Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DugwayDuke
I'm glad to see someone besides myself arguing that the 'fair trade' crowd (and walmart bashing is just a form of that) are really promoting a govenment controlled wealth transfer scheme.

A fellow Alabamian as well. My views on the subject would be considered "crazy" by most. I don't even agree with anti-monopoly legislation. Look at the company that was first attacked as one, Standard Oil. John took black goo from the ground in Pennsylvania and figured out how to light lamps with it. They provided kerosene at a much cheaper price than whale oil, and continued to drive prices down.

The industry is the most important in the world today, and every damned thing we've got (from our war machines to our electricity generation) depends on it. I don't suppose any of that would have been possible if the oil industry were composed of separate little "Ma and Pa" shops each discovering - or not - oil's usefulness in their own time.

Have you ever known a company to grow into a "monopoly" and then raise prices? No. The fact of the matter is that they have to please the consumer or die. That's regulation enough for me.
90 posted on 01/17/2005 1:06:16 PM PST by Jaysun (DEMOCRATS: "We need to be more effective at fooling people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: Jaysun
Have you ever known a company to grow into a "monopoly" and then raise prices? No. The fact of the matter is that they have to please the consumer or die. That's regulation enough for me.

I'll address this hear, since you pointed me to it. Do I know a company that grew into a "monopoly" and then raised prices? Have you priced Microsoft Office lately? Better yet, price Microsoft Project. Or look at their compilers. Now compare to what they charged when they had competitors in Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus, etc.

But even if they don't raise prices, monopolies are not a good deal. As a disclaimer, many of my family members worked for AT&T, as did friends, but I'm going to talk about why breaking up AT&T was a good thing.

Did AT&T's prices go up? Not really. But they didn't go down. And for the longest time, you had a choice of about 4 phone models and had to rent them. You couldn't buy your phone. But that's only the tip of the iceburg.

After AT&T was broken up, not only could you now buy your own phone. Long-distance rates dropped dramatically. What most people didn't see was why AT&T's rates were so high. They were supporting a huge bureaucracy of workers that didn't really add anything to the business. There were whole business units that nobody knew what they did. So long as there was no competition, there was no reason for AT&T to drop their dead wood. The reason why AT&T couldn't compete is that they spent too much time worrying about how to get their customers to pay more for the same things (remember the iPlan?) than trying to cut costs.

Let me put it this way. I've worked for my state's government and I did consulting work at AT&T. AT&T, while it was a monopoly through while it was still the market leader, was the closest thing to the government I have ever seen in the private sector. Why? Because productivity and improvements didn't really matter. They were getting lots of money no matter what they did.

106 posted on 01/17/2005 1:29:16 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: Jaysun
Have you ever known a company to grow into a "monopoly" and then raise prices? No. The fact of the matter is that they have to please the consumer or die. That's regulation enough for me

Actually companies do that. It's called supply and demand. In a perfect competitive market, suppliers will continue to create products until demand is fully satisfied. This leads to a lowering of prices through competition until the economic profit is just enough to keep a company in the market. If oversupply occurs, companies fold, if under supply, they enter the market and compete. They do this to such a level that one additional item of supply will produce zero profit due to the size of supply.

Now in a monopoly environment, you do not look to maximize supply, you look to maximize profit. What this means is that you do not meet all of demand, you meet only enough demand to keep your profit margin at a high rate, which means you charge more and produce less then what the market can suck up.

Because of lack of competition, you get fewer advances and services. Look at the US phone industry under AT&T. Did you have Call Waiting? Did you have low priced long distance? How about Two Way Calling? Hell, what about even a choice of phones? Nope, nada, none of that. That's a monopoly for you.

Here's a text book explanation:

Encyclopedia: Monopoly Sponsored links:

:Alternate use: Monopoly (game)

In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide (and a lack of viable substitute goods), as well as high barriers to entry for potential competitors on the market.

Monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of the product or service; it should also, strictly, be distinguished from the (similar) phenomenon of a cartel. In a monopoly a single firm is the sole provider of a product or service; in a cartel a centralized institution is set up to partially coordinate the actions of several independent providers (which is a form of oligopoly).

Forms of monopoly

Monopolies are often distinguished based on the circumstances under which they arise; terminologies differ, but one of the most common is to distinguish natural monopoly (also known as de facto monopoly) from government-granted monopoly (also known as de jure monopoly or coercive monopoly).

