Should we eliminate anti-monopoly laws?

[stratego]

Should we eliminate the anti-monopoly laws? They're just there to keep the hard working from reaching their maximum potential. If someone is able to establish a monopoly, he or she is most likely a very intelligent person who deserves to succeed.

A monopoly would be able to provide the people with cheaper goods. We don't need laws that favor small businesses over monopolies.

If they see a monopoly being established, these small businessmen have plenty of opportunities to merge, to work harder etc to remain a competitive power. If they don't take these opportunities, why should the government step in to give them an edge over the large monopolies.

If we eliminate anti-monopolies laws, everyone would still have a chance to become a successful monopoly, if they don't it's their fault. Equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

-Stratego (aka Bill Gates)

 

[Scuffer]

Only if we can trust monopolies not to abuse their dominant position through unfair practices. So no.

 

[WillJ]

A monopoly would be able to provide the people with cheaper goods.

Hehe, the aliens must have really gotten to you.

According to standard economic theory, you're of course wrong (with exceptions, e.g. electrical power).

If they see a monopoly being established, these small businessmen have plenty of opportunities to merge, to work harder etc to remain a competitive power. If they don't take these opportunities, why should the government step in to give them an edge over the large monopolies.

Generally monopolies or heavily monopolistic competition arises when there are heavy barriers to the establishment of competition.

 

[Hundegesicht]

Dropping anti-monopoly laws would mean 10 times as many new laws to prevent monopoly abuse. More red tape is never a good thing and loopholes go up exponentially with every new law, so simply outlawing monopoly seems to more practical.

Also anti-monopoly laws insure a constant level of corperate Darwinism, though granted it's sometimes very slight and artificial, it's still there. A monopoly has no need or reason to increase it's efficiency standards and lower it's price, causing corruption.

 

[Yom]

WillJ is absolutely right. Monopolies are only more efficient in certain cases; in those cases (natural monopolies, where multiple firms increases the average total cost), the government has already made deals with the monopolies to ensure that the product is delivered to the consumer at the equilibrium price, and the government provides the company with money to make up the loss that the company incurs.

Monopolies are socially inefficient as they produce a quantity of goods less than the equilibrium quantity and at a higher price than the average total cost curve, so: no, anti-monopoly laws should not be eliminated.

Of course, I know that you're always just joking. The Church making science "special" during the Middle Ages in the "God and Superpowers" thread was hilarious (as was the fact that Ainwood didn't recognize your joke).

 

[Rhymes]

No, absolutely not, who would want to go back 40 years in time.

Monopolies are socially inefficient as they produce a quantity of goods less than the equilibrium quantity and at a higher price than the average total cost curve, so: no, anti-monopoly laws should not be eliminated.

Someone must have had good grades on his macroeconomics exam last term

 

[Yom]

No, absolutely not, who would want to go back 40 years in time.

More like 115 or 91 years in time.

 

[Rhymes]

More like 115 or 91 years in time.

depends on your country

 

[superisis]

wait a second!!!! If standard economic theory is correct, this reads:

1. Monopolies will not supply enough to cater for demand (i.e. will never try to reach market equilibrium) due to their Marginal Costs will meet their Marginal Profits at a point lower than the demand curve (I know I'm not making sense, I'm taking this from my head and translating it to English)
2. Capitalism/private business will never take externalities (social costs/benefits) into account in the demand and supply of goods and services.

So why doesn't the government allow for monopolies to form in areas that it doesn't like. Example: Ciggarettes, the government should encourage the formation of monopolies in the ciggarette business so that we'll get less ciggarettes at a higher price and at a worse quality.

Course there are two arguments against this

1. Loss of tax revenue.
2. Big Business lobbies.

but still, worth some thought.

 

[Scuffer]

I like it! Although the government can tax the hell out of cigs whenever it feels like it anyway

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

How do American anti-trust laws compare with European and Asian anti-trust laws?

