[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
Your explanation of Imtel's behavior doesn't particularly impress me. So they drive out all competition, then raise prices. Apparently, while there is no competition, people are still buying Imtel's product. Where is the problem? The consumers are voluntarily buying, they must not find the prices too high, else they would not purchase Imtel's product. They are voting with their wallets, and their votes say that they feel that they are benefiting from the transactions.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. The very definition of a monopoly is that you cannot buy widgets from any other company than company X, even if you need widgets. For example, replace Imtel with "FoodCorp" and you'll see what I mean. Recognize that monopolies are created where goods have no economic substitute, such as in oil and computer components, so this "consumer choice" you speak of is bogus. It's the very lack of consumer choice that creates the monopoly.

What's the harm?

Monopolies lead to less competition.

Less competition leads to an inefficient market.

An inefficient market leads to an inefficient allocation of resources.

An inefficient allocation of resources leads to a smaller economy.

A smaller economy == teh bad.

You can be an anarchist. That's fine. But you can't sit there and say a complete laissez-faire market is the most efficient way to run an economy. Unless, of course, you'd like to elaborate on the idiocy of Keynesian economics.