Type “the biggest monopolies today” into your Google search bar and click. What can you expect to find near the top of the list?
You guessed it: Google. Like Standard Oil and AT&T before federal antitrust laws broke in 1911 and 1984 respectively, the Internet search engine completely dominates its industry—so much so that its name has become an Internet search verb.
Whether Google meets the same fate remains to be seen as antitrust suits move through the system. Amazon, Facebook, Live Nation Entertainment, and other megaliths could also end up in the recording stage.
But is it really different if anythingtwo outstanding players?
Think Coke and Pepsi, Visa and Mastercard, Apple and Samsung, Airbus and Boeing. Are these giants really competing, or are they simply perpetuating a kind of symbiotic dance while preventing third-party competitors from getting a significant piece of the action?
Also, we’re talking about third parties: What about Republicans and Democrats? Together, do they not have the authority to die in a political process so strong that outsiders and independents almost have no hope of mounting a serious challenge? Given the high unpopularity of candidates leading both tickets in recent election cycles, it is arguable that a leadership entrenched between donkeys and elephants is less interested in winning a particular election than maintaining power over its power base.
So what do you call it if it’s not one but two organizations that seek unfair advantage by eliminating all competitors? Not independent, but this week’s addition to the Ethical Lexicon:
The Duopoly (du·op·o·ly/ doo-Op-uh-lee) noun
A situation where a good or service is controlled by only two producers or suppliers.
In a recent episode of Freakonomics Radio, host Stephen Dubner gathered thinkers and academics to reveal how the illusion of competition actually promotes consolidation of power and dominance. By relentlessly denigrating opponents, each candidate is fueling extreme racism by fueling fanaticism and bigotry among their bases.
In addition, their wild exaggeration and disregard for facts are used by news outlets, which provide free publicity for handling controversial and controversial stories. In the end, most of us choose to go to one group or the other, no matter how dissatisfied we are with our choice.
It’s not much different in business. As much as we make a show of celebrating “disruptors,” the truth is that we only love them when they disrupt someone else.
Let’s be honest: Don’t we all feel the magnetic, emotional power of brand names—even when we have to pay a premium? Aren’t we afraid to try new, untested products and services? It is better to let others take the risk and jump on board if all goes well.
But how is that different from our unwillingness to vote for third parties? We complain about the system, but most of the time we have a hand in making it work.
Herein lies the hidden danger of the duopoly: It lures us into the comforting notion that we are exercising free choice, when in fact we are locked in a deceptive dichotomy between distinctions without any difference.
Worse, with two minor negatives, we set ourselves up for black-and-white thinking that saps creativity. Ultimately, we blind ourselves to an ethical perspective that seeks new and more profitable options beyond the existing binary.
In his entertaining TED talk, “Why We Make Bad Decisions,” Harvard psychology professor Dan Gilbert offers the following illustration:
You see a $2,000 Hawaii vacation package advertised for sale for $1,600. He’s thinking of going to Hawaii, so he eagerly buys it. But if you had seen the same package on sale for $700 and now the price has gone up to $1,500, you probably wouldn’t buy it.
“In other words,” explained Professor Gilbert, “a good thing that was very good is not nearly as likable as a very bad thing that was a very bad thing.”
The natural laziness of our brains tends to engage in false comparisons rather than assessing objective value accurately and objectively. If we find option A repulsive, our naive minds are quick to accept any excuse available to make option B look more attractive, even if it’s not as bad as option A.
Sometimes, there are only two options, in which case we may have to hold our nose and choose the lesser of two evils. But that’s completely different from deluding yourself into believing that a bad choice isn’t so bad because it’s worse than the obvious alternative. By recognizing that false binary and discarding the duopoly of our thinking, we open ourselves up to a better third way that might not be bad at all.
Source link
