How to alleviate monopolies through government control and price discrimination with utilities.?
404058
Government cannot control prices or inflation by regulation.  Well they can, but that's called communism, I believe.  They can control inflation, however, by swiching back to the gold or silver standard - but they won't because that would mean they couldn't run up debt like they do now.
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.
565401
Tell them to stop polluting.\n\nNo in all seriousness it's not the individual you should be targeting but society as a whole. Government could introduce initiatives and legislation to order cut backs on greenhouse emissions and encourage recycling and renewable energy sources.\n\nBig companies are a big problem. Historically they haven't given a damn about the environment - they're just after profits so new technology and methods is essential in order for them to cut back.\n\nHefty fines should be implemented unto those who refuse to go "greener" when ordered, both individuals and companies. But this woon't happen just yet. For the time being e-mail your local council with some ideas and encourage others to be more considerate to the environment.
608863
Simply - BOYCOTT! \n\nI refuse to shop at Walmart. I wont buy gas from any of the Major Oil Companies. Unfortunately, we all need phone service, and in the 80's the feds broke up the phone company monopoloy - but it has rebuilt itself! So, boycott the govt, and dont elect greedy republicans to any position! If no one shopped at Walmart, they wouldnt be making money...
254051
You want us to write your management essay for you? Are you serious? OK fine, here is my critical analysis:\n\n"Privatization is bad. The whole thing was a mistake. What's a PSU?"\n\nHand that in. I promise you an A+.
1127504
Because the governement isn't a competive business in our free market economy.  If you complain to a retail store manager, they'll fix the problem so you'll come back and spend loot in their store.  But you can't go anywhere else for your government/municipal needs.  There's no competition.\n\nPlus, those heads get every nitwit in the world walking through.  It doesn't justify poor service, but they gotta deal with some $h!t, yo.
836725
There are anti-trust laws that prohibit corporate monopolies.
263245
First, the actual purpose of anti-monopoly laws is to keep enough companies in each industry that no one player can artificially inflate prices or limit available offerings.  It is not to create opportunities for the little guys per se.\nSecondly, AT&T once owned the entity now known as BellSouth (as well as the current Verizon, SBC, and every other "Baby Bell"), but was forced to break them off as a result of legislation passed in 1983 and 1984.  In the time since then, a series of bad business decisions and a changing marketplace have greatly diminished what was once one of the largest and most important companies in the world, causing it to no longer be the monopolistic threat in any of the industries it serves.  It can probably buy BellSouth because it is now no longer a serious player in most of the areas that BellSouth services.\nAnd the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division), the Consumer's Union and other related groups, and the attorneys general of several large states whose populations may be adversely affected by such a merger are watching.  You can take my word for that!
1100937
Regulating prices will do one thing- run oil refiners out of the US. Guess what that will do, raise prices further.\n\nWhen people conserve demand goes down lowering the price. Remember Adam Smith? He didn't drive an SUV either....
911656
no,  there is no negotiation w/ the govt.,you have to fight tooth and nail. and it helps if your neighbors help you too.  there is a story of eminent domain in the reader's digest, look it up maybe it can help you
70228
As an Economics-Philosophy student myself, the answer depends on the nature of the industry.  As a general rule, perfect competition is best for the consumer; however, in scenarios where there's very high overhead/infrastructure costs (think telecom), because the company has to recoup their outlay to make a profit, regulated monopolies are more beneficial to the consumer because they can spread the infrastructure costs over more people.  This is reasoning behing most government run/enforced monopolies like utility companies (e.g. gas/electric).
720999
Personally, I don't think there should be any legislation against price gouging.\n\nIn most situations, people have alternatives and if enough indiviuals excersize those alternatives, the price gouger will have to come back in line quickly or go out of business.  If he doesn't, the exhorbitant prices should bring in more supply from indivuals wanting to get in on the the quick profits, thus satisfying demand and lowering prices as too many sellers get stuck with too much product (Econ 101, as I recall).\n\nNow some people will always patronize the price gouger.  Why?  In some cases stupidity.  In some cases, force of habit (I always get my gas at XYZ station).  In some cases convenience.  If I go to the price gouger, I shouldn't have to sit in line waiting to gas up.  If I'm in a hurry, it might be worth the extra cost to me.  In the example you gave, it's probably part conveninence (I get all my medicines and other stuff at the drug store chain and just pick up the toothpaste while I'm there).  Or, if it's like certain people I know, the just don't patronize the $1.00 stores (I guess they feel it's beneath them).\n\nOf course, there's always exceptions.  The rural gas station that's the only gas station within a reasonble driving distance enjoys a captive market (they have a virtual monopoly).  In such situations, monopolistic pricing may have to be controlled in some fashion, assuming the product is an essential product.
