[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Umm…yeah, after they have no competition anymore, there’s nothing to keep them from raising prices again. Or, what’s probably more likely, cutting quality without necessarily raising price a great deal.[/quote]
A monopoly will still cut prices, if only to lessen the attraction for newcomers to enter the market. But a price that is only slightly above market value is still detrimental to the customer vs. the prices in a competitive environment.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Can another oil company start up in Canada?[/quote]
There isn’t a law against it, as far as I know, but I’d rate that highly unlikely.
I don’t even have to check to tell you that whatever you pay for diesel, we pay more.
Well, they did force competitor to sign an agreement where they would charge the customer for a Windows license whether or not Windows was included with the PC. It was the condition for being able to sell Windows with your PCs. Do you really think that anyone who hopes to be a big player in the PC field could refuse?
They also had clauses that you couldn’t install a second OS in “dual-boot” mode, even though every bootloader permits that technically. So if you wanted Linux alongside your Windows, Dell couldn’t set it up for you. If you just wanted a bare bone PC with no OS, you still paid for the Windows license. They also had clauses as to what could be installed on the initial desktop. A company could install the Netscape browser on the PC, but was forbidden by contract of placing the Netscape icon on the desktop. Internet Explorer had it’s icon on the desktop.
If you were a competitor of Microsoft, would you feel that the playing field is level?
As a customer, what do you feel were the benefits to you from those measures?
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Can another oil company start up in Canada?
There isn’t a law against it, as far as I know, but I’d rate that highly unlikely.
Gas pump prices track with the NYMEX price of gasoline. If you think there isn’t price gouging going on in the US - you should look at the price of diesel here.
I don’t even have to check to tell you that whatever you pay for diesel, we pay more.
Far cheaper in quality and production cost to gasoline, but was running over $1 gallon more at the pump than unleaded gas.
I think our laws are TOO strict. Hell, Microsoft is always in court - but do they have a monopoly? I would argue that they don’t.
Well, they did force competitor to sign an agreement where they would charge the customer for a Windows license whether or not Windows was included with the PC. It was the condition for being able to sell Windows with your PCs. Do you really think that anyone who hopes to be a big player in the PC field could refuse?
They also had clauses that you couldn’t install a second OS in “dual-boot” mode, even though every bootloader permits that technically. So if you wanted Linux alongside your Windows, Dell couldn’t set it up for you. If you just wanted a bare bone PC with no OS, you still paid for the Windows license. They also had clauses as to what could be installed on the initial desktop. A company could install the Netscape browser on the PC, but was forbidden by contract of placing the Netscape icon on the desktop. Internet Explorer had it’s icon on the desktop.
If you were a competitor of Microsoft, would you feel that the playing field is level?
As a customer, what do you feel were the benefits to you from those measures?
[/quote]
I’m not saying that Microsoft is a good company, or that I even use their products anymore. I don’t think they are evil to the consumer. If they were the ONLY OS out there, and the Only software producer out there - then maybe they would be a bad monoploy.
IF there were a true monopoly, there would not be an Apple, or Linux.
The PC side screwed themselves early on by selling out to MS. Dell is the poster child for how to start out dong shit really well, then figuring out ways to totally suck ass - MS monopoly or not. The computer companies are as much to blame for this as MS is.
I hate Microsoft. Hate them. But not because they crawled in bed with the computer makers.
Does Apple allow for third parties to bundle competition software on their machines?
If I buy an Apple, can I get a dual boot option?
SO what’s the main difference? Because Apple owns the entire process including the manufacture of their computers?
There are arguments that can be made on both sides of the MS monopoly issue.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not saying that Microsoft is a good company, or that I even use their products anymore. I don’t think they are evil to the consumer. If they were the ONLY OS out there, and the Only software producer out there - then maybe they would be a bad monoploy.[/quote]
I don’t think you’ll find many real-world example of “pure monopolies” who have no competitors, as puny as these may be.
But if you’ve got 90%+ market share, you’re for all purposes and intent an effective monopoly and you can implement measures that will help you remain in that position. Microsoft did so in the ways I mentioned previously. By stiffling competition, they ensured their market dominance and they didn’t have market pressure to lower the price of Windows or Office.
You don’t need a “true” monopoly to enjoy the effects of one. Even Standard Oil never had 100% control of it’s market; yet had more than enough to boost profits above what they would’ve been in a true competitive environment.
With Microsoft, a lot of businesses have a hard time if they wish to use anything but Windows. If there’s a lot of document exchange with outside firms, it is simpler to just go with the de facto standard that is Microsoft Office.
