Why is there only one monopolies commision in the UK?
368530
Good Question!\n\nMaybe we should get the monopolies committee to look into it :-D
211274
it is so different state by state that it is hard to give any info. some states regulate more than others. for example in Oregon you are controlled by the state as to pricing. no real competition, high prices.
956711
The demise of the "single economic unit" theory (English law)\n\nIt is an axiomatic principle of English company law that a company is an entity separate and distinct from its members, who are only liable to the extent that they have contributed to the company's capital: Salomon v Salomon [1898]. The effect of this rule is that the individual subsidiaries within a conglomerate will be treated as separate entities and the parent cannot be made liable for the subsidiaries debts on insolvency. Furthermore, it can create subsidiaries with inadequate capitalisation and secure loans to the subsidiaries with fixed charges over their assets, despite the fact that this is "not necessarily the most honest way of trading"; see The Coral Rose (No 1.) [1991], per Staughton LJ.\n\nAlthough the secondary literature refers to different means of "lifting" or "piercing" the veil (see Ottolenghi (1959)), judicial dicta supporting the view that the rule in Salomon is subject to exceptions are thin on the ground. Lord Denning MR adumbrated the theory of the "single economic unit" theory in DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets [1976], but this has largely been repudiated. In Woolfson v Strathclyde BC [1976], the House of Lords held that it was a decision to be confined to its facts (the question in DHN had been whether the subsidiary of the plaintiff, the former owning the premises on which the parent carried out its business, could receive compensation for loss of business under a compulsory purchase order notwithstanding that under the rule in Salomon, it was the parent and not the subsidiary that had lost the business). Likewise, in Bank of Tokyo v. Karoon [1987] (PC), Lord Goff, who had agreed with Lord Denning in DHN, held that the legal conception of the corporate structure was entirely distinct from the economic realities.\n\nThe "single economic unit" theory was likewise rejected by the CA in Adams v Cape Industries [1990], where Slade LJ held that cases where the rule in Salomon had been circumvented were merely instances where. The view expressed at first instance by HHJ Southwell QC in Creasey v. Breachwood [1992] that English law "definitely" recognised the principle that the corporate veil could be lifted was described as a heresy by Hobhouse LJ in Ord v Bellhaven [1998], and these doubts were shared by Moritt V-C in Trustor v. Smallbone (No. 3) [2001]: the corporate veil cannot be lifted merely because justice requires it.
1148074
Because England used to possess Hong Kong as a place of commerce.  They continued to occupy it even though China became a powerful and civilized nation.  In 1999 England handed Hong Kong back over to China but Hong Kong is still exempt from many of the laws of commerce that other Chinese areas are subject to
684779
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the UK is not a single country.
627088
Cause they are few, and they work in collusion with each other to set rates and make it very hard to bank.\n\nol·i·gop·o·ly (ŏl'ĭ-gŏp'ə-lē, ō'lĭ-) \nn., pl. -lies.\nA market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors.
79121
Competition in most fields not heavily regulated by the government is much higher.\n\nIn many cases, managment didn't adapt, and those businesses shrank or were bought.
836725
There are anti-trust laws that prohibit corporate monopolies.
295272
the less is the joint market power of oligopolists, the stronger is competition btw them, the better for consumers. the best variant is bertrand or price competition which gives efficient outcome.
485957
Simple there is no UK federation each country has its own leagues
960815
The UK is in the EU for the same reason all the other countries are.  They can't compete successfully on the world market by themselves, especially as other countries are creating trade agreements (NATO, OPEC, NAFTA, APIC, etc), so they need to unite to stay soluble.
948526
Monopoly.\n\nEvery for profit firm wants to monopolize their industry (assuming there were no anti-trust laws). The only factor that would effect your price is marginal cost and marginal revenue of demand.  This would be the way to maximize economic profits, due to the fact that you have no real competition except people just doing without your service.  Your pricing strategy becomes much simpler.\n\nIf your company is really interested in serving the community then you would still be able to give away all the producer surplus.\n\nMonopolies are bad for consumers which is why the government steps in to break up trusts.  They are really good for producers which is why businesses always are trying to do it.  If businesses had no reason to monopolize there would be no anti trust laws.
418500
The reason is because the rules say in England that a game needs to have a least of 5 points to be consider a game with a difference of two points to consider the winner of that specific game.\nIt all goes back to the British
815244
Any multination company - regardless of how moral a standpoint they assume in their country of origin- will only do the MINIMUM required by any country in which they operate.\n\nFor instance American oil companies will comply with tight environmental and safety restrictions when working in, say, the North sea, Canada  or California, but it is a very different story when they are operating in Africa or South America.  They don't think twice about paying bribes, either.
984872
The most notable is MRTP Act (Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Prevention Act). But then there are other legislation which affect functioning of an organisation. Like a main co office may be subject to Companies Act while its small branch office may come under the local Shops and Establishments Act of that state.
642555
They are already monopoly in the USA. You shoul ve asked are they going to be monopoly in the WORLD!
328468
Basically because the UK government thinks it's necessary to legislate everything.\n\nIt is actually very heavily regulated through such acts as the 1979 Estate Agents Acts and the 1991 Property Misdescriptions Act but with a government that's introducing legislation 8 times faster than at any time in history they have to legislate anything and everything they can.\n\nThe recent Financial Services Act was meant to clean up the financial services industry and consequently the buying and selling of property.  It hasn't cleaned up anything but it has introduced huge amounts of paperwork and made it obligatory to subscribe to the act (at huge expense which the government gets).\n\nThere's already a vast amount of legislation in place and if anything, the government needs to cut back on the tangles mass of rules and regulations and simplify it so that everyone has a clearer idea of where they stand.