[sam h]

Actual monopolies that fit the strict definition are few and far between, mainly arising in local markets. But situations often termed monopolistic competition are much more frequent, and really the pertinent issue. The obvious contemporary example is Microsoft's domination of the market for PC operating systems. They reap monopoly rents from a more or less shoddy product. Consumers voluntarily buy, but only because they have no real choice. To just say they are voting with their wallets misconstrues the situation. To make an analogy, lots of people vote in elections in one-party political regimes, but that is not really a situation of choice. In both instances, the stakeholders in the de facto monopolist benefit from the rent structure of the market to the detriment of the common good. However, in the economic examples, there are considerations of national industrial policy that may make the case stronger for supporting monopolistic competition for other reasons for some governments.