A few examples:

Are these all bad or good. If so why?

I think a better question is: "Is the cure worse than the disease?"

There are some markets, the "natural monopolies" as you mentioned, that would naturally gravitate towards a single supplier even if you let the market compete freely. And that's usually in a market where the largest supplier is actually the most efficient provider, due to strong economies of scale or network effects.

However, even in such markets, self interested monopolies will still behave in ways that maximize the profits to themselves, even if that behavior isn't the most "socially optimal".

So, traditionally, that has led to the economic theory that government intervention is needed to get the monopolies to behave in a more socially optimal manner.

In theory, I suppose it's possible to use regulation against monopolies to improve utilitarian outcomes. The question is, in practice, whether or not the government intervention causes more problems than it fixes.

What's lacking, in my opinion, in most Econ 101 treatments of the subject is that regulatory improvements are always assumed to be made by a "benevolent social planner." The problem is that a benevolent social planner doesn't exist in real life. Government itself is a game theoretic system with its own inefficiencies and corruptions.

So my final answer is, yes, self-interested monopolies could always behave in a more socially optimal way (from a utilitarian perspective), but it's not obvious that government regulation will improve the situation.

It's a lot like a dictatorship I imagine - it depends on the dictator. Maybe even saints get corrupted when they have monopolistic power though.

Yes, it is not good. People will always face problems in future because of this.

Are monopolies even real?

What is an example of a monopoly.

edit I asked ChatGPT and it gave Microsoft in the 90s as an example. Very convenient that its an example from the past? Because monopolies are not actually real methinks

edit2 I asked about an example from current day and it mentions Google, then i ask if there is no alternatives to google and it lists 8 alternatives.

I don't think monopolies are inherently a bad thing, we usually centralise resources around a winner who most effectively turns capital into goods and services we want and drives the most deflation and in turn provides the most value, as long as they do that, they retain their position

If they fail at their job competition constantly at their heels waiting for the monopoly to slip up and they either have to improve or buy them out, it's not easy to manage things at a certain scale, so you always opening yourself up for an attack in one or other verticle of your business

Yes, in most cases. Monopolies are never good for the long run. While incredibly efficient, they always fall prey to human failings and greed settles in.

IMO, Yes, monopolies are always bad. No matter how good someone is, when power comes into their hands, the likelihood of corruption increases. And we knew that corruption is not good for that.

I think a monopoly is generally bad, in that it's better to have competition. But competition is not always economically viable. When it's not, it's just the reality you can't easily change and not something to rebel against, as it would be like complaining that 2+2 is not 5.

Also the network effect can lead to monopoly formation. In that case, people may use something not because it's the best, but because it's used by the most, and it takes a large critical mass to push them out of it and into something better. It's like a Nash equilibrium.

The truth is that it seems to me that monopolies from the point of view have their good side or their bad side. For example, here in Lima, Peru, where I have lived for more than 7 years, there are several business monopolies, one of them is, for example, the monopoly of the beer here there is only one company that manages the entire monopoly of the different brands of beer, manages the prices and obviously manages what people are going to buy, everyone who goes to see a beer here in Lima Peru buys the same business monopoly And on the other hand, the monopoly of pharmacies or pharmacies, they call it, also seems bad to me. Here there is a living place near a large hospital in the south of Lima and in front of or on the avenues adjacent to the hospital there are endless pharmacies or pharmacies. But all or almost all of them belong to the same monopoly, which means that they all manage the price as they want at their convenience and take advantage of the people who need those medicines or who have an emergency with a family member and that seems really bad to me... on the other hand It seems to me that there are people who have struggled for many years to create their product to create their company to expand in a market and well if today they have managed to advance by calling it correctly and have been able to launch different brands and have had acceptance For the public, it is also valid that they are people who fought and achieved it, so as I said, it has its pros and cons.

In the US, at least most states there are boards that decide if they will allow a hospital to be built. Maybe the intentions are well placed but the results are not great. These boards are highly influenced by the companies that operate the hospitals. As you can imagine they have a massive interest in maintaining their monopolies.

I once lived in a county where there was only one hospital within a 45 drive. This hospital is terrible. I know multiple people that have had bad outcomes. I know people that have worked at this hospital and confirmed the issues. It is well known to be a bad hospital. Even larger hospitals in the surrounding area are aware. People that work at this hospital say they would never use it unless they had no other option(Obviously in some situations you can drive to another hospital and in others you can't).

I have a family member that was a local politician at the time. I asked him about the hospital and if there was anything that could be done. This is when I learned about how it worked. He informed me that he had tried to get another hospital to come into the community. There was interest but every time the idea was brought to the board that approves hospitals it was denied. He shared that the existing hospital was financially supporting local, state, and national politicians that would make sure that never happened.

So the state was enforcing a monopoly with the idea of it being best for the community. But in reality the corporation was buying off the politicians to keep competition out. I'm sure there are many stories like this around the country but I thought I would share my story. To this day there is only one hospital in this county and it is still terrible. I have a family member that very likely will be suing this hospital.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about how government works and politics and before this conversation with my politician family member I had no idea how hospital construction was centralized. The citizens of this community are pretty much in the dark. Due to how democracy works it is unlikely things will change. The politicians that are bought off are powerful and do not like trouble makers like my family member. They force them out.

As @SimpleStacker said, often the cure is worse than the disease.

Monopolies are bad. Period. The have the ability to be good but given they provide power, it's a given said power will at some point be exploited.

Monopolies are fine if they are not government mandated. The best example I have heard is De Beers, the diamond company. Even Standard Oil before 1911 was a monopoly that created consumer surplus. Ironically Standard Oil market share was 60 percent in 1911 vs 90 percent in 1890.

Almost every monopoly today is created by government: Post Office, Amtrak, public schools K-12

Government monopolies are terrible. Private monopolies can be beneficial for the consumer and rarely last for more than a few years.

What is the definition of a monopoly? Standard Oil had 60 percent market share in oil refining in 1911 when it was ordered to break up. Does 60 percent market share constitute a monopoly? Regardless, John Rockefeller did a lot of good for this country (and I am not talking about his philanthropy which was also extensive).

If you look at it from all angles not all of them are bad and some are necessary and create a win, win.

They may be good if they are controlled!

Its wrong when the company is abusing its monopoly. But if a company has a monopoly and is making it cheap, where others cantbeat....l dont see how that is bad. But all companies turn up their greed valve after time.