The PC side didn’t really “sell out” to MS; IBM licensed their DOS to put on their first PCs. When the PC took off for business and home use, MS followed. Bill Gates leveraged an excellent opportunity into a multi-billion dollar corporation, but he didn’t do it by playing fair.
I’m not familiar with Apple’s licensing deals. They sue clone-makers into oblivion, so my guess would be “no”.
I believe so. Since they switched to Intel, their laptops can also run Windows. In their case, it’s a “trojan horse” to grab market share. Buy a Mac, keep running Windows when you must.
Well that helps with the stability of the systems. No crappy hardware with crappy drivers to crash the machine. But you could have many competing manufacturer who control the whole process (gaming consoles are a good example) yet still compete among themselves.
While not a “true” or “pure” monopoly, MS enjoyed enough market dominance to be able to effectively stifle competition and to use their advantage to ensure that they would always be dominant. That’s what the judgment against them found. If no laws had been in place to reign them in, I don’t see how the customer could have benefited more; or how the market could’ve corrected itself.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But if the one company is selling the same thing for far less money, the economic incentive is usually going to outweigh other things.
Ummm…yeah. This is called an efficiency monopoly and is good for the market. Try a book on basic economics and then maybe you understand the difference between an efficiency monopoly and a coersive monopoly.
Umm…yeah, after they have no competition anymore, there’s nothing to keep them from raising prices again. Or, what’s probably more likely, cutting quality without necessarily raising price a great deal.
[/quote]
when has this ever happened. And if it did, where prices raised beyond the point where the competition majically dissappeared?
[quote]pookie wrote:
While not a “true” or “pure” monopoly, MS enjoyed enough market dominance to be able to effectively stifle competition and to use their advantage to ensure that they would always be dominant. That’s what the judgment against them found. If no laws had been in place to reign them in, I don’t see how the customer could have benefited more; or how the market could’ve corrected itself.
[/quote]
Because of Microsoft’s business model - leasing the RIGHTS to the software instead of owning the computers - It required Gates to enter into agreements with PC makers.
Regardless of how a stupid civil court ruled - these are the same people who found against McDoonDoons for making hot coffee - the computer makers are just as guilty as MS is of collusion - not violation of anti-trust laws.
The computer makers made these agreements to get more favorable pricing from Gates.
It wasn’t all Microsoft’s fault.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By and large, the market can handle potential monopolies, and the government needs limited involvement in trying to promote competition - but that doesn’t mean that regulation has no place.
Even though competitors may be able to overcome a monopoly’s aggressive attempts to put up barriers to entry, that takes time and incurs transaction costs. The more powerful a monopoly, the higher than transaction costs.
As such, there is a role for business “torts” - a legal wrong whereby certain acts can be punished for harming business by discouraging acts that stifle competition. We want to disincentivize monopolies from joining cartels, etc. - because even if they can be overcome, we want to keep such activities as scarce as possible.
And, the benefit of such laws is also the mere threat of them, much in the same way punitive damages operate.[/quote]
quite true. What’s interesting is even international cartels eventually fall victim to the free market. Referense the early days of Dow Chemical Company’s approach to the bromine(i think)cartels.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If the monopoly in question is selling it’s products for fair prices, then there is nothing wrong with a monopoly.
If the prices get too high in a free market, there will be someone to offer a comparable substitute - assuming that the government stays the fuck out of the way. Now, are you willing to do what you have to do to as a consumer to support these new innovations? If yes, then there is no monopoly. If no, then the price is not too high.
You have a problem in Canada that is the same problem in all economies: too much government. You make the mistake of thinking that there is not enough. I’m sure the oil companies knows everyone in your government by their first name.
Market value is what a willing buyer is willing to pay a willing seller.
You don’t explain why gas prices track closely crude prices in the US and less so in Canada.
We both have anti-trusts laws. Ours are harder to apply in court; we have to prove malicious intent to defraud the customer or something like that. Easy to assert, difficult to prove.
What I see is that better anti-trust laws, such as yours, benefit the customer. We get fucked at the pump - however subtly - because our AT law isn’t good enough.
The price gouging isn’t severe enough, nor lasts long enough for there to be any incentive for new competitors to enter. Over time though, Canadian gas consumers get fleeced for billions of dollars that aren’t justified by market value.
[/quote]
Not the case here. State gov’ts set a minimum gas price and have kept competitors, like Walmart, from offering gas at lower than current market prices. No need for anti-trust, just allow competition to lower prices.
Are you sure there are no other external forces being applied in CA? Is there one gas cartel in CA? Is there speculation of organized colusion? If not, you are simply seeing the price people are willing to pay for the amount of gas the gas stations want to sell.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Salt.
