Why  monopolies can be inefficient and  cause deadweight  losses?
464982
Because they produce less quantity at a higher price than with perfect competetion.  This is not Pareto optimal.\n\nAlso, they might become complacent and stop innovating because there's no real incentive without competition.
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).
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.
714134
Because the need to make a profit.
5217
I play it more like a sport. There are some artsy elements and sure you could sit around formulating calculations of strategy for purchasing artwork. But, when you take up a company and put it on the street you have to be ready to compete. The market is full of rival companies who don't want you squeezing profits away from their pocket books. They try to out advertise you, undercut your price, out perform your quality and services, pay higher wages to attract better employees, buy expensive equipment to provide better products/services, and on and on. You could sit back and calculate their next move, or design a better ad, but if your going to win profits -- you've got to get off your butt and get on the playing field now! It is better to lead the market than try to catch up and out score the competition.
3800
Its business, they have there customers, if they have people who are willing to pay double the cost, then let them pay. If one complains about people selling toys for double its price, then why didn't you buy it when it was at an original price. Business is Business.
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.
916445
If you compete only on price then you are on a downward spiral. If you get the contract at a low price then someone else will come along who will offer to do it cheaper yet. It is a losing strategy.\n\nWhy not explain that your workers have been trained to do a thorough job and are very careful with their client's property? If you compete on value you could get the job and still make a profit.
694851
There is only 1 monopolies commission just as there is only one Supreme Court, having more than one entity overseeing the same projects and laws, means that decisions would take double as long to be made, decisions on the same issue could be different due to subjectivity and this is especially true for an government agency. Having only one makes sense. Dont just look at the name.
145610
One, his answer is true, but, in competition, you loose money on one part, but make up profit in another.  Say like for instance in Wal-Mart.  Every customer needs household chemicals, foods, etc.  Not every item, will you be losing profit.  You still have your higher profit items, that a good merchant will push to make up for in sales.  For instance, if you are losing profit in paper towels, than you will cross merchandise a paper towel holder, that is at a 50% profit. Also, if you bring in the customer, there is still that high profit department, that a customer will shop.  A good business knows how to equal out the margin. The only downside to competion, is within the businesses.  If a business can't hang with another, or know how to manage, their money, staff, and most importantely, how to take care of the customer, than they will loose.  A good merchant doesnt see a loss, but see's profit.
416153
It's not a way to improve competitiveness at all. It's a way for local companies to increase profit margins by importing cheaper inferior quality crap made in a Chinese sweat shop. It also causes an increase in foreign debt which isn't a good thing and it also costs local jobs.
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.
481988
Not really.  The government has to regulate correctly.  If they don't put the price ceiling where it would be in perfect competition or at least lower than monopoly price, then it doesn't really do anything.  Even then, there might be some dead weight.  I don't remember fully.
80751
Buyer bargaining power is HIGH when the purchase makes up a BIG percentage of the buyer's budget.  In other words, if the products represent a significant share of the buyer's total costs or total income, the buyer becomes extremely price-sensitive.  Additionally, when purchases are large, small concessions in price produce large benefits for the buyer.  \n\nThere are two types of buyer power. The first is related to the "customer’s price sensitivity". If each brand of a product is similar to all the others, then the buyer will base the purchase decision mainly on price. This will increase the competitive rivalry, resulting in lower prices, and lower profitability. \n\nThe other type of buyer power relates to "negotiating power". Larger buyers tend to have more leverage with the firm, and can negotiate lower prices. When there are many small buyers of a product, all other things remaining equal, the company supplying the product will have higher prices and higher margins. Conversely, if a company sells to a few large buyers, those buyers will have significant leverage to negotiate better pricing.\n\nHope it helps! :)
541543
There are many reasons for mergers.\n\nThey include\n-Economies of scale\n-Defensive motives\n-Diversification\n-Growth\n-Monopoly\n\nNot all of the time.  Back in the day with all of the LBOs with KKR, etc., they made tons of money on many deals.  These days, one reason that mergers fail is that they overpay and there's a ton of goodwill that's pretty much useless.  Often, the seller doesn't want to sell, so the buyer has to pay a premium to convince the sellers to sell the company.
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.
1036019
Perfectly optimal, not really.  That's just in textbooks where everyone has perfect information and the rest of the unrealistic assumptions.  It's possible to have a highly efficient firm, though, where it is always trying to cut costs and increase revenues as much as possible.  Where humans are involved, there's a lot of room for non optimal results.