🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
2
answers
0
watching
46
views

Microsoft has a huge market share for operating systems on PC machines yet the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has not chosen to break the firm up. Do you believe Microsoft to be exercising monopoly power and if so why do you think the JD has not acted to retard this power?

Watch
2
answers
0
watching
46
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Insha Fatima
Insha FatimaLv10
28 Sep 2019
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Your feedback will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Q: Point out one product that you believe is produced by a “pure” monopoly firm (or a firm with a high degree of monopoly power).

Is it a local, regional or national monopoly?

What are some of the Barriers to Entry into this industry?

For the product listed, list substitute(s) for this “monopoly.”

Demonstrate how the relative “closeness” of the substitutes listed determines, to a large degree, effective limits to the monopoly power of these firms.

A: I believe Amtrak is a monopoly. This is a national monopoly because its available coast to coast, you may travel locally with Amtrak, state to state as well. The barrier for entry are the limited railroad systems for Amtrak, limited resource, cost to produce additional train system, and fact that Amtrak is not producing a profit even though they are a monopoly. Train transportation is not popular anymore, and is difficult for them to cut costs because they don’t have a lot of train tickets purchased. So, they increase their prices for what they do sell. Other forms of transportation are not changing the fact that it is a monopoly, but has affected it from taking control of transportation. Purchasing a rental car, bus ticket or a plane ticket has been more convenient and inexpensive. I personally have wanted to purchase a train ticket multiple times, but the routes are wrong, or the length of trip duration has exceeded my availability, and costs are not worth the time. There are smaller train lines but are not monopolized like Amtrak. Example you travel and look up Amtrak station, name of the company. When you fly the airlines is not called the airport which has multiple airlines. Train station is usually Amtrak.

1. How does the profit maximization condition for a monopoly differ from that for a perfectly competitive firm? How does this difference impact efficiency under each market structure?

2. A perfectly competitive firm has the following fixed and variable costs in the short-run. The market price for the firm's product is $140.

Output FC VC TC TR Profit/Loss

0 $90 $0 90 0 (90)

1 90 90 180 140 (40)

2 90 170 260 280 20

3 90 290 380 420 40

4 90 430 520 560 40

5 90 590 680 720 20

6 90 770 860 840 (20)

a. Complete the table.

b. What level of output should the firm produce to maximize profits?

c. Assume this firm is making a loss when it produces its 7th unit of output. What should the firm do in the short-run?

 

3. The following table provides market share information about the soft-drink industry.

Company Market Share
Coca-Cola 37%
Pepsi-Co 35%
Cadbury Schweppes 17%
Other 11%

a. Do you think the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission would approve a merger between any two of the first three companies listed? Explain.

b. Do you think this market has barriers to entry? If so, what might they be?

Hello, could I get some assistance summarizing this article for a discussion:

Read the articles and discuss the problems of Economic Inequality in the U.S.economy, summarize key points and post in the Discussions area:

Competition police crossing continents

Competition authorities are increasingly reaching beyond their country's borders

Feb 22nd, 2014

WHEN TWO AMERICAN presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, embarked on a trustbusting mission a century ago, they were taking government into a new policy area: competition. Industrialization was still relatively new, and any monopolies that had emerged, such as the British and Dutch East India companies, had been created by governments.

The robber-baron companies of the late 19th century were accused of using their industrial muscle to drive competitors out of business. Private monopolies, the argument ran, diminished the benefits of capitalism; by definition, the existence of a monopoly made it impossible for a free market to operate.

Since then, governments have generally had some kind of competition policy, though not necessarily a coherent one. Politicians have tried to juggle several different priorities, among them putting the government in control of "strategic" industries (a category that has always included defense but often also a range of other industries, from airlines to car manufacturing, power generation, and telecoms); shielding domestic businesses from foreign ownership or competition, and protecting consumers from price-gouging.

