paycheck to paycheck. Condo prices went up like 50% in the last 10 years for the condo that I'm renting, and when I got offered to buy the condo recently the bank was laughing in face basically that I don't qualify for such a credit.

So now I pay more in rent than what I would pay back to the bank

So now I'm looking into other things to have some money for retirement (ETFs? ). A second job?

Well at least I get to work another 30 years (37 yo soon). That should be plenty of time.

In reference to starting age, I was 45 when I started earnestly trying to get out of debt:
I had $76,000 in credit card debt on 3 cards. I was single & making enough to keep up but not get ahead.
I got legal help to break my lease so that I could take a job that would have me out of the USA. I was out with no home, I sold my 10 of my 11 classic cars (Junker's that I was trying to get to something other than a rolling chassis status, parked the best on [72 Mustang, 351C) at a friends home.
I went for some training & took a job included room & board on ships year round & three weeks of vacation twice a year with flights to & from where ever I wanted to go, as long as it did not cost more than flying me home & back would). There was not much sense in coming home, as all that I now had was the one old car (& my parents lived in the area).
Over 17 years I came home 4 times. Once after a year & 3/4 to visit my parents, once after 5 more years & had gotten married (I brought her to meet my parents), once in 5 more years when my father died, & the last time, when I had quit this job after 17 years & 2 months.
During this time, over a period of 5 years I had gone from a credit score high 580's to 744 by paying on time (or sooner) on everything & paying more on the biggest credit card.
I still had $20K in credit card debt.
I went to 5 banks before one let me get a loan at a higher than normal interest rate on a condo on a 15year loan (my wife & mine first place). Why: they said that if your credit is very good but you have not much history of it being that way, you could buy the place, get another $25K credit card & furnish the place & then declare bankruptcy.
I put 20% down (as I had been saving, too). My wife (yep, she works) put an additional 15% in. The place needed a lot of work, which my wife had to do, as 3 weeks later, I was gone to sea for 11 months. When I got back, my wife & friends had made it wonderful & all I had to do was hook the washing machine & dryer up.
I was paying 100% of all the bills and still working on that credit card debt.
We then needed a car. Since my credit was now getting better traction, my wife was able to get a new 2007 Honda Fit with 15% down. (I paid nothing, she made the payments, etc. but used my credit as she had never had any of her own [I paid the insurance & the maintenance]). She paid it off in 9 months.
Remember, I am still going to sea for months at a time (although the ship was "home ported") only 130 miles away.
Now our credit had real traction. Un-beknown to me at the time my wife (I never once asked her for financial help or what she did with her money) then invested all her money that she was making with 2 others in building a giant 5 bedroom, 5 full bathroom home on a piece of property just outside of an Airforce airbase. They sold it to an Airforce major who was going to rent it to people in the Airforce that worked there.
One particular day I am home for a week 6 years into our mortgage, my wife asked me "How much do we still owe on our condo"? I figured it up (it was about $20K) & told her. She then asked "How much do you still owe on your credit cards"? I figured that up (it was about the same) & told her. She then said "So, if I give you $40K cash, you will go pay the mortgage & your credit cards off TOMORROW, RIGHT?
I said that "If you will do that YES, I will pay the mortgage & credit cards off tomorrow as soon as the banks & credit unions are open".
She went to the bedroom & 10 minutes later brought out $40K in cash & handed it to me.
I said where did this come from? That is when she reminded me that she had told me in passing about investing in a house that was being built by one of contracting friends & another contractor our friends. I said "yeah, I remember". She said "Well, we sold it. This is my share of the profit. Now you take it and make us debt free.
So I did.
And she bought a new 2012 Lexus ES350 (the 2013's were already out) with no money down (because she had made my credit so strong) & 0.73% interest, which she paid off in full in 24 months.
I handle the maint., insurances & these days, we buy the places we want.
We worked together as a team (even though that was unknown to me at the time).
She said: "I saw how hard you where working to get yourself out of debt and to make a good life for us, and you did not ask for anything but for me to be a normal good wife, you did not tell me what to do or try to put me in my place & you just did not stop on your debts. I couldn't help but join in, falling even more in love with you. So, without telling you, I just joined your project for us, making it our project, so that it would get finished sooner."
That's what initiative, focus (and teamwork) can get you.
I married at 48, now I am 66 & 1/4, debt free, owner of 4 homes in various places in the world, 3 vehicles that I am sure will not quit when I take one to go somewhere and as long as I can pay my taxes, get food & fuel, I have no real worries.
That is the freedom, being free from worry.

