--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> >BTW, I do not buy into the free market mantra that
> small and competitive
> >is beautiful.
>
> Me either. I'm always mystified when leftists
> complain about monopoly
> - they'd prefer more competition?
>
> Doug
Hmm, is it so mystifying? I mean, what's wrong with the classical theory that monopoly means higher prices and restricted output? I'm actually asking here. I may have an antitrust lawyer's prejudices, although I am one of the last believers in the idea that antitrust law was supposed to do more than just promote competition (can't say that in court, though).
There are natural monopolies where competition doesn't make sense. There are cases where we know that markets fail even with competition, or where other values trump. We know that some kinds of competition can be terribly destructive. But surely, other things being more or less equal, keeping prices down, output up, and innovation humming are not bad things, are they? And where they are not equal, is the solution monolopy (outside a few narrow exceptions) rather than regulation or planning?
jks
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com