Top Comments
All Comments (19)
-
@dmh724 Some. Your statement is a gross generalisation.
-
@dtmoura: I think it is a nice shirt.... He knows how to combine it.
-
I agree with most of what this guy had said. I've also seen it said many times before... except the other times, it wasnt this boring.
-
@june372 Look, I am a Libertarian here, I just get annoyed by the common argument that monopolies don't exist outside of government license. It's a bad argument, not supported by empirical data, and not supported by economic theory. To write off monopoly as a government creation without real implications in a pure exchange system is just bad economics.
-
@june372 "The government seems to find competitive pricing 'anti-competitive' or 'predatory'."
Monopolistic pricing schemes are by definition not competitive, and calling non-competitive pricing "competitive" (your words) just doesn't make a lot of sense.
When monopolies set prices above the competitive market-clearing price (ie above the theoretical point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost) there is deadweight loss, also known as social inefficiency.
-
@Thentox What about it?
-
what about tesco?
-
As a gcc college student, this kicks some major ass...
The Robber Barron's were also helped out by government by creating barriers to entry.
dmh724 4 weeks ago 7
@TurdFergisson
In a market without government, if a monopoly does occur such as with the Bell Companies it tends to be that they provide a cheap service for consumers that negates competition. This isn't because of any criminal act, it's that consumers just don't see the value of buying something else. This isn't a bad thing, we people aren't stupid, if we don't like something we get something we do like for the price we want it at.
dibaterman 4 weeks ago 5