196611
freight prices were higher.  The government wouldn't let people carry anything they wanted or go where ever they wanted.  You had to have special authority to transport goods; consumer, chemical, agriculture, etc.  Sometimes you couldn't even take a load that started and ended in the same state...you had to cross state lines.  With the competition kept out of taking loads, freight prices stayed high.  After deregulation, a lot of the red tape is down, but that means more competition. Rates came down, but people are able to get work, so which is better?  depends on your politics I guess.
173619
Common sense solutions but difficult to implement.\n\n1.  Consumption\nCut down on consumption through reducing wastage.  This can be as easy as switching off aircons or lights not in use.  Another area is the over consumption eg Las Vegas.  It is almost obscene the way the whole place is lighted up.  Encourage use of smaller and more economical cars.  Some cars are just petrol guzzlers for the egomaniacs.\n\n2.  Relations with OPEC\nThese relations are sometimes dictated by politics.  The idea is not to rely on them too much by doing 1 & 2. Anyway, most of these countries elites are just squandering trillions of $ without significant benefits to their poors.\n\n3.  Dependency\nDevelop current technologies in alternative energy sources.  The technologies are available.  The problem is to convince the petrol trading communities to fully support research and utilization of alternative energies.  Can you imagine the nightmares these people such as large oil companies, OPEC, etc are having should someone came up with a viable and sustainable alternative energies?
552533
It's really more of an Oligopolistic market ... few large companies who have Monopolistic powers in select markets.\n\nMonopolies aren't always bad.  In some cases, there is sufficient demand for a good or service, however, if divided among multiple suppliers, it is not cost effective to provide ... in other words ... the cost of laying the infrastructure is such that an incremental sale does not cover the incremental revenue !\n\nThe whole concept of Marginal Cost and Marginal Benefit is thrown out and the market fails.\n\nThese companies are granted rights by the FCC and their performance, both service wise and profit wise are reviewed and monitored.  Their prices are also regulated.\n\nThere are alternatives such as Satalite TV, etc.  Most of us don't opt for them because the quality isn't what you can get from a cable.\n\nThink about it in terms of the railroads and the old west.  If one railroad went through the expense of putting in a track to a town, it made little sense for another railroad to do the same ... yet the folks in the town had no choice if they wanted to ship anything in or out.\n\nEventually, technology (i.e. the Automobile and Plane) eventually eroded this.\n\nAs the technology improves, with WIFI and Satalite reception, larger and larger amounts of data will be able to be transmitted without the need for as much physical infrastructure.\n\nYou are absolutely correct.  They pretty much do have a monopoly within specific geographic areas.  Remember, however, that they were the one's who paid the cost of installing that cable to your home ...\n\nThis was a very good question.  I've used the cable companies as examples of Oligopoly (not Monopoly) when I taught college Economics.
339112
Legislation enacted by the federal and various state governments to regulate trade and commerce by preventing unlawful restraints, price-fixing, and monopolies, to promote competition, and to encourage the production of quality goods and services at the lowest prices, with the primary goal of safeguarding public welfare by ensuring that consumer demands will be met by the manufacture and sale of goods at reasonable prices.\n\nNo Competition/Antitrust law seeks to make businesses compete fairly. It has had a serious effect on business practices and the organization of U.S. industry. Premised on the belief that free trade benefits the economy, businesses, and consumers alike, the law forbids several types of restraint of trade and monopolization. These fall into four main areas: agreements between competitors, contractual arrangements between sellers and buyers, the pursuit or maintenance of monopoly power, and mergers.
381598
Best way to fight is go green- use alternative sources of energy and fuel. Walk or Bike, don't drive. Carpool. Stop buying fuel and the gas prices go down. Plus, fighting gas PRICES won't help. Sooner or later, it's gone- no matter what the price.