why is there only one monopolies commision?
412748
Because it takes one to know one :-)
570256
Because two-party systems and lack of run-off provisions are inherently undemocratic, unsuitable for large countries and ones with lots of competing interests.\n\n"Why, orangemike," you say, "but the United States is a large country with lots of competing interests!"\n\nYes it is.\n\nIt is only since the First World War, when the two major parties acquired monopolistic control over the state and national legislative bodies, and started legislating all competing groups into permanent obscurity, that the United States has been without any viable alternatives to the major parties.  Prior to that, some places had as many as four viable parties, plus fringe groups.  (Wisconsin, for example, had the Republicans, Progressives, Democrats, and Socialists.)  Political scientists have strained long and hard to find excuses why this is a good thing, instead of a betrayal of democracy; most of them boil down to, "Don't rock the boat!"\n\nThere are several Yahoo! Groups filled with people who think this is an unhealthy thing. These include FAIRELECTIONSCOALITION, Voice4all, and instantrunoff (that I can think of offhand).\n\nThe obvious cures are: improved ballot access;  proportional representation; and instant runoff (the interests of the above three groups).
517576
a monopoly industry is where one company owns all the other companies so they can set prices as high as they want\n\nin a competitive industry all the different companies compete to get their products to be bought by consumers.\n\nwe as consumers prefer the second one for obvious reasons because then the prices will be lower.
329512
Of course it is fair. The NFL is a private commercial enterprise designed for profit. They have the right to license their rights just as EA has the right to pay for exclusivity. Without exclusivity, EA couldn't afford to invest nearly as much in development meaning their games would be inferior. In this case, the consumer benefits from this simple monopoly. There are so many other entertainment & video game options the consumer isn't hurt by there being a limit to NFL games.
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.
1176069
In the US, most manufacturing firms are strictly regulated by law and do not have much choice where they are placed.  The trend in all manufacturing is toward decentralization.  This is due to shipping costs, and also to security concerns.\n\nIt is simply safer and cheaper to be scattered near the supplier, and user.
441985
Collusion works if there is a fair amount of business where they are located. They have to have the same products, and there has to be an open market for it. It is good for sellers, because it allows them to equally split profits amongst themselves and to keep prices high because of the lack of free markets.
688260
the dominant player in the marketplace.  i've only seen this applied to microsoft, though i suspect it is not exclusively reserved for them.
754747
Because everyone likes things simple--no one wants to have to fulfill a number of extra "conditions." It looks shady on the business' part, like they're trying to lure you in and then get something extra out of you with the fine print.
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).
551428
Take it from some one who works in government.  Government is inherently wasteful.  The lack of competition also gives no incentives to lower costs.\n\nWhere there is competition costs are lowered take laser eye sugary for example, it is not covered by health plans and the price has dropped dramatically in the last few years.\n\nOh By the Way I also agree with everything in the first answer.
587224
Monopolies are not prohibited by the constitution. There are many government sanctioned monopolies, mostly involving utilities. If the government issued the licenses, it's perfectly legal.
40357
It has monopolistic practices in many countries. It lost a case in Mexico recently:\n\nMexico has imposed its biggest anti-monopoly fines ever, totaling about US$68 million (euro58 million,) against Coca Cola and dozens of its distributors and bottlers, a battle won by one woman who got tired of being told what to sell at her one-room store in an impoverished Mexico City neighborhood.
699990
Without more specifics, it could be a statutory consolidation as well.\n\nBut it sounds as though he is refering to a horizontal merger.
372022
The theory is that deregulation leads to a competitive market.\nAn industry that is viewed as not growing or not being competitive due to the restrictions imposed upon it may be deregulated. It happened with local councils in the UK when all the jobs carried out by the council eg waste collection, parks, roads maintenance etc was deregulated and competitive tendering was introduced. All these jobs were then put out to tender. The result was varying from a great improvement in standards in some areas to a dramatic fall in other areas.
635030
What he could do is send mail to other companies. You can't really call it a monopoly if other companies haven't installed themselves there. They have to find it financially viable, a certain possible number of clients  \nwilling to have their service. He could run around and get more people to write other companies too.
768203
It is easier, more cost effective, and more powerful to have a single governing body that oversees ALL monopoly actions and behaviors.\n\nHaving more than one would lead to chaos and counter productive potential deadlocks i.e. one approves and one disapproves.\n\nSuch an incident would mean that more lawsuites would follow and further clog an already over loaded legal system.