4 ms·
What you're referring to is a 'pure' monopoly, which are relatively rare (but still common enough). The wider use of definition in economics is a company that
by dominicr 7y ago
What you're referring to is a 'pure' monopoly, which are relatively rare (but still common enough).
The wider use of definition in economics is a company that dominates a market to the extent that is has control over the market. For example, when suppliers have little actual choice in dealing with the company.
Higher prices are not necessarily a product of a monopoly and are not needed to define one.
- nickik 7y agoIts actually now standard in anti-trust law now that you actually have to show significant consumer harm. Richard Posner writting has this made the standard in Anti-Trust. In the past it was just politics and any big company could get hit with anti-trust. Presidents routinly used anti-trust to go after their political enemies. And if you don't use this 'pure' definition you are essentially just saying 'this is a big company'. Every single large company would be a 'monopoly' by those definition.
- dominicr 7y agoThe comment I was replying to was referring to the word's definition in economics, not the current legal standards of specific countries.