3 ms·
The joke is on you. Specifically, actor 2, who charges less than the competitors. Unless actor 2 is both a) selling at less than cost and b) either a de-facto
by mannykannot 6y ago
The joke is on you.
Specifically, actor 2, who charges less than the competitors. Unless actor 2 is both a) selling at less than cost and b) either a de-facto monopoly supplier or is acting in concert with most other significant suppliers, then there is no monopoly issue.
The issue is complicated if the low-cost supplier satisfies condition a by using its monopoly to strong-arm one or more of its suppliers into giving it preferential treatment, but the consequence of this is that not all valid cases are acted on.
- daniel-s 6y agoYour logic/argument is completely circular. Do you mean to say that undercutting competition is monopoly behaviour because you're strong-arming[1] your suppliers because you're a monopoly? [1] "strong-arming" is left undefined, but let's continue.
- mannykannot 6y agoNo, the point is the opposite of your misunderstanding: undercutting the competition is not necessarily monopolistic behavior, so your joke contains a straw-man argument.
- icelancer 6y ago>> Unless actor 2 is both a) selling at less than cost and b) either a de-facto monopoly supplier or is acting in concert with most other significant suppliers, then there is no monopoly issue Plenty of businesses have run into problems without doing this. You also use circular reasoning when saying there's no monopoly issue unless there's a monopoly issue.
- mannykannot 6y ago> You also use circular reasoning when saying there's no monopoly issue unless there's a monopoly issue. Your paraphrase is inaccurate. The point is that undercutting the opposition is not, in itself, monopolistic.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago"Price gouging" is also generally not illegal except in rare emergencies.