 

[Prana Ferox]

To me there are three general approaches to wealth generation:

1. Work hard to obtain a high paying job. Live below your means and invest the leftover wisely. This is what most people do, and is the most slow and steady approach. It takes hard work, discipline and time.
2. Work to achieve a position where you can leverage other people's money to make more money. Many people do that by buying real estate using mortgages (a form of leverage). Some people become general partners in a law firm (leveraging junior employees' work). Even fewer become general partners in a venture capital firm (leveraging limited partners' money).
3. Start your own company. Find investors to allow you to grow the company to significant scale and profitability. Then sell it.

Throw "Invest in yourself to the maximum extent possible with a STEM education" in there

 

[JeffS7444]

The thread is about how to generate wealth, presumably from no wealth or not a lot of wealth. So the above generalization is not very helpful in answering that question.

To me there are three general approaches to wealth generation:

1. Work hard to obtain a high paying job. Live below your means and invest the leftover wisely. This is what most people do, and is the most slow and steady approach. It takes hard work, discipline and time.
2. Work to achieve a position where you can leverage other people's money to make more money. Many people do that by buying real estate using mortgages (a form of leverage). Some people become general partners in a law firm (leveraging junior employees' work). Even fewer become general partners in a venture capital firm (leveraging limited partners' money).
3. Start your own company. Find investors to allow you to grow the company to significant scale and profitability. Then sell it.

I suspect OP's original question focused on #1. In order to achieve significant wealth (say, more than $15M) from no wealth, you have to do #2 or #3. I'm curious, what is your idea of being wealthy?

I don't necessarily think that #1 is the best approach. Believe me, I'd rather get my income via intellectual property or royalties: There is something beautiful about the notion that long-ago work can continue to generate revenue! I wish I had learned of such concepts long ago.

Wealth is a pretty subjective thing, but I figure that if a person is leading the life they want to lead, plus a few extras, then that person is potentially wealthy.

 

[JeffS7444]

Wow, did I call NVDA wrong! I was correct about crypto mining and the impact on NVDA, but I didn't predict the impact of generative AI at all, and missed out on one of the big stock run-ups of the last decade. NVDA just always looks overpriced to me, and it still does.

Imagine how I feel, having put $1000 into NVDA in the 1990s, then thinking I made a killing by cashing it in at $10K a scant 18 months later But from my pre-Y2K perspective, there was no way I could have foreseen the rise of cryptocurrencies or AI, or that GPUs could play a part in them. It's the same story with me and Apple: Folks around me were urging me to buy stock at what $13 per share? But while Steve Jobs was back, and the first iMac computers were a hit, the really big revenue engines (ITMS, App Store, mobile, wearables) were probably not even a gleam in Jobs's eyes then. The very notion that Apple in 2023 would have a market capitalization in the $3T range was all but unthinkable.

 

[kemmler3D]

Antitrust isn't my primary area of practice, but those examples don't really resonate with me. Brooke said what it said, so predatory pricing is definitely a tough issue to prove out. I am suspicious that it is as pervasive as you suggest, though. Your last point about the "point" of a free market is certainly one formulation; other, more neutral, formulations I've heard refer to the promotion of the most efficient production and distribution of scarce resources. Your seeming denigration of "profit-taking opportunities for investors" seems to dismiss the profit/loss incentives that underlie the market, which encourage efficient capital investment.

Maybe you mean something else by "profit-taking opportunities" (like, e.g., speculation on used Rolexes or G-wagens or Birkin bags where no value is added along the way)?

So, I should explain more than rant a little here.

I am not really blaming the judiciary for this so much as Congress. The laws and precedent we have aren't really compatible with maintaining competitive markets.

Econ 101 (literally, not just facetiously asserting this is basic stuff) teaches us that markets need to be competitive to function as intended, i.e. drive costs down, stimulate investment in better technology, improve quality, etc. The fewer the competitors, the worse we expect outcomes to be in terms of price and quality of goods delivered.

What we want is actually a competitive market, its relative "freedom" or lack thereof doesn't necessarily produce competition or stifle it. A completely unregulated market would tend toward oligopoly or monopoly over time.