A monopoly can arise because of the peculiar features of a particular market — such as when a monopolist controls a unique natural resource, a public transport line or technological achievement. A monopoly can also arise from "fair" competition, when a single provider of a good or a service is chosen extensively or exclusively by the marketplace. Such monopolies are termed de facto monopolies. However, there are not examples of perfect "de facto" monopolies: The most effective "de facto" monopoly in recent times has been the De Beers diamond trading company, which held slightly less than 90 percent of the world diamond market in the mid-1980s.

When a monopoly arises from laws which explicitly forbid competition (or effectively prevent it through heavy regulation and subsidy), it is described as a "de jure monopoly", or government-granted monopoly (sometimes called a coercive monopoly). The term state monopoly is sometimes used to describe a type of government-granted monopoly in which government, either directly or indirectly through legislation, exercises significant control over the monopolist's decisions, and typically include industries that import, manufacture, and/or distribute alcohol, money, stamps, drugs, munitions, and gambling. An example of a "de jure" monopoly is AT&T, which was granted monopoly power by the US government, only to be broken up in 1982 following a Sherman Antitrust suit.

The term "natural monopoly" is sometimes used to describe monopolies that come about because production conditions make a sole provider most efficient. Examples of a natural monopoly would be power distribution, water distribution or sewage transport to and from private households, as it is usually not practical for a single household to have more than one power line, water pipe or sewage pipe to the house.

The term is sometimes (loosely) used to describe companies such as Microsoft or Standard Oil, which do face market competition, but which command a large market share and use their size to compete in ways which are considered "unfair" — such as dumping products below cost to harm competitors, creating tying arrangements between their products, and other practices regulated under Antitrust law. However, since the products of the aforementioned companies do not fall into a unique category, but into a category of generalised or differentiated products, the suppliers are not engaged in monopolistic practises, but in practices known as "monopolistic competition".

Large corporations often attempt to monopolize markets through horizontal integration, in which a parent company controls consolidates control over several small, seemingly diverse companies (sometimes even using different branding to create the illusion of marketplace competition). A magazine publishing firm, for example, might publish many different magazines on many different subjects, but it would still be considered to engage in monopolistic practices if the intent of doing this was to control the entire magazine-reader market, and prevent the emergence of competitors.

Monopoly and efficiency

The economic incentives for a monoply make it likely that they will sell a lower quantity of goods at a higher price than firms would in a purely competitive market in order to secure monopoly profits. This will typically lead to an outcome which is inefficient in the sense of Pareto efficiency. It is also often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and innovative over time, becoming "complacent giants", because they don't have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace. Some argue that it is good to allow a firm to attempt to monopolize a market, since practices such as dumping can benefit consumers in the short term. Once the firm grows too big, it can then be dealt with via regulation.

Sometimes, though, this very loss of efficiency can raise the potential value of a competitor enough to overcome market entry barriers, or provide incentive for research and investment into new alternatives.

When monopolies are not broken through the open market, often a government will step in to either regulate the monopoly, or forcibly break it up (see Antitrust law). Public utilities in many locations are an example of the former. AT&T and Standard Oil are good examples of the latter. When AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bell" components, MCI, Sprint, and other companies were able to compete effectively in the long-distance phone market and started to take phone traffic from the less efficient AT&T.

Economic analysis

In economics a company is said to have monopoly power if it faces a downward sloping demand curve (see supply and demand). This is in contrast to a price taker that faces a horizontal demand curve. A price taker cannot choose the price that they sell at, since if they set it above the equilibrium price, they will sell none, and if they set it below the equilibrium price, they will have an infinite number of buyers (and be making less money than they could if they sold at the equilibrium price). In contrast, a business with monopoly power can choose the price they want to sell at. If they set it higher, they sell less. If they set it lower, they sell more.

If a monopoly can only set one price it will set it where marginal cost (MC) equals marginal revenue (MR) as seen on the below diagram. This can be seen on a supply and demand diagram for the firm. This will be at the quantity Qm and at the price Pm. This is above the competitive price of Pc and with a smaller quantity that the competitive quantity of Qc. The profit the monopoly gains is the shaded in area labeled profit.

absolute value) for most customers is less than one, it is very advantageous to increase the price: the seller gets more money for less goods. With an increase of the price the price elasticity tends to rise, and in the optimum mentioned above it will for most customers be above one.

124 posted on 01/17/2005 2:16:42 PM PST by jb6 (Truth = Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: Jaysun
Good point. Not only did oil save the whales from extinction but it put the whaling fleets out of business and yet the country prospered anyway. The whalers found other ways of making money. Life wil go on.
193 posted on 01/18/2005 7:32:57 AM PST by ghitma (MeClaudius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson