Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Feb 2006 12:41 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Thread beginning with comment 97148
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-22
>There is a vast difference between "monopoly" and "monopolistic power". The prior means single seller (by comparison, monopsony means single buyer). The latter means it is seen to have market powers akin to a monopoly - and it is defined by competition law.
I don't really agree with you here. "Monopoly" is a theoretical idea. In reality, true monopolies cannot really exist, any more than a perfect circle can exist. "Monopolistic power" is the closest you can get to it in real life, and that's what free societies, in theory, hope to avoid. When people refer to "monopolies," they are ALWAYS referring to companies with "monopolistic power."