Competition is one of the necessary ingredients for efficiency. Antitrust enforcement is supposed to support that by preventing excessive concentration of market power, in practice it's too limited and weak to effectively stimulate competition in the US, IMO.

When I'm denigrating mere profit-taking for investors, I'm more just making the larger point that the economy and our market systems do not exist primarily for the benefit of investors. Profits are supposed to be an incidental outcome of providing valuable goods and services efficiently. To the extent that profits are divorced from actual provision of value to consumers, we can say the market is failing.

In basic economics, in a fully competitive market, net profits fall to zero over time. High, sustained corporate profits are actually a bad thing - a sign that our markets are failing to work as intended because competition is insufficient to stimulate enough capital / R&D investment or price competition.

 

[blueone]

In basic economics, in a fully competitive market, net profits fall to zero over time. High, sustained corporate profits are actually a bad thing - a sign that our markets are failing to work as intended because competition is insufficient to stimulate enough capital / R&D investment or price competition.

This is profoundly incorrect. No profits mean no investors, which means companies would cease to exist. Your statements aren't basic economics, they're just plain silly for markets in economies based on capitalism. Think about it, if profits are going to fall to zero, how will competition "stimulate enough capital / R&D investment"?

Companies exist to be profitable and provide returns to investors. The very existence of profits is proof that a company is adding value to consumers of their goods and services, otherwise consumers would stop buying and the companies would go out of business. Capitalism is not a perfect economic system, it's just better by far than all the others.

 

[kemmler3D]

This is profoundly incorrect. No profits mean no investors, which means companies would cease to exist. Your statements aren't basic economics, they're just plain silly for markets in economies based on capitalism. Think about it, if profits are going to fall to zero, how will competition "stimulate enough capital / R&D investment"?

Companies exist to be profitable and provide returns to investors. The very existence of profits is proof that a company is adding value to consumers of their goods and services, otherwise consumers would stop buying and the companies would go out of business. Capitalism is not a perfect economic system, it's just better by far than all the others.

You need to consider competition over time. If the product in question remains stable and there are many competitors, in theory net profits should be driven to zero "in the long run".

This does makes sense and in fact, you see it all the time.

For example, the profit you can make on a given solid state memory chip for SSDs is getting close to nil at this point, but 10-15 years ago, the gross margins were probably pretty good, because not as many companies were making them. Today, they are a commodity and not very profitable unless you have some specific advantage over your competitors. E.g. Samsung probably makes some profit due to their brand recognition, other firms perhaps less so, they might even be losing money.

Investors made profits on the innovation of SSDs at first, then competitors came in and drove prices down and quality up, and eventually consumers and investors alike benefitted. This is how it's supposed to work. You can see the same process at work, a few years earlier on in the cycle, in OLED panels today.

Looking at it from another angle, firms are SUPPOSED to compete on price, quality, or both. In a properly functioning market, they are forced to do so to survive. They do this by cutting prices (which eventually eliminates profit) or by investing in R&D to derive some advantage in the market, which also eliminates profit.

If prices for the same goods (say, breakfast cereal) support high profits and even increase in real terms over a long period of time, it is evidence that there is insufficient competition, or perhaps the good in question is not a suitable good for an unregulated market.

 

[Philbo King]

I never dug into any books, but did quite well with a contrarian approach:
-Buy when everyone else is selling
-Sell when everyone else is buying.
Both subject to a bit of company research to determine *why* they are selling or buying.

 

[EJ3]

You need to consider competition over time. If the product in question remains stable and there are many competitors, in theory net profits should be driven to zero "in the long run".

This does makes sense and in fact, you see it all the time.

For example, the profit you can make on a given solid state memory chip for SSDs is getting close to nil at this point, but 10-15 years ago, the gross margins were probably pretty good, because not as many companies were making them. Today, they are a commodity and not very profitable unless you have some specific advantage over your competitors. E.g. Samsung probably makes some profit due to their brand recognition, other firms perhaps less so, they might even be losing money.

Investors made profits on the innovation of SSDs at first, then competitors came in and drove prices down and quality up, and eventually consumers and investors alike benefitted. This is how it's supposed to work. You can see the same process at work, a few years earlier on in the cycle, in OLED panels today.

Looking at it from another angle, firms are SUPPOSED to compete on price, quality, or both. In a properly functioning market, they are forced to do so to survive. They do this by cutting prices (which eventually eliminates profit) or by investing in R&D to derive some advantage in the market, which also eliminates profit.