In the past two decades, a new concern has emerged: that monopolies may be restricting innovation. The technology industry seems to have been particularly prone to creating near-monopolies, from Microsoft in software to Amazon in retailing and Google in an internet search. This is due to network effects. Consumers gravitate to the dominant technology, either because it offers more products or because many of their friends are already using the network concerned. These monopolists, it is feared, will be slow to introduce new technologies that might cannibalize their existing business; and they will be so entrenched that new competitors will find it hard to get a foothold.

Microsoft bundled its Internet Explorer browser with its dominant Windows operating software on personal computers. America's Department of Justice saw this as an attempt to force Netscape, a rival browser, out of the market. In a long court case that began in 1998, Microsoft was initially ordered to break itself in two. This ruling was overturned on appeal and a less onerous settlement was arrived at.

At the time many commentators felt that the authorities had overreached themselves. Internet Explorer was provided free of charge, so it was hard to see how consumers were being harmed. But this is a tricky area. On the one hand, rapid technological change can cause once-dominant companies to lose their position very quickly if they do not adapt; look at Nokia's and BlackBerry's mobile-phone businesses. Some argue that if the market is capable of such adjustment, governments should not get involved. The fact that some consumers make the wrong decision some of the time is not the basis for intervention, as long as all consumers are not being ripped off,  says Simon Bishop of RBB Economics, a consultancy. On the other hand, such rapid change makes it hard to tell whether monopoly positions are being exploited, or whether a more competitive market would have produced more innovations.

Competition authorities have also had to rethink their role in cross-border deals. If one multinational takes over another, that might not create a monopoly in the country where the two groups have their headquarters, but it could do so in another country. A proposal for a merger between General Electric and Honeywell, announced in October 2000, was cleared by America's Department of Justice but blocked by the European Commission the following year. That objection appeared to herald a new era of transatlantic takeover disputes; in fact, it remains the only deal so far to have been cleared in America but blocked on the other side of the Atlantic.

However, there have been other instances of transatlantic disputes. In 2009 the European Commission imposed a 1.06 billion ($1.4 billion) fine on Intel, a chipmaker, after a complaint brought by an American rival, AMD. The ruling seemed to suggest that multinationals faced the prospect of double jeopardy because of inconsistent international rules.

We do it our way

There are some philosophical differences between Europe and America. Europe has a long tradition of state ownership of industry; even after privatization, many such companies retain dominant positions, at least in their national markets. In America, by contrast, market leaders have got there the hard way, by having superior technology or being more efficient. In Europe competition policy tends to be rules-based, with the European Commission issuing guidance for future mergers to follow; in America merger decisions tend to be hammered out in the courts, establishing legal precedent.

But multinationals also have to deal with competition policy in emerging markets. China is a particular challenge. The Chinese use competition policy to achieve other ends to keep out foreign firms or attack existing foreign businesses says, one expert. Latin American countries have tended to adopt the American model of competition policy, whereas eastern Europe has followed the example. Merger authorities from different countries have set up the International Competition Network to share the experience. Such efforts may reduce the double-jeopardy problems in international mergers, if only because rules may be applied more consistently.

In the longer term, the question is whether national competition policies will prove adaptable enough to cope with a globalized economy. It may make economic sense for global companies to exploit economies of scale and bring down prices for consumers, but national governments may be reluctant to accept the loss of control involved. In air travel, for example, fares have been reduced under pressure from low-cost airlines, but these newcomers are still being held back by policies that favor flagship carriers. If regulators in rich countries were to prove more zealous than their counterparts in emerging markets in restricting the size of multinationals, Western firms might be put at a competitive disadvantage.

New concerns for competition authorities are emerging all the time. Chris Walters, the acting chief economist of Britain's Office of Fair Trading (OFT), cites the practice of pay-for-delay, whereby a firm that holds a drug patent pays a generic manufacturer not to launch a rival drug to preserve the patent-holders monopoly profits. And David Currie, the chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority (which will take over from the OFT in April), recently pointed to a vast new potential problem, which he described as the growing collection, processing, and use of consumer-transaction data for commercial ends. This is proving an increasingly important source of competitive advantage; we need to be alert to the possibility that it will be an increasing source of consumer detriment.

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in