Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
[ QUOTE ]
1) Firms can gain monopoly status without the aid of government
[/ QUOTE ]
It is rare for firms to gain effective monopoly status without government, but it has happened at some points. The more important point to make, however, is that much anti-trust legislation is not really supposed to prevent monopolyso much as oligopoly, which has historically been quite common (though often aided by the state too).
I don't really undertand your Microsoft example. How have anti-trust laws affected the price of their software? And if the price would be lower without them, as you say, then aren't the laws actually helping other competitors because the microsoft product isn't as competitive as it could be?
[ QUOTE ]
It is my assertion that a market can both competitive and efficient with but a single firm. How do we know this? Because the prices are low and the firm is profiting. Under these circumstances, one particular firm is able to produce and distribute their goods and services so efficiently that their competitors cannot enter the market.
[/ QUOTE ]
How can it be competitive with one firm? There is no competition by definition. Even if prices seem "low," how would you determine whether or not there were monopoly rents without a benchmark to compare with? I don't see what the firm profiting has to do with it. That's just to be expected in a monopoly situation.
Honestly, I think you are too hung up on this efficiency thing. When most markets aren't competitive, its usually because something other than the efficiency of the major player is keeping others out. There are plenty of markets in which barriers to entry are very high for a variety of reasons.
Gotta run, more later if you want to debate these things.
|