Salt is not essential to life and it has never been a monopoly.
Wrong on both counts. Look it up.
[/quote]
Na is essential. Salt is not the only source of Na. There has never been a monopoly on salt. It exists everywhere.
Food sources even contain traces of Na.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How is a monopoly a bad thing if it does nothing to coerce consumers and continues to offer a product that none can compete with?
Prices, on average, are set above true market value. Customers pay more than they would if multiple providers were competing. Prices can be dropped regionally to kill off startups trying to enter the market.
[/quote]
How can there be an “average” price if there is only one provider?
The market price is what ever the monopolist sets it at.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Salt.
Salt is not essential to life and it has never been a monopoly.
Wrong on both counts. Look it up.
Na is essential. Salt is not the only source of Na. There has never been a monopoly on salt. It exists everywhere.
Food sources even contain traces of Na.[/quote]
Salt was used as currency back in the day.
That’s like saying no one needs gold.
Try to be relevant.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How can there be an “average” price if there is only one provider?
The market price is what ever the monopolist sets it at.[/quote]
The price can be set at different levels depending on the regions.
Standard Oil did this to kill competition while it was small and local; it reduced its prices locally until the competitor either went belly up or agreed to be bought for a song.
Prices elsewhere where at whatever level S.O. wanted to put them.
[quote]pookie wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Again, where has this ever happened with gov’t help. Even you ill selected example, standard oil, kept cutting prices while owning 90% of the market. When did prices start going back up?
Standard Oil was an efficient business and did cut prices. But those prices were never as low as they could’ve been had there been competition. Prices were lowered regionally when competitors tried to enter the field; saboteurs were hired to destroy machinery; transporters or suppliers got “punished” for dealing with competitors, etc. S.O. used any means necessary to keep control of the industry. When supply was too abundant, production was restricted to keep prices up.
[/quote]
overexagerated falacy. Without standard oil, oil prices would have remained incredibly high. Many competitors knew they could not complete and sought out aquistion. Many where give jobs and stock in standard oil.
Where there shenanigans, sure. Did they hurt the consumer, probably not. No one could compete at standard oil’s prices, much less some arbitrarily lower price you are invisioning. Standard oil was innovating while the others where not.
Since you like to deal in hypotheticals, I’ll give you another one.
Some competition can be bad. I have experienced this for myself in telecom. One, or a couple, companies make a product at a price that consumer can accept and can provide for the long term viability of the producer. Six other companies see the market potential, raise a bunch of capital, hire a bunch of people, and sell a similar product for much less. Good for the consumer? Not necessarily.
The price the competition is selling the product for is a losing proposition for them. They are burning resourses and capital, hoping for their “land grab” stratagy to work and then gradually raise prices or attract aquisition. They run out of money and close the doors or get aquired, it doesn’t matter which.
They just siphoned off incredible capital and resourse that could have been better used by the successful companies. Dollar and man hours that could have been spent in R&D and creating better efficiencies for the consumers of this type of product. That money and time will never be recovered. The market is set back years and so are the products the consumers would rather have.
When gov’t anti-trust laws (or tarriffs by the way)prop up inefficient competition, they set the market back an immeasurable amount.
Stopping coersive means of monopoly is good. What we have today is far from this. The current law is arbitrary and impossible to accurately interpret. At the end of the day, a companies fate could be in the hands of an activist judge, not any predictable law or regulatioin.
So again, you are saying that Standard Oils efficiency and pricing didn’t drive others out of the market, pure force did. They bullied every single competitor into submission.
OPEC is not the problem my freind. They have every right to what they please. Our gov’t has kept us from other energy sourses. Our gov’t makes more profit on a gallon of gas than the oil companies that actually produce, refine it, ship it, and sell it do. Even still we have very affordable gas prices. What exactly is the issue with OPEC again?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Umm…yeah, after they have no competition anymore, there’s nothing to keep them from raising prices again. Or, what’s probably more likely, cutting quality without necessarily raising price a great deal.
A monopoly will still cut prices, if only to lessen the attraction for newcomers to enter the market. But a price that is only slightly above market value is still detrimental to the customer vs. the prices in a competitive environment.
[/quote]
Wrong. If the price is low enough to deter competition, that competition wouldn’t have a measurable effect on that price. That is the market price. Please explain to me how this is inaccurate.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Salt.
Salt is not essential to life and it has never been a monopoly.
Wrong on both counts. Look it up.
Na is essential. Salt is not the only source of Na. There has never been a monopoly on salt. It exists everywhere.
