Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 8:40 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
On wikiepdia it does say an oligopoly can become a monopoly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly#Examples

1. Wikipedia may not be the best source for economics.
2. I couldn't find the statement you claim they made. Where does it say an oligopoly can become a monopoly? And what is wrong with either of those market situations?


I think it is the second paragraph in the description section.

Actually, it refers there to cartels, which in reality aren't usually sustainable without government support.


they said when there is a formal agreement they become cartels.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 8:42 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
on wikiepdia it says that competition according to economics is supposed to promote innovation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitio ... onomics%29

And your other wikipedia article noted that innovation often resulted from oligopolistic markets. A monopoly must still keep up with innovation or it risks losing its dominant position- as happened to IBM. And there are other forms of competition than product differentiation. There is also price competition, and of course Pepsi and Coke have extensive marketing campaigns to compete for more business.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 8:43 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Actually, it refers there to cartels, which in reality aren't usually sustainable without government support.


they said when there is a formal agreement they become cartels.

They still are referring to collusion, which, without a formal agreement, is even more impossible to maintain than a cartel.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 8:49 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Actually, it refers there to cartels, which in reality aren't usually sustainable without government support.


they said when there is a formal agreement they become cartels.

They still are referring to collusion, which, without a formal agreement, is even more impossible to maintain than a cartel.


pepsi owns quaker oats, doritos, frito lay, and aquafina and more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_co#PepsiCo_brands



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

13 Apr 2008, 8:55 pm

Right now (thankfully) we don't have any real monopolies.
Microsoft has Macintosh for competition (along with a few much much smaller companies I think).
Coke and Pepsi compete with each other and with cheap knockoffs.

What monopolies do is try their best to match marginal revenue to marginal cost (in other words, to maximize profit). The price they sell at is almost always going to be higher than market equilibrium, and the quantity they sell is almost always going to be lower than market equilibrium. With this, monopolies make it worse for consumers and better for themselves.

Also, monopolies, having no competition, don't have the incentive to make good products. If there was a computer monopoly, you could expect new computers coming out to be of low quality (not to mention expensive and in low quantity). Because what competition is supposed to do is raise quality and cut price (and monpolies do the opposite).
Monopolies usually are stopped by a) The government or b) A new business coming into the fray.

Oligopolies can still compete, but sometimes they try to collude (which is illegal, and called a cartel) and do exactly what a monopoly does: raise prices and cut production (OPEC is the best example of this). The thing about these collusions though, is that each participating member has an incentive to cheat on the agreement and raise their production. When they do this, they increase their own profits while decreasing the profits of the industry as a whole (by bringing it back closer to equilibrium price and quantity).



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

13 Apr 2008, 9:17 pm

Cyanide wrote:
Microsoft has Macintosh for competition (along with a few much much smaller companies I think).



soon enough, the biggest compeition will probably be linux. it's free and there are versions coming out now that are getting more and more user-friendly to the casual user.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 9:20 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Actually, it refers there to cartels, which in reality aren't usually sustainable without government support.


they said when there is a formal agreement they become cartels.

They still are referring to collusion, which, without a formal agreement, is even more impossible to maintain than a cartel.


pepsi owns quaker oats, doritos, frito lay, and aquafina and more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_co#PepsiCo_brands

OK. And?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

13 Apr 2008, 9:20 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Actually, it refers there to cartels, which in reality aren't usually sustainable without government support.


they said when there is a formal agreement they become cartels.

They still are referring to collusion, which, without a formal agreement, is even more impossible to maintain than a cartel.


pepsi owns quaker oats, doritos, frito lay, and aquafina and more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_co#PepsiCo_brands

OK. And?


diversifying your company's output is bad, duh!! !!



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 9:25 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Actually, it refers there to cartels, which in reality aren't usually sustainable without government support.


they said when there is a formal agreement they become cartels.

They still are referring to collusion, which, without a formal agreement, is even more impossible to maintain than a cartel.


pepsi owns quaker oats, doritos, frito lay, and aquafina and more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_co#PepsiCo_brands

OK. And?


do these companies not have a choice to be bought out?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 9:32 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:

pepsi owns quaker oats, doritos, frito lay, and aquafina and more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_co#PepsiCo_brands

OK. And?


do these companies not have a choice to be bought out?

Frankly, I'm not even sure what you're asking. Could you clarify?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 9:34 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:

pepsi owns quaker oats, doritos, frito lay, and aquafina and more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_co#PepsiCo_brands

OK. And?


do these companies not have a choice to be bought out?

Frankly, I'm not even sure what you're asking. Could you clarify?


I guess I am trying to say that capitalism has some pretty bad flaws too. I do think their should be some governemnt intervention especially in corporate monopolies



Kilroy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,549
Location: Beyond the Void

13 Apr 2008, 9:37 pm

The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.

(to quote a great man)



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 9:42 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
I guess I am trying to say that capitalism has some pretty bad flaws too. I do think their should be some governemnt intervention especially in corporate monopolies

I disagree, and you still haven't said why monopolies are bad. Or why government intervention would help.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Apr 2008, 9:44 pm

Kilroy wrote:
The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.

(to quote a great man)

Who? It sounds a bit like Marx, but I'm not sure. Anyways, based on this passage, I disagree with your assessment of its author. The issue is dealt with even right at the start of Wealth of Nations- the more wealth a worker creates, the more surplus he has to trade for the things he needs and wants.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

13 Apr 2008, 9:45 pm

Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
I guess I am trying to say that capitalism has some pretty bad flaws too. I do think their should be some governemnt intervention especially in corporate monopolies

I disagree, and you still haven't said why monopolies are bad. Or why government intervention would help.


the corporate monopoly interferes with innovation, competition and the ability for others to make a profit. I think governemnt intervention in at least breaking up monopolies and making sure that when a comapny buys another that it with their consent will help better economic field.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

13 Apr 2008, 9:46 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:

pepsi owns quaker oats, doritos, frito lay, and aquafina and more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_co#PepsiCo_brands

OK. And?


do these companies not have a choice to be bought out?

Frankly, I'm not even sure what you're asking. Could you clarify?


I guess I am trying to say that capitalism has some pretty bad flaws too. I do think their should be some governemnt intervention especially in corporate monopolies


the worst part of capitalism is just that the consumers never take responsibility and only blame the company all the while still buying their products and giving them money.