The Market And The Monopoly Analysis

Chapter 8: A question that has stuck with Wheelan for years, asked by one of his peers was, “If people know so much about public policy, then why is everything so messed up” (175)? The reason for that is because it leads to something far more significant: Even when economists reach consensus on policies that would be to our advantage, they frequently run into political opposition. And when it comes to interest groups in politics, it pays to be small because the tail can wag the dog. This can have a huge impact on the economy. They are usually the most successful because the consequence of requests they receive are spread over a large, disunified group of people. Wheelan states that small problems begin to distort the simplest jobs of a market

Stone also explains since “politics and policy can happen only in communities, communities must be the starting point of our polis.” This is because the polis is very public interest and community driven where as in the market model, individuals only act to maximize their own self-interest resulting in individuals vs. groups. Often people want something for their community that conflicts with what they want for themselves (safety vs. liberty). Stone also notes that the market model does not work for policy because in the market model you cannot please

In the late 1800’s America’s industry was on the rise, in this completely new era many factories were born and introduced to the American people. Many people also had to help build railways as well as many other ways to help transport or make goods, this would help build industrial America. But many people would face crucial conditions working in factory, it was unsafe for many people, even some young children who had to work faced a lot of injuries. Not only this, but many people would be out of work because the factories were taking over the work force. One of the most successful people in this time period was John D. Rockefeller, he owned 90% of refineries in America, he made his living by selling, transporting, and refining oil.

Throughout history, there have been many problems present in the American life. In the time period between the 1800s to the 1900s, there were many problems such as, poor living and working conditions and powerful monopolies. Many reforms were proposed in order to solve these problems. The grisly living and working conditions, along with overpowered monopolies, were both addressed with reforms.

Deborah Stone compares the market and polis models of policy making with the intent to show that the original origin of the public policy discipline was to be grounded in a practical science, economics, but to also show how and why the economic approach to policy making has significant limitations. Stone is arguing against the view that policy decision making is rational decision making. Deborah Stone’s main reason for comparing the two models of policy making is to identify and critique the simplistic assumptions that have been used in the market and rationality project. Stone is attempting to point out the paradox that exists between the two because the two models are evidently contradictory, the market being ground in rationality and the polis being based on emotion. Stone compares the two policies in order to show that economics cannot be solely used to understand policy making because the two are fundamentally different. She also points out that policy is made in a political society and because of this the polis model seeks to explain public policy as it actually happens in reality since the field and study of public policy was created to allow government to make decisions that would best benefit their citizens.

United States vs. Microsoft is one the largest, most controversial antitrust lawsuits in American history. Many claim the government is wrongly punishing Microsoft for being innovative and successful, arguing that Windows dominates the market because of the product’s popularity, not because of malpractice by the parent company. Others argue in favor of the government, claiming that Microsoft’s practices conflict with the free market ideal. There are many arguments for both sides of the lawsuit, but what the case really comes down to is this: does the government have the right to interfere in today’s marketplace? Or is Microsoft violating laws that are rightfully imposed by the government?

In this article Michael Baker discusses the livelihood of small retailers in a market subjugated by the financially dominant oligopolies, Woolworths and Coles. While the small independent retailers in direct competition with Woolworths and Coles provide some competitive respite for consumers, as they encourage competitive pricing, albeit predatory pricing, it is clear that Woolworths and Coles control the supermarket industry in Australia, in the formation of a duopoly. It is evident that Woolworths and Coles engage in predatory pricing in an attempt to eliminate independent retailers from the market. This article discusses recent efforts made by the Australian government and the Australian Competition

The current issues that have been created by the market have trapped our political system in a never-ending cycle that has no solution but remains salient. There is constant argument as to the right way to handle the market, the appropriate regulatory measures, and what steps should be taken to protect those that fail to be competitive in the market. As the ideological spectrum splits on the issue and refuses to come to a meaningful compromise, it gets trapped in the policy cycle and in turn traps the cycle. Other issues fail to be handled as officials drag the market into every issue area and forum as a tool to direct and control the discussion. Charles Lindblom sees this as an issue that any society that allows the market to control

If we were to govern the greed, this would keep over ambitious bankers and people on Wall Street from going too far and forcing them to follow astute regulations. Greed hasn’t been the only component in getting us all this way. It has been a slow but long process of changes and removal of certain restrictions over time. For instance, pharmaceutical companies were never allowed to advertise before; now you can’t turn on a television or read a magazine without reading an ad for a certain drug on the market. It’s the markets who have overstepped and have entered into our lives usually directed by nonmarket measures. Markets are no longer only there to benefit the good of the public. The ante has been raised and these market values are now being pushed into our everyday lives.

There has been a lot of fuss over big business influencing the government in the United States lately. Now there is no doubt that the business elite have some influence on politics. It can even be traced back to the early 1900’s, when “the People’s Party had disintegrated, but many writers and activists have continued to echo the Populists’ central thesis: that the U.S. democratic political system is in fact dominated by business elites” (). Although there are countless arguments to go against this idea, the questions still comes up today: Is government dominated by big business? Political Scientist G. William Domhoff believes that government is dominated by big business. More specifically, Domhoff believes that owners and top-level managers in income-producing properties are not only dominant power figures in the US, but they also have inordinate influence in the federal government (). Another political scientist however, Sheldon Kamieniecki, believes otherwise. He states that businesses do not really get involved in policies that affect them; and even when they do, their success rate at influencing policies is not consistent. In fact, he believes that other factions have more influence on government policies ().

Free markets have often been idealized in the US, and have become a dominant tool for trade and distribution of goods and services. There have been multiple waves of government regulation and deregulation of the market in US history. Each of these trends have been grappling with the central question of how sufficient markets are at satisfying our goals. In theory, free markets are fair and efficient at distributing goods and services. In reality, however, government must intervene in the marketplace for two overarching reasons. First, because in practice free markets left to themselves are not always fair and efficient. And second, because fairness and efficiency are not our only goals and

2. What are the differences among horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate mergers? Provide real-world examples of each type of merger. What policy do you think the US should follow toward mergers? Why?

He concludes on this thought stating, “What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game.” Friedman more narrowly believed the government should intervene with “indivisible matters.”

Though business-like mechanisms can create a more efficient and potentially innovated government, government and business should be run differently, since they are inherently different in their conceptual values. Appleby explains some of these differences. He argues that no one can serve the public as it should be served unless he or she has a public-interest attitude with certain special characteristics. In addition, business has much narrower extent, while public officials are more broadly stimulated, with a breadth of view and a public-interest attitude. Government is complex as well as vastly interdependent with many other nonprofit and private organizations. Also, the government is subject to public scrutiny and public outcry. According to Denhardt and Denhardt, government acts, in concert with private and nonprofit groups and organizations, to seek solutions to the problems that communities face. In the process, the role of government is transformed from one of controlling to one of agenda setting, bringing the proper players to the table, facilitating, negotiating, or brokering solutions to public problems—often through coalitions of public, private, and nonprofit agencies. Finally, government is different from business

What is a monopoly? According to Webster's dictionary, a monopoly is "the exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market.” Such power in the hands of a few is harmful to the public and individuals because it minimizes, if not eliminates normal competition in a given market and creates undesirable price controls. This, in turn, undermines individual enterprise and causes markets to crumble. In this paper, we will present several aspects of monopolies, including unfair competition, price control, and horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate mergers.