 

[stratego]

How do American anti-trust laws compare with European and Asian anti-trust laws?

Americans don't trust the Europeans and trust the Asians even less.
The Europeans trust the Americans, but feels that Asia has big potential.
The Asians don't trust either, but feel that America and Europe are good places to pirate technology from.

--------
I will give a point for the person that get's the real point behind the thread.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Thanks stratego.

 

[Yom]

wait a second!!!! If standard economic theory is correct, this reads:

1. Monopolies will not supply enough to cater for demand (i.e. will never try to reach market equilibrium) due to their Marginal Costs will meet their Marginal Profits at a point lower than the demand curve (I know I'm not making sense, I'm taking this from my head and translating it to English)

Monopolies do supply enough to cater for demand, though, as they artificially inflate prices, meaning that the amount produced will be equal to the amount demanded.

The profit maximizing quantity is less than the equilibrium point (most efficient outcome), but the monopoly inflates the price above the marginal cost curve up to the demand line so that quantity demanded equals quantity produced.

2. Capitalism/private business will never take externalities (social costs/benefits) into account in the demand and supply of goods and services.

So why doesn't the government allow for monopolies to form in areas that it doesn't like. Example: Ciggarettes, the government should encourage the formation of monopolies in the ciggarette business so that we'll get less ciggarettes at a higher price and at a worse quality.

Course there are two arguments against this

1. Loss of tax revenue.
2. Big Business lobbies.

but still, worth some thought.

The main argument is #1. Why let monopolies make the money when you can do it yourself and claim you are doing it for the good of society?

 

[Damnyankee]

Personally, i would rather tighten Anti-Bill Gates laws. How un conserative of me

 

[stratego]

Also anti-monopoly laws insure a constant level of corperate Darwinism, though granted it's sometimes very slight and artificial, it's still there.

And the fittest of the corporations would become the top of the food chain, the MONOPOLIES.

 

[stratego]

Personally, i would rather tighten Anti-Bill Gates laws. How un conserative of me

Why, because Bill Gates works harder than you, and is therefore richer than you.

 

[MarineCorps]

Personally, i would rather tighten Anti-Bill Gates laws.

Here here!

 

[Rhymes]

Ok, I'm bored and feel like giving this a shot.

Should we eliminate the anti-monopoly laws? They're just there to keep the hard working from reaching their maximum potential. If someone is able to establish a monopoly, he or she is most likely a very intelligent person who deserves to succeed.

If he is intelligent enough to establish a monopoly, he is intelligent enough to succeed in a competitive market, whats your point? There are many intelligent and hardworking people in the US believe me, in a monopoly system only the one that's at the good place at the good time or that knows influent people gets to "succeed".

A monopoly would be able to provide the people with cheaper goods. We don't need laws that favor small businesses over monopolies.

Plain wrong. An unragulated monopoly has power over profit margin and price setting. And there are no small businesses in a monopoly, unless you are rather talking about a monopolistic competitive market (Yom probably knows the accurate english term for that one ) The market system that provides the cheepest goods for the consumers is an olygopoly: many equally large corporation.

If they see a monopoly being established, these small businessmen have plenty of opportunities to merge, to work harder etc to remain a competitive power. If they don't take these opportunities, why should the government step in to give them an edge over the large monopolies.

Again you have the wrong term, a market in which there are few big business's and a lot of small ones is not a monopoly. But anyway, in many markets in which there is a large corporation, small businessmen cannot just "work hard" and "be smart" to merge. There are often merging obstacle that can be financial or technological. Again there is an official term for that but I only know the french one

If we eliminate anti-monopolies laws, everyone would still have a chance to become a successful monopoly, if they don't it's their fault. Equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

-Stratego (aka Bill Gates)

Wrong again, only people with sufficient investing capabilities have a chance to merge. And if they do then we're not talking about a monopoly anymore.....

 

[blindside]

@yom - I guess all that studying of microecon finally pays off!