6 ms·
In the vast chasm between pure monopoly (one supplier) and the perfectly competitive market (which is imaginary), is large room for firms which have competition
by room271 12y ago
In the vast chasm between pure monopoly (one supplier) and the perfectly competitive market (which is imaginary), is large room for firms which have competition but are still big enough to abuse their market position.
It's not useful to focus only on pure monopoly. From an economics perspective, there are plenty of other market structures which can be damaging for consumers.
- endersshadow 12y agoIt's not just the person you're responding to--the FTC looks only at relatively pure monopolies for anti-trust violations. There are lots of things that are legal as a player in a competitive market versus illegal as a monopoly. The US has a long history with pure monopolies, which are why the laws are the way they are. You can argue until you're blue in the face that the FTC should look at other things, as well, but I'm not sure you'll get very far.
- scott00 12y agoThe SEC has nothing to do with enforcement of antitrust law. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice share that responsibility.
- endersshadow 12y agoYou're right, I'm sorry--it was early and I got my initialisms wrong. Thank you for the correction--I'll correct my post.
- GrinningFool 12y agoBut from a legal perspective [IANAL, but I'm pretty confident on this one], they can engineer the system to give them an advantage as long as they don't have an monopoly. When a company is a monopoly, new rules do apply.
- gnopgnip 12y agoAnti competitive practices are illegal, not monopolies.
- GrinningFool 12y agoA broad range of anti-competitive practices are illegal when you are a monopoly. A much narrower range of anti-competitive practices are illegal when you are not a monopoly.