Food sources even contain traces of Na.
Salt was used as currency back in the day.
That’s like saying no one needs gold.
Try to be relevant. [/quote]
Yes, it was used as currency but it is not “essential” to life because Na is the essential element and that exists in many food stuffs independent of salt. Salt was used as a preservative but there are other means of preserving – like smoke and dry cure.
The fact that salt was used as currency proves my point that there was no monopoly on it. How can something be a monopoly if it is used as an exchange medium?
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Can another oil company start up in Canada?
There isn’t a law against it, as far as I know, but I’d rate that highly unlikely.
Gas pump prices track with the NYMEX price of gasoline. If you think there isn’t price gouging going on in the US - you should look at the price of diesel here.
I don’t even have to check to tell you that whatever you pay for diesel, we pay more.
Far cheaper in quality and production cost to gasoline, but was running over $1 gallon more at the pump than unleaded gas.
I think our laws are TOO strict. Hell, Microsoft is always in court - but do they have a monopoly? I would argue that they don’t.
Well, they did force competitor to sign an agreement where they would charge the customer for a Windows license whether or not Windows was included with the PC. It was the condition for being able to sell Windows with your PCs. Do you really think that anyone who hopes to be a big player in the PC field could refuse?
[/quote]
They said the same thing about IBM. Also, I think linux and Mac are doing quite well.
Yep. What if Microsoft owned Dell? Then would it be ok only to ship with thier own software and support their own software? What’s the differense. Ever hear of freedom of association? Dell was not forced to agree to this.
yep. I can install any browser or OS I wish. If I can’t do it myself, I can hire someone to do it for me. Oops, I just created another job and took revenue away from the big evil company. Try to look past the obvious.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t think you’ll find many real-world example of “pure monopolies” who have no competitors, as puny as these may be.
But if you’ve got 90%+ market share, you’re for all purposes and intent an effective monopoly and you can implement measures that will help you remain in that position.
[/quote]
How about 89% of the market?
85%?
83%?
80%?
75%?
Are you getting the point yet?
You keep assuming someone could have competed at the time. You’ll have to show a single company producing at the volume of standard oil. Making the same innovations in equipment as standard oil. Recycling and selling byproducts like standard oil. All of this happened eventually but it had nothing to do with anti-trust law. [quote]
With Microsoft, a lot of businesses have a hard time if they wish to use anything but Windows. If there’s a lot of document exchange with outside firms, it is simpler to just go with the de facto standard that is Microsoft Office.
[/quote]
Sounds like an efficiency. You think this would have been possible or as easy with 10 different OSs?
What’s your precise deffinition of fair. Should we adopt some poiltician or judges vision of fair, or should every consumer in the world decide what is fair, or if fair even matters?
How exactly has the consumer benefited from the judgment against microsoft?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Salt.
Salt is not essential to life and it has never been a monopoly.
Wrong on both counts. Look it up.
Na is essential. Salt is not the only source of Na. There has never been a monopoly on salt. It exists everywhere.
Food sources even contain traces of Na.
Salt was used as currency back in the day.
That’s like saying no one needs gold.
Try to be relevant.
Yes, it was used as currency but it is not “essential” to life because Na is the essential element and that exists in many food stuffs independent of salt. Salt was used as a preservative but there are other means of preserving – like smoke and dry cure.
The fact that salt was used as currency proves my point that there was no monopoly on it. How can something be a monopoly if it is used as an exchange medium?[/quote]
When one can control the production, distribution, and p[rice of a commodity - you have a monopoly. It’s really not that hard to understand…for most people.
Just because the Romans used salt as currency for a time does not mean that it was always a currency.
Your modern scientific theories really have no place when you are discussing a commodity that was very highly regarded for the past few millennium. Hell - salt is still very widely used as a preservative even today in under developed countries.
Perhaps you should retire from this site and make it your life’s ambition to tell billions of people they don’t need salt.
Like I said - try to be relevant.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
When one can control the production, distribution, and p[rice of a commodity - you have a monopoly. It’s really not that hard to understand…for most people. [/quote]
Do you know where salt comes from and how easy it is to produce it? There was never a monopoly on it.
I have no desire to tell people how to live. I know that salt is not essential. Salt is good to have and I like using it but that does not mean I will die without it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When one can control the production, distribution, and p[rice of a commodity - you have a monopoly. It’s really not that hard to understand…for most people.
Do you know where salt comes from and how easy it is to produce it? There was never a monopoly on it.[/quote]
http://www.salt.org.il/india.html
Really?
You might not - but people in lesser developed countries probably would.