If prices for the same goods (say, breakfast cereal) support high profits and even increase in real terms over a long period of time, it is evidence that there is insufficient competition, or perhaps the good in question is not a suitable good for an unregulated market.

That's when the product is being made so cheap, at so low a quality, that the product working reliably is slim & none, & the decent manufacturer's have been driven out of making that particular item because there is no profit in it. Then a functional version of the product that lasts becomes unobtanium, then no one is buying it, as everyone has gone on to something that does make a profit.
This is a variation of the so called "planned obsolescence" caused by your industrial view. The capitalists economy has moved on to something that makes a profit.
Having lived in many economic styles from American "government interfered with" capitalism to Austria's "democratic socialism" economy to PRC's Communism, and many in between, I'll say that (IMO) the blueone's is a lot closer to how it should work. Government "over-regulation" is usually in all forms of industrial/economic stuff tyhe downfall of business's. Because the government starts with a little bit of regulation (which, in most cases is, in fact, needed) BUT then keeps adding more & more regulations until the business can't be copetitive & has been taken over by other countries with less strict regulations.

 

[blueone]

You need to consider competition over time. If the product in question remains stable and there are many competitors, in theory net profits should be driven to zero "in the long run".

This does makes sense and in fact, you see it all the time.

For example, the profit you can make on a given solid state memory chip for SSDs is getting close to nil at this point, but 10-15 years ago, the gross margins were probably pretty good, because not as many companies were making them. Today, they are a commodity and not very profitable unless you have some specific advantage over your competitors. E.g. Samsung probably makes some profit due to their brand recognition, other firms perhaps less so, they might even be losing money.

Investors made profits on the innovation of SSDs at first, then competitors came in and drove prices down and quality up, and eventually consumers and investors alike benefitted. This is how it's supposed to work. You can see the same process at work, a few years earlier on in the cycle, in OLED panels today.

Looking at it from another angle, firms are SUPPOSED to compete on price, quality, or both. In a properly functioning market, they are forced to do so to survive. They do this by cutting prices (which eventually eliminates profit) or by investing in R&D to derive some advantage in the market, which also eliminates profit.

If prices for the same goods (say, breakfast cereal) support high profits and even increase in real terms over a long period of time, it is evidence that there is insufficient competition, or perhaps the good in question is not a suitable good for an unregulated market.

You’re still incorrect, and yet you double down on your ignorance.

 

[kemmler3D]

That's when the product is being made so cheap, at so low a quality, that the product working reliably is slim & none, & the decent manufacturer's have been driven out of making that particular item because there is no profit in it.

PC storage and TVs are better AND cheaper than they've ever been since their inception, so I'm not sure your view is universally applicable.

 

[kemmler3D]

You’re still incorrect, and yet you double down on your ignorance.

So what's your argument? That profits must remain steady or consistently increase over time for goods to be produced? That price competition isn't an intended feature of markets? What?

Here's what I'm trying to say as simply as I can say it, because I don't think what I'm saying is even controversial, maybe I have been writing poorly.

This is all according to really basic economic theories, of course the real world is more complex.

In a perfectly competitive market for a given good, (read: zero barriers to entry, infinitely many firms competing, perfect information, no transaction costs, etc.) the long run profits will eventually reach zero.

Now, we all know nothing "theoretically perfect" exists in real life, especially not markets.

However, my assertion is that if you see sustained, large profits on an unchanged good, for a long period of time, it's evidence that there is not meaningful competition in that market.

Consider a firm that jacks up the price for the same crappy product year after year. They can only do this because nobody is coming after their profits.

It is my OPINION that one of the primary reasons markets exist (and indeed, this is enshrined in law, custom, and common sense) is to stimulate competition among firms, for the ultimate benefit of the consumer, not just the investor. So if markets aren't doing this, they aren't working as intended.

That's mostly all I'm trying to say here. Any disagreement with the foregoing?

The controversial bit of my opinion is that the government should do more to stimulate competition, because in certain sectors I feel that profits are probably too high. Case in point, in the investor communications from various food conglomerates, they're just talking about jacking up prices for the sake of profits. The fact that Kraft / ConAgra / Frito-lay etc. control dozens of brands and can raise prices like this makes me think maybe the market isn't holding them accountable enough.

