4 ms·
That's silly. Imagine a country with a single oil producing company. However, this oil companies decides that it will sell oil at 3-4 times the standard price.
by markessien 17y ago
That's silly. Imagine a country with a single oil producing company. However, this oil companies decides that it will sell oil at 3-4 times the standard price. There is no competition, so people have to buy at that price, making this oil company a huge profit.
According to your plan, these resources (several billions of dollars) should be invested by the government to create a viable competitor. But the other oil company will battle this every step of the way - it can poach all the quality people who work at the other company, it will sign exclusive deals with tanker companies and so on.
Oversight is not an option, it's a necessity. Companies should know that ethical competition is not just the right thing to do, it's also the law.
- randallsquared 17y agoI don't think "create a viable competitor" automatically follows from "lower barriers to entry". Some ways to lower barriers to entry might be to eliminate tariffs, taxes, and regulations, or to implement a minimum guaranteed income. Of course, lowering only some tariffs, taxes, and regulations might well raise barriers to entry in some markets, as might an MGI. Interference in the marketplace never has only one effect.
- eru 17y agoYes, in the example, lowering tariffs on foreign oil might be the best course of action. Explicitely funding a competitor sounds somewhat silly.