The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investment Analysis Clubs / Macro Economic Trends and Risks


Subject:  Re: Here's your chance: Balance the Fed budget Date:  1/3/2007  6:10 AM
Author:  capitanfracassa Number:  200236 of 603486

No... none of your above true statements are exclusive of free competition. Such competition encircles aggregation as well. Microsoft "competes" with Agosoft (a one man software company in the financial industry.) Merely growing large and becoming more efficient (which is not a given) does not eliminate competition.

You need to get back to Econ 101. Free competition is competition in which everybody is a "price taker." In free competition, the decision of each producers is made independently of all others because each decision has negligble effects on price. This is a pre-condition underliying "market efficiency." Check your 101 textbook. And it is a condition that almost never exists in any market in which corporations operate.

Industry does NOT consolidate for the purpose of eliminating competition, but rather to achieve better efficiencies, lower costs, and thus greater net profits.

Can't argue with denial of reality. In a competitive market, lower costs and better efficiencies lead to lower prices, not higher profits. higher profits depend on reduced competition. Besides, reducing "excessive" competition id discussed candidly in the business press whenever a merger takes place.

Free competition NEVER LEFT the retail market. Walmart is in no way free of competition.

It is not "free of competition". The retail market is oligopolistic (and more importantly oligopsonistic,) not strictly monopolistic. But competition is much reduced. The way Walmart commands its suppliers is so well known. But if you wish to deny it, I cannot help.

No, consolidation MAY have EITHER a positive OR negative effect on revenues and income, all depending on the inter-relationship within that market. The sonsuming markets will ruthlessly punish the consolidators that morph into the wrong direction.

I'm talking about the purchasing power of the consuming public not the consolidating businesses. Consolidation increases efficiencies. But prices are reduced only at a fraction of the increased efficiency. The rest is captured as profits. From the other side, consolidation eliminates jobs and decreases the competition of hiring. So purchasing power is usually pushed from both direction.

The rise in capacity usually exceeds the ability of oligopolies to protect profits.

When you say "capacity" are you referring to production capacity, consumption capacity, revenue capacity, what?

production capacity, of course. The capacity to make and sell more at the current price for a higher profit, which cannot be actualized because actually selling more will reduce prices further. This is a feature of oligopolistic markets.

To equate "government intervention" with the ELIMINATION of waste...

In this context, government doesn't eliminate waste. It wastes. When you have overcapacity, that is a good thing for profits. If you could convince every consumer to buy a third car, a plasma TV for the shower, and a phone that can microwave sandwiches, that would also solve the problem. Industry tries that. It is called advertising. But however silly consumers can be they cannot be silly enough, mostly because they have a limited budget. Getting the government to spend on things nobody needs is a lot easier.

In any case, I wish you all the best, sincerely!

To you as well.

Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us