 

[milkplatoonblueberry]

The problem is, if you don't you're essentially losing money. The low interest rates and the flooding of the market with money which increases asset prices is already in progress, and it means that any $ you currently own buys you less than it did in the past.

Well if that was completely true, I wouldn't be experiencing far more on my 77 inch 2021 OLED than my parents did on their 36" tube tv. Something that despite all their higher purchasing power per dollar in the 1980s my parents would never achieve in their lives. Just lived at the wrong time.

There's also a lot of other products available today you could never have afforded or gotten in the past, so it's more nuanced.

 

[kemmler3D]

Well if that was completely true, I wouldn't be experiencing far more on my 77 inch 2021 OLED than my parents did on their 36" tube tv. Something that despite all their higher purchasing power per dollar in the 1980s my parents would never achieve in their lives. Just lived at the wrong time.

There's also a lot of other products available today you could never have afforded or gotten in the past, so it's more nuanced.

The CPI does make a good-faith effort to account for technological progress and new products, but as you note, it is not that simple. Housing was much cheaper in 1960 but the entertainment was steaming trash compared to what we have now. The number does an alright job encapsulating how far your dollar goes, as much as one number can, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what it was like to live in a different era.

 

[muslhead]

Well if that was completely true, I wouldn't be experiencing far more on my 77 inch 2021 OLED than my parents did on their 36" tube tv. Something that despite all their higher purchasing power per dollar in the 1980s my parents would never achieve in their lives. Just lived at the wrong time.

There's also a lot of other products available today you could never have afforded or gotten in the past, so it's more nuanced.

There are always exceptions but what @digitalfrost said is true

 

[muslhead]

The CPI does make a good-faith effort to account for technological progress and new products, but as you note, it is not that simple. Housing was much cheaper in 1960 but the entertainment was steaming trash compared to what we have now. The number does an alright job encapsulating how far your dollar goes, as much as one number can, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what it was like to live in a different era

it is a much maligned measurement especially when the govt institutes hedonics in the calculations. Anything to make the results better than they actually are

 

[blueone]

So what's your argument? That profits must remain steady or consistently increase over time for goods to be produced? That price competition isn't an intended feature of markets? What?

My argument is simply is that as profit margins approach zero so do investments. Competition through innovation, economies of scale, or relative product quality and reliability will tend to either increase gross margins or eliminate lesser competition (which will reduce supply, and lower supply raises prices for a given level of demand). Your price competition assertions assume products in a given market are indistinguishable. To use your SSD example, having worked in the storage market for a few years, I can tell you for a fact that even PC SSDs are not indistinguishable. There are price, quality, reliability, and performance differences, and the PC OEMs choose SSD vendors accordingly. And any company with a net margin of zero will exit the market. Enterprise SSDs have much higher gross margins.

Here's what I'm trying to say as simply as I can say it, because I don't think what I'm saying is even controversial, maybe I have been writing poorly.

I don't think so.

This is all according to really basic economic theories, of course the real world is more complex.

We disagree. Basic economic theory says companies that don't make a profit go out of business, unless they're subsidized.

In a perfectly competitive market for a given good, (read: zero barriers to entry, infinitely many firms competing, perfect information, no transaction costs, etc.) the long run profits will eventually reach zero.

There are no such markets, not even farming, which has millions of producers and creates true commodities.

Now, we all know nothing "theoretically perfect" exists in real life, especially not markets.

Then why are you pushing your argument so hard? What's the point?

However, my assertion is that if you see sustained, large profits on an unchanged good, for a long period of time, it's evidence that there is not meaningful competition in that market.

And often good reasons why that's the case. For example:

1. Patent protection. Government-enforced monopolies to reward innovation.
2. Massive investments (in capital or human skillsets) necessary to compete. For example, semiconductor fabrication.
3. Artificially limited supply or simple rarity. Like naturally occurring diamonds, which have both.
4. Creation of a huge audience which allows itself to be captive. Like cloud computing companies.
5. Perceived prestige. Ferrari comes to mind. Tiny Ferrari now has a market capitalization comparable to GM and Ford.

These are just a few examples. Differentiation is a valuable factor in profitability.

Consider a firm that jacks up the price for the same crappy product year after year. They can only do this because nobody is coming after their profits.

No, it's because customers are still buying it.

It is my OPINION that one of the primary reasons markets exist (and indeed, this is enshrined in law, custom, and common sense) is to stimulate competition among firms, for the ultimate benefit of the consumer, not just the investor. So if markets aren't doing this, they aren't working as intended.

Not correct. Markets exist to provide efficient matching of buyers and sellers. Go back to your economics textbooks.

That's mostly all I'm trying to say here. Any disagreement with the foregoing?

Obviously I do.

The controversial bit of my opinion is that the government should do more to stimulate competition, because in certain sectors I feel that profits are probably too high. Case in point, in the investor communications from various food conglomerates, they're just talking about jacking up prices for the sake of profits. The fact that Kraft / ConAgra / Frito-lay etc. control dozens of brands and can raise prices like this makes me think maybe the market isn't holding them accountable enough.

Your three examples are all suffering at the moment, after a few seconds of rising profits during the pandemic. ConAgra, for example, has much lower market capitalization and profitability for the past six months. The same with Kraft-Heinz.

 

[kemmler3D]

Basic economic theory says companies that don't make a profit go out of business, unless they're subsidized.

Net profit, not revenue or GP.

You can run indefinitely at break-even, i.e. zero profits.

Markets exist to provide efficient matching of buyers and sellers. Go back to your economics textbooks.

In economics, market efficiency means no deadweight loss, i.e. production and demand are matched and monopolistic profits are zero. This is only possible in a competitive market, with price competition. What do you mean when you say "efficient" here, if not that?

No, it's because customers are still buying it.

Or, because they don't have another option. See: PG&E in California. (monopolies, natural or otherwise). This is also sort of just a semantic argument. If there was meaningful competition they couldn't charge arbitrary amounts for something, that's sort of what competition means on a definitional level.

I don't disagree with most of the rest of what you said above.

I'm really just puzzled by your apparent stance that price competition isn't an important aspect/purpose of markets, and they aren't meant to benefit consumers. Am I actually understanding your point?

 

[blueone]

You can run indefinitely at break-even, i.e. zero profits.

In your imaginary world. In the real world you need to make investments to remain viable.

In economics, market efficiency means no deadweight loss, i.e. production and demand are matched and monopolistic profits are zero. This is only possible in a competitive market, with price competition. What do you mean when you say "efficient" here, if not that?

Not correct. Back when I went to school market efficiency was defined as the efficient matching of buyers and sellers with "frictionless" trading. Nowadays there's this new definition of market efficiency discussed that defines efficiency as buyers and sellers having access to necessary public information for investing, and that insider information is not allowed. There's no discussion even in the currently in-vogue definition of efficiency of monopoly profits and supply and demand.

Or, because they don't have another option. See: PG&E in California. (monopolies, natural or otherwise). This is also sort of just a semantic argument. If there was meaningful competition they couldn't charge arbitrary amounts for something, that's sort of what competition means on a definitional level.

We disagree, and natural monopolies like electrical distribution don't count.

I don't disagree with most of the rest of what you said above.

Good.

I'm really just puzzled by your apparent stance that price competition isn't an important aspect/purpose of markets, and they aren't meant to benefit consumers. Am I actually understanding your point?

Markets are not intended to benefit consumers, products and services are. Investment markets are a mixed bag, because of the existence of various government regulations (of variable quality and effectiveness) and taxation. Remember, monopolies are mostly created by governments, either through patent protection or statutes. Business-related monopolies are rare. Markets with a small number of competitors are usually that way for understandable economic reasons, however distasteful that makes them to consumers.

 

[kemmler3D]

Back when I went to school market efficiency was defined as the efficient matching of buyers and sellers with "frictionless" trading. Nowadays there's this new definition of market efficiency discussed that defines efficiency as buyers and sellers having access to necessary public information for investing,

Ah, got it, you're talking about that kind of efficiency, efficient market hypothesis, etc, gotcha. Related but slightly different.

I was talking about the usual microeconomic supply/demand definition:
(from an actual 101 course: https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/microeconomics/market-efficiency/)

Standard market equilibrium occurs when supply is equal to demand at a specific price. An efficient market equilibrium is best described by looking at a perfectly competitive market.

Markets are not intended to benefit consumers, products and services are.

So, if that's so - why make patents expire?

Business-related monopolies are rare.

Maybe in part because they're supposed to be illegal?

Also:

We disagree, and natural monopolies like electrical distribution don't count.

OK, so we disagree on the definition of market competition, can you give me YOUR definition? Because I'm